Main

October 08, 2011

on monarchies and their children

Now then. It’s been an unjustifiably long time since I last post. My sincere apologies. Truly. So last time I finished up Paine’s first segment, “On the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution.” This section covered what Paine saw as the distinction between society and government (the first works positively uniting us by our affections, the second negatively by restraining our vices), what he felt was the natural reason for developing a government (to pick up the slack when morals and virtuous affection fail), and the basic purpose of that government (to provide security and freedom in the best possible way). Paine used a hypothetical colony to communicate these ideas of government, and at the end introduced his criticisms of the constitution of England (that it merged tyranny--hereditary aristocracy and monarchy--with republicanism--the house of commons). Here, he introduced his opposition to hereditary leadership because it is inherently flawed: it creates an unnatural divide by guaranteeing leadership based solely on birthright to those who are in many ways least qualified to lead due to their inherent “otherness” based on that birthright segregation.

Section two will be Paine’s detailed argument against the hereditary monarchy. “Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession” begins by asserting the equality of mankind in the original order of creation. (1) Paine asserts that the distinction of “king” and “subject” is one for which there is neither natural nor religious reason. Male and female are distinctions of nature, good and bad those “of heaven” (religion), but the elevation of one man or group of men above the others is something entirely other. It is at this point that Paine makes an assertion that seems to be contradicted by the very source text from which he so heavily draws. Paine states: “In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion.” I did consider that perhaps Paine had a narrow view of history, or a limited availability of sources. Neither of these things would seem to be the case, though, nor does either of these things account for his sloppy scholarship of the Old Testament (OT) itself. He does refer to contemporary Holland as an example of a land at peace minus a monarchy, and he does limit his reference of non-monarchial peace in the OT to the ancient patriarchs. This seems to actively ignore the story of Jacob’s sons and Shechem and the Hebrew conquering of Canaan. (2) Paine then continues on to actively ascribe the institution of the monarchy to the devil. That certainly seems a harsh attribution, but considering his purpose and audience, what better way to argue against the monarchy than to point out it’s non-Hebrew origins (“heathen” being the word he uses) as an argument to support the monarchy being of infernal rather than heavenly origins? Certainly, the Hebrews justify their desire for a king to the prophet Samuel by noting “all the nations” have kings. Nevertheless, God himself tells Abraham in Genesis 17:6, “I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I make you into nations, and kings shall from from you.” This certainly implies that future kinds were a part of not a flouting of God’s plan. At this point, he accuses the monarchial governments of overlooking anti-monarchial scriptures. He’s going to base significant points of his argument on these scriptures he considers to be anti-monarchial.

From here, Paine outlines the development of Hebrew government from the elders to the judges to, finally, the anointing of Saul as king. To me, this becomes his weakest argument against the monarchy. He makes much (indeed several pages) of this history of Israel and God’s apparent disapproval of their desire for a king (“They have rejected me, that I should not reign over them”), highlighting all the negative consequences that Samuel outlines will come as a result of having a king. (3) To Paine, all of this speaks ill of all monarchies rather than merely a criticism of a nation called out by their own record to serve God and be ruled by Him. I think it is a bit reaching to apply this perspective to a nation that is not Ancient Israel. In appealing to scripture, I think Paine undoes himself a bit. Scripture is silent on the good or ill of any particular form of government outside of the theocracy of Ancient Israel. And, as noted in the previous paragraph, part of God’s promise to and covenant with Abraham was that he would be the ancestor of kings. That in itself does seem to indicate that some form of monarchy was the intended plan. God’s correction of Israel’s call for a king would seem to be with their desire for a king like the other nations rather than a king God would choose for them. (4) It seems that Paine here falls victim to his zealotry by using irrelevant OT passages to support his point. His arguments founded on the principles of natural civic evolution and human equality are far stronger.

Paine now adds to the “evil” of monarchy, the “evil” of hereditary succession. It is here that his argument does grow stronger. Paine begins by reviewing his point that all men were originally equal, that it is not a natural point of birth to be set up in authority over others. He makes two strong points here: one, that while a man might “himself deserve SOME decent degree of honours of his contemporaries,” there is now reason to believe his descendants will; and two, a man’s public honors are bestowed on him by others and the “givers of those honours could have no power to give away the right of posterity.” In other words, a man may deserve to be elevated above his peers, but there is o justification for automatically elevating his children. Likewise, those who choose to elevate this man do not have the right to elevate his descendants above their own progeny for generations. This effectively removes the right of their own descendants to elevate those they choose. The givers of honors “could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say, ‘that your children and your children’s children shall reign over OURS forever.’” (5)

Paine again uses the example of Saul in his addressing of hereditary succession when he examines how kings come to be. “The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession.” This is a reasonable conclusion to draw, but doesn’t seem to be reflected by historical application. He attempts to defend this point by noting that Saul was appointed by lot and stating that “the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction that there was any intention it ever should be.” This again seems to show sloppy scholarship of his own source text. No mention is made of transferring the crown to another until Saul’s direct disobedience and unrepentance in I Samuel 15. It is there, after Saul has been king for years, that Samuel tells him the kingdom has been ripped from his family and will be given to another. Paine’s own text appears to argue against the point he is using it to make.

Paine continues his point noting that crowing a first king by election also tends to establish the right of succeeding generations to elect their own king at such times as necessary, unless said election appointed an entire family rather than an individual to the throne. His third answer of usurpation is merely noted as indefensible for establishing a monarchy, barbs are aimed at William the Conqueror again, and the “antiquity of the English monarchy” rejected on that basis. While it may be ugly to accept that a monarchy is granted by right of conquer (“usurpation”), it is a long-established tradition. Paine could certainly have taken more time to establish here why it is unnatural even while long-standing. Thus, it seems to me that Paine uses a poor defense for one of his strongest arguments regarding the nature of the establishment of kings and fails to firmly establish another.

He is soon to redeem himself somewhat with a significant argument against hereditary succession, one that would seem to apply to an aristocracy across the board. Naming hereditary succession as not merely absurd but “evil,” Paine begins to establish that its very nature leads to oppression. Firstly, “Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and other to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance.” Certainly the run of history indicates that seats of authority conferred upon by birth alone lend a path of arrogance and ugliness to those so born. Granted, it is a problem that can be combated on an individual basis, but in general, I think Paine is correct in pointing out that hereditary position lends itself to the oppression of those born to be ruled. Secondly, hereditary position inevitably lends itself to certain times when a minor or one aged and infirm is in possession of the throne. “In both these cases the public becomes prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies of either age or infancy.” Again, a wise regent will tend to alleviate this problem on a case by case basis, yet one can see that this problem is innate to the nature of a hereditary monarchy. Now, a thing that Paine did not see, for reasons well understood upon examination of his time period, was that a monarchy can certainly be tempered by the presence of a strong, balanced parliament. During Paine’s lifetime the flaws and corruption of the English Parliament were infamous, so it is understandable that he could not see a path toward using Parliament to provide a check and balance to the monarchy. Then again, based on earlier segments that we’ve examined, Paine would see the need for a strong parliament an argument against the very nature of the monarchy. As I quoted before, “HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK?” The historical argument for the monarchy has been some form of divine right; and as he logically points out, if that is indeed the foundation of the monarchy, why on earth would it need a check and balance? And if it needs a check and balance, why then is the monarchy the unquestioned authority? I have no argument for that logic, and certainly we have seen the minimization of the political power of the monarchy in England as Parliament has established itself as a strong governing authority. Or as Paine puts it farther along in this section, “The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king.”

The remainder of this section Paine devotes to pointing out the bloody civil war fought in England over the throne and noting how the development of a parliament in England did indeed remove matters of governance from the king over time. He asserts that the problems present in parliament, the weakness of the constitution, are the fault of the very presence of a monarchy. Looking at modern England, I would say that Paine’s statement is hyperbolic but contains a kernel of truth. There do continue to be inequities in the application of legal and social justice in England that directly relate to the continued presence of a titled class. Nevertheless, her constitution and parliament were strengthened and reformed while still under the power and presence of a monarchy. Again, Paine knows he is best served by presenting the most directly black and white argument to his audience at a time when many were frustrated by divided loyalties and unsure what side of the fence on which to step down. Overall, I feel that Paine’s practical arguments against hereditary monarchy are strongest. His attempt to defend an anti-monarchial stance using the Old Testament does not serve him well upon examination as that very text argues against him. Thus, while it can be understood that he felt the need to present a biblically based argument to his audience, it is flimsy and fails to stand the test of time.

And there we end our examination of “Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession.” Paine will next address “Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs,” wherein he will show his audience where their soon-to-be nation stands. I took a lot of notes in that section, so prepare for a couple of posts. haha

(1) This, I suppose, would be the place to note Paine’s adherence to the scriptural literacy. He will be founding the development of several of his arguments on the Old Testament. In an effort to prevent any type of apologetic derailing, let’s all agree to accept that Paine viewed the Old Testament as a reliable source of, at least, Hebrew national history and accepted that the universe was a product of some form of creation (as even the most secular of our founders did). I will note that an evolutionary perspective certainly does not negate the prospect of mankind being originally equal until some later point in his development spurred the development of social classes and monarchies. Further, as it is typically considered historical fact that Saul was the first king of Ancient Israel, and that prior to Saul, Israel was governed as a nearly pure Theocracy, I will be approaching his arguments as founded truth. Granted, Paine makes an argument based on what God indicated His preferences were, and this argument will have less weight with those of my readers who are neither Christian nor even Deist, but in order to continue to point here--addressing Paine’s actual arguments and statements on their own merit--I’m going to work through it on Paine’s assumptions: the Judeo-Christian God is true, and the circumstances of His expression and involvement in the anointing of Saul are accurate. Any other approach to Paine’s points is for another day. Paine saw the world a certain way, and his arguments should be seen and addressed the way he saw them.

(2) Granted, Shechem was a prince of a city. That said, Jacob at that point could also be considered a nomadic king based on the same leadership code that made Shechem’s father, Hamor, a king. Further, the argument could be made that Joshua and the Hebrews were fighting against tribal kings when they conquered Canaan, there seems to be no logical justification for assigning that series of battles to the “pride of kings.” Historically speaking, unless all tribal leaders are granted the title “king,” Paine’s argument here just doesn’t work. Tribal conflict is old. Perhaps Paine’s definition of king is, in fact, quite that broad, but that would end up making the term meaningless, I would think.

(3) The point is never proven that a non-monarchial government would not also have some of those necessary “ills,” such as taxes and a draft.

(4) This is evidenced by His instruction to Samuel later to anoint David as His choice for king after Saul. David, in fact, is later referred to as a man after God’s own heart. This turn of events does seem to argue against Paine’s insistence that God Himself is and was anti-monarchial.

Amongst his argument against hereditary succession, Paine takes some several paragraphs to rail against William the Conqueror. This seems a bit out of place to me since he established monarchy not by hereditary or divine right, but by the right of the conqueror. It seems as though Paine is venting bitter dislike here rather than defending a reasonable argument. /random address of random rabbit trail.

June 22, 2011

continuing through the pages of Paine

All right. So in my last blog I began my attempt to both summarize and respond to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. And now, in case you hadn’t guessed already, comes part two of this exciting event!

Last time, I stopped just as Paine had finished demonstrating the development of a representative government by using the example of a hypothetical colony. He finished by noting specifically that frequent interaction between the citizenry and the representatives/government “... will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this...depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.” I noted that Paine is adamant (he even uses all caps!) about what causes this desire result of strength and happiness--it is mutual and natural support. This, of course, is generally at odds with the idea prevalent in some circles (on both sides of the aisle, it is true) that government should be distrusted. Paine’s remarks would lead one to believe he would find this a very unhealthy idea for a citizen to hold.

Continue reading "continuing through the pages of Paine" »

June 18, 2011

on common sense...the pamphlet, not the vital skill

**Before I start, my previous decision-tangled post does have an update.

Not long ago, I embarked upon a reading of Common Sense by Thomas Paine. I was spurred on to read it because of the way it had gained ascendance of mention among the Tea Party and their respective, more right of right legislative counterparts. So I suppose you could chalk it up to wanting to see what all the fuss was about. And also, it is a staple piece of Early American literature, one that was pivotal in the lead-up to the Revolution. That would make it a worthwhile read at any rate. I had been meaning to extend my reading of American lit. Why not start with Paine?

Continue reading "on common sense...the pamphlet, not the vital skill" »

February 06, 2007

The phenomenon we call “faery tale”

Why do faery tales appeal to us? Why do adults still remain fascinated by the stories they were told as children? Why do we continue to revisit them, both in their original forms and in amended and modernized forms?

Knowing many of those who read this blog personally, I feel fairly safe in hazarding, like several notable writers of both the present and past, that they appeal to us because the shadow the Great Story. They haunt us because they remind us that we are part of a Faery Tale ourselves. They offer us reminders of the hope before us. They pierce us with the possibilities that Hope is and the Hope finds us when we need it. But for all their hope, their joy, their haunting, faery tales are so often filled with a brutal edge. But then, life itself is filled with many brutal edges.

Why do ponder this? Because I am so impressed with a new faery tale.

Continue reading "The phenomenon we call “faery tale”" »

August 08, 2006

the gauntlet has been taken up

So I've been tossed the challenge by Jesse G.

1. One book that changed your life: Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis

2. One book that you’ve read more than once: Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

3. One book you’d want on a desert island: The Book of Images by Rainer Maria Rilke

4. One book that made you laugh: By the Light of the Moon by Dean Koontz

5. One book that made you cry: The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton

6. One book that you wish had been written: How to be courageous in confusing situations

7. One book that you wish had never been written: Democracy and Education by John Dewey

8. One book you’re currently reading: Eragon by Christpher Paolini

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read: The Decameron by Boccaccio

10. Now tag five people: Cooper, Marlo (sorry, dear, i'm running out of other options), Kinsey, Kylie, and Rachel M.

Of course, anyone may take up the gauntlet, but these five have been specifically challenged and tasked to take it up. Refuse it at your own peril.

December 10, 2005

the beauty of narnia

When I was a little girl--I guess around 6, because my parents were re-married by then--my dad read The Chronicles of Narnia to me at bedtimes. I adored them. Up until my teen years, we read every night he was home, travelling through all kinds of books: Little House on the Prarie, The Screwtape Letters, even The Law by Bastiat. Of all the books we read my favourite all my life has been The Chronicles. Since that time, I've read them quite a few more times. (Yes, I am one of those that reads books more than one time.) It was so amazing to think of another world at your fingertips so full of beauty and adventure--and you could never quite tell when you might stumble upon it. Of course, Lewis touches deep spiritual and metaphysical chords in his series as well, but ultimately, the stories are about beautiful adventures. I was in love with that world.
I just got back from seeing The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe with my sister. Of course, this isn't the first one of its kind--there is an animated one, and a fairly decent version released by BBC a number of years ago--I've seen the others. They're alright. This movie is what was playing in my head when I read the books. I can't even think of a better compliment to give. I was a child again, discovering Narnia all over. I was a little afraid at one point that they'd skipped the most amazing line--"He's not a tame lion, you know." "No. But He's good."--but lo and behold, there it was. I even truly enjoyed the addition at the beginning. To a generation so removed from WWII, it added a good deal of context to the story (and reminded me again what troopers the British are). The cast was excellent. Unlike the BBC girl, this Lucy doesn't whine. You fall in love with her. Peter is the resolute oldest son trying to take the place of his father. Susan captured well the young girl trying to be reasonable and important, but still really a girl. And Edmund. Watching him, you can really see him drawn into the net by his petulance--at each step becoming more angry and ill-tempered. His redemption is a relief because you do like him despite the attitudinal mistakes he makes. This movie is everything you want it to be, and very well. It is wonderful. Now I think I'll go read the book again.

November 26, 2005

Kurt Vonnegut is a wacko.

I had to post this. I have to give credit for finding the story to someone else [ Babalu Blog].
Really, whatever your position on war in general or the War on Terror, Vonnegut's comments are just beyond the pale.

US author lauds suicide bombers
David Nason, New York correspondent
19 Nov 2005

ONE of the greatest living US writers has praised terrorists as "very brave people" and used drug culture slang to describe the "amazing high" suicide bombers must feel before blowing themselves up.

Kurt Vonnegut, author of the 1969 anti-war classic Slaughterhouse Five, made the provocative remarks during an interview in New York for his new book, Man Without a Country, a collection of writings critical of US President George W. Bush.

Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorism.

But in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.

"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."

Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: "I regard them as very brave people, yes."

He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman's 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

On the Iraq war, he said: "What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back."

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."

Vonnegut's comments are sharply at odds with his reputation as a peace activist and his distinguished war service. He served in the US 106th Division and was captured by German forces at the Battle of the Bulge.

Taken to Dresden and held with other POWs in a disused abattoir, Vonnegut witnessed the appalling events of February 13-14, 1945, when 800 RAF Lancaster bombers firebombed the city, killing an estimated 100,000 civilians.

The experience inspired his book Slaughterhouse Five - the title of the novel coming from the barracks he was assigned in the POW camp. The book became an international bestseller and made Vonnegut a luminary of the US literary left.

But since Mr Bush was elected, Vonnegut's criticisms of US policy have become more and more impassioned.

In 2002, he was widely criticised for saying there was too much talk about the 9/11 attacks and not enough about "the crooks on Wall Street and in big corporations", whose conduct had been more destructive.

The following year he wrote that the US was hated around the world "because our corporations have been the principal deliverers and imposers of new technologies and economic schemes that have wrecked the self-respect, the cultures of men, women and children in so many other societies".

But Vonnegut's latest comments are likely to make many people wonder if old age has finally caught up with a grand old man of American letters.

© The Australian

(H/T Mike Pancier)

November 16, 2005

which book?

I read this very interesting article on National Review Online that I thought I would share. I know there is a debate going about which Narnia book should be read first. Being older than the re-numbered additions, I read The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe first. In the several times that I have read the series since, I have read it both ways--I prefer still to read The Lion... first. Mr. Miller makes a strong, reasonable argument in favor of the original first novel. It's worth the read.


Continue reading "which book?" »