(urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"Gene Wolfe's Politics

[John Watkins]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>wrote:

> refresher quote, questions below:
>
> ok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current situation?
>  Abstraction, largely ideal.
>
> maybe some conservatives can help me out here.
>

I think so.  The idea is that attachment to abstract principles is higher
than loyalty to any particular laws or men.



> "Attachment to the person of the monarch"
>
> On one hand, I don't understand how "Attachment to" is governance.  Are the
> people attached, or is the governance attached?


It's the principle of governance, right?  I take that as "the principle by
which the government operates"--does the government command the assent of
the people via loyalty to the person of the monarch, loyalty to his dynasty,
etc.

As for your question below, I think it's the result of a misreading.  I
don't think Wolfe should be read as suggesting that monarchy is truly the
ideal form of government unless the monarch is in fact God Himself.  C.S.
Lewis makes a similar point in *The Weight of Glory*--I'm fairly confident
that Wolfe had this passage in mind:


I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for
being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in
the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs
their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of
democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked
that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his
fellows.

That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God
created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child,
husband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the
original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had
not fallen, Filmer would be right, and partiarchal monarchy would be the
sole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as
Lord Acton says, that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.” The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute
a legal fiction of equality. The authority of father and husband has been
rightly abolished on the legal plane, not because this authority is in
itself bad (on the contrary, it is, I hold, divine in origin), but because
fathers and husbands are bad. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not
because it is bad that learned priests should govern ignorant laymen, but
because priests are wicked men like the rest of us. Even the authority of
man over beast has had to be interfered with because it is constantly
abused. (C.S. Lewis, “Membership,” from *The Weight of Glory*, pp. 168-7)




>
> Another question this brings up for me.  This notion of a Divine Ruler...
> You get it in the Grail myths, and I suppose in the Jesus Myth, this idea
> of bringing back the Divine King. I'm not sure if that's right, but it's
> something that seems to come up in various traditions.  Anyway, While anyone
> could sort of get behind letting God's Vicar rule, if it could be proven.
> Yet we've had plenty of crappy rulers claiming God's mandate.
> anyway, How can this idea of a Monarch that is the best system jibe with
> reality lacking an unambiguous 'seal of approval' from God?
>
> Let me rephrase?  This seems like a sort of religious right position (maybe
> I'm totally wrong)  So, would anyone toss away democracy in favor of a
> monarch? How can this notion not be "largely ideal"  when it hinges upon the
> character of a single person?
>
> I'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm trying to understand how this
> can be considered the highest state of governance in a practical, non-ideal
> world.
>
> just asking...
>
> ~Witz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090402/9b4e5386/attachment-0003.htm>