Posted under Conservatism & Distributism & Judicial Activism & Politics
Ron Paul has become famous for his unyielding almost contumacious refusal to vote for legislation that violates the Constitution, so much so that he’s earned the nickname “Dr. No” and the respect of paleos across America. Paleos, like Dr. No, are as Dr. Francis writes, “virtually defined by their adherence to the Old Republic established by the original and real Constitution.”
However, paleos are ‘defending’ a Constitution that has long been dead. As Dr. Francis points out:
the Civil War … mortally wounded the Old Republic and the Constitution that defined it. … The Old Republic and the real Constitution lingered on until the Roosevelt Supreme Court and its successors killed them off for good.
Dr. Francis attributes the destruction of the Constitution and the Old Republic to the “declining number of social interests [that] found it a useful instrument of government.” If such is the case, paleos desiring the restoration of the Old Republic must mold these forces and promote others so that the dominant forces are once again conducive to the type of government and society so desired. Also, paleos cannot refuse support to all but strict Constitutionalists; politics requires alliances to be forged with the powers that be.
One centralising and anti-traditional force that must be reworked is capitalism (what Chesterton calls Proletarianism). Francis writes in “Men against Leviathan”
what is called capitalism (which includes a good deal of socialism) lurches across the globe, wiping out traditional cultures, national boundaries, and racial and ethnic identities.
Distributist theory emphasises decentralisation, and within it might be found a solution that promotes small government. Chesterton writes in “The Outline of Sanity:”
It might mean
at last a large class of little shopkeepers; and that is exactly
the sort of thing that makes all the political difference,
as it does in the case of a large class of little farmers.
It is not in the merely mechanical sense a matter of numbers.
It is a matter of the presence and pressure of a particular social type.
It is not a question merely of how many noses are counted;
but in the more real sense whether the noses count.
If there were anything that could be called a class of peasants,
or a class of small shopkeepers, they would make their presence felt
in legislation, even if it were what is called class legislation.
Dr. Francis closes with:
Which ever course they choose will be no less radical and revolutionary than the path that led to the destruction of the old Constitution.
Source of quotes unless otherwise stated: “The Constitution, R. I. P.”
—
This article, composed largely of quotes, has replaced a full reposting of Dr. Francis’s original “The Constitution, R. I. P.“
James on 12 Oct 2007 at 3:30 am #
Strong stuff from Dr. Francis. But serious, learned and thought-provoking. I think this really does capture the dilemma that Traditional/paleoconservatives face in this country today. His analysis of the history is spot on correct. His proscriptions are the ones we face. It is all well and good to speak of preserving and conserving, but what sense does it make when there is nothing left to preserve or protect? It is much like talking about preserving the health of a dead relative. Its far too late. There is nothing left to conserve. The question we face is: what do we want to create for our future? Far from being “conservatives” we must become “radicals” in “restoring” the Old Republic. Half measures simply will not work. Simply being a “reactionary” is pointless. Something more substantial, intellectual and morally, is required. A very, very tall order. How do we do what, from a historical perspective, has never been done? Far into the Pax Romana, at the zenith of the Roman Empire, there were Romans who still longed for the old republic, the old Roman republic. Yet, that was just a dream, an unfulfilled, impossible dream, never to be seen in life. How are we any different? What knowledge or virtue do we possess that those old Romans did not?
Michael Hill on 12 Oct 2007 at 3:56 am #
Secession is the answer, I think.
csason on 12 Oct 2007 at 4:15 am #
Owens must be tired of feigning guilt..
I wonder how he speaks to the terms ‘redress’ and ‘consent to be governed’
I really, really, really agree with Dr. Hill..and will make every effort to be
there next year..even if it’s just to man the coffee pot
Weaver on 12 Oct 2007 at 7:08 am #
Since I didn’t have permission to republish Dr. Francis’s article, I replaced it with something far more controversial, at least within the paleosphere. Even more so than Bede’s recent “antisemitism”
Gentlemen, enjoy. And rest assured that more distributist ravings are on the way.
—
Dr. Hill,
I’m on the fence on secession. I’d hate to divide those Americans who would oppose continued mass immigration, the undermining of US sovereignty, and other anti-American policies. If achieved, secession could be wonderful for the South, though I’d also hate to lose it to demographics though perhaps such is inevitable.
C Bowen on 12 Oct 2007 at 1:27 pm #
The Constitution obviously has symbolic power, and that is the only real point of using it to fuse disparate, often diametrically opposed philosophical perspectives.
The Constitution itself was a coup d’etat against the Articles of Confederation, and a good case can be made that the results are exactly as intended by those with nationalist aspirations. It is often conservatives, most of the Cold War Era who served Leviathan, who can’t quite get the story straight.
roho on 12 Oct 2007 at 5:11 pm #
I struggle to generate any optomism regarding paleoconservatism and the old republic. I will not compromise my principles at the polls, but sometimes feel like I have been moved to the “Endangered Species List” with no hope. Living in the “Bible Belt’, I can’t imagine what it’s like for paleos in other regions?
Andrew T. on 12 Oct 2007 at 7:01 pm #
Why the protectionist rant against the free market?
Folks, you’d better count your darned capitalist blessings: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north304.html
Capitalism is the only economic system that is compatible with human rights and liberties, NOT socailistic. It is, in fact, the diametric arch-antithesis of socailism (centralized rather than private control of the means of production).
The Constitution is not dead. It is not quaint. It is not irrelevant. It is the chief contract between the individual states of our union, no less technically binding in the present day than in the 18th century (although far more maligned and ignored by our politicians), and Ron Paul will defend it.
Weaver on 13 Oct 2007 at 3:41 am #
Andrew,
rest assured that my opinions are my own only and not representative of this site.
Also, note that what Dr. Francis meant by “what is called capitalism” is not real capitalism. There is a great deal of socialism in most every modern state, and yet it is called capitalism
—
That said, I think the one leads to the other because of the centripetal forces unleashed by capitalism.
Richard Weaver writes in Ideas Have Consequences:
Andrew writes:
Richard Weaver writes:
Richard Weaver. “The Last Metaphysical Right.” Ideas Have Consequences. pp. 129-133.
Weaver on 13 Oct 2007 at 4:04 am #
If any of that is confusing, I can readily explain it. Also note that I’m very much a student of distributism. I do not feign to be a master of this little known alternative to capitalism and socialism.
One passage that is probably confusing, “the stockholder’s area of responsibility is narrowed in the same way as that of a specialized worker.” Earlier in the book Weaver mentions how those workers who helped to build the atom bombs used on the Japanese were unknowingly helping with murder. Specialised workers can work each day on their own respective parts without knowing just what the whole is they are helping to create.
Weaver on 13 Oct 2007 at 4:53 am #
C Bowen,
well said.
Andrew T. on 15 Oct 2007 at 12:28 am #
I am aware of the fact that every country that every country called capitalist today actually has a mixed economy. NOT that it should remain that way!
Privately owned and operated businesses without limits to any individual’s opportunity potential, without taxes or minimum government-enforced standards or a federal reserve, is exactly what is implied in a free market. Since nothing of the sort exists in America at this time, it must be brought about. Conversely, third-way Clintonian welfare “capitalism” is no capitalism at all!
The common employee has ever finer insight into the in the motives and products of his labor in the present day. The deconstruction of a federal bureaucracy ensures the impossibility of the Hiroshima Bomb scenario.
Weaver on 15 Oct 2007 at 10:19 am #
This is why libertarians and traditionalists are currently allies
Also, keep in mind that a decentralised society could provide a great deal of variation within (I tend to tease those leaning libertarian that every society needs a cesspool to gather its worst elements.)
However, I honestly do believe capitalism leads to monopoly, globalism, and socialism. Since I disagree with Adam Smith on philosophy, it comes as little shock to me that I disagree with him on economics.
—
OK, well assuming the employees each know what they are partaking in, despite the enormous bureaucracy of big business, what about the owners seeking to drive stock prices and dividends up? Are they concerned about the moral actions of the business or merely how they might manipulate the system to make a large profit? Ownership passes from one to the next in short time.