The pre-revolutionists

I don't think we give enough thought to the pre-revolutionists, suckers as we are for the drama of the guillotine and the shots heard round the world. But, revolutions - like humans - are not born ex nihilo but have intellectual genealogies replete with venerated progenitors and strange uncles alike. I think often of the Second Vatican Council. There are those who fault it almost exclusively for all manner of changes and insurrections that occurred during and immediately after its promulgation. Are we not equally as curious about the teachers in the seminaries that taught the prelates that wrought the changes? Political upheavals are often easier to chart, but again it is curious to dwell on what the germ was that grew into massive change. We trace the Communist slaughter of Tsarist Russia back almost directly to Marx, but Marx was not created with those ideas in his head, nor was Marx Russian. And what had predisposed the proletariat to believe in Lenin's Marxism in such numbers? These, to me, are the interesting questions, and the ones that those with eyes to see might find interesting when looking at our own times.

Canadian Feudalism

We in the United States tend to myopically view the western hemisphere through the lens of democracy, as if every republic on the continent sprang forth fully-formed from the mind of Libertie herself. Reality, of course, tells a quite different story. While the English colonies were certainly more egalitarian, the French and Spanish possessions were often more reminiscent of the old world. New France, in particular, imported a peculiar brand of Gallican feudalism from the ancien regime.

The seigneurial system was used throughout Quebec, Louisiana, and Acadia as a means of encouraging settlement. Much like the feudal system of the Medieval period, the King would grant fiefs, called seigneuries to nobles, called seigneurs, who would take possession of the land in person and parcel out land to commoners who would pay him a small rent. The people who lived upon the land were known as habitants. Cardinal Richelieu, the administrative mastermind of Louis XIV, devised the particulars of the seigneurial system for New France, which began with the granting of the Seigneury of Beauport just outside of Quebec City to Robert Giffard, a surgeon from Mortagne-au-Perche in Normandy.

Charles Le Moyne, Baron Longueuil

The seigneurial system was one means by which the French middle class was able to ascend social strata. This, in itself, encouraged emigration from the old country. Following their countryman Giffard, dozens of people from Mortagne and other villages in the Perche région made their way to Quebec. My own ancestor, Michel Messier, left Rouen and settled in Montreal, where, after a strategic marriage and successes in the fur trade in Michigan, he was made Seigneur de Cap-Saint-Michel et de La Guillaudière, encompassing much of the land around Varennes, the ancestral home of my maternal grandmother's family. More interesting, perhaps, is the story of Messier de La Guillaudière's wife's family. Anne Le Moyne was the daughter of an innkeeper from Dieppe in Normandy. Her brother, Charles, came to Quebec with her and, after beginning at age fifteen as an indentured servant in the service of Jesuit missionaries followed by a distinguished military career in the service of the colony, was named Seigneur de Longueuil et de Châteauguay. He had twelve sons, many of which reached illustrious heights in the government of New France. Among them were Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville, the great soldier, tradesman, and explorer; Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville, the founder of New Orleans, Mobile, and Biloxi, governor of Louisiana; and Charles Le Moyne de Longueuil, who was governor of Montreal and was made a baron - the first native born Canadian to be so named.

*     *     *

Not only are these stories interesting from a personal point of view, since they compose a part of my family's history, but, I think they illustrate several useful points. The first is they help abolish the misconception that the class divisions of the ancien regime were completely static. The case of the Le Moynes, for instance, shows how, with a lot of work and a little luck, it was possible to go from an innkeeper to an indentured servant to a baron in three generations. In general, hard work - whether military or otherwise - was rewarded in the colony. Even the habitants were not the hovel-dwelling, dirt-scraping peasants of popular imagination. Many of them - sometimes even women - became quite wealthy in terms of land and possessions (I think of Adrienne Du Vivier-Hebert, widow of the first colonist of Montreal, who expanded her family's landholdings in her own name). Some even had hired servants. 

Thus, in New France, there was a sense of Liberté, Egalité, et Fraternité within a hierarchical, monarchical system. People who deserved to be honored were given honors that then became associated with the entire family. Those who lived average lives were not "oppressed", but they were not elevated beyond their rank for no reason. This, I think, is one of the virtues of aristocracy.

I came across this quote earlier this week by the conservative Colombian philosopher Nicolás Gómez Dávila, which, I think, sums it up quite nicely: "In societies where everybody believes they are equal, the inevitable superiority of a few makes the rest feel like failures. Inversely, in societies where inequality is the norm, each person settles into his own distinct place, without feeling the urge, nor even conceiving the possibility, of comparing himself to others. Only a hierarchical structure is compassionate towards the mediocre and the meek."

I think of our current culture when I read this quote. I think we have the worst scourges of aristocracy without the graces of nobility. We have fabulously wealthy and influential families and people in this country, yet we refuse to honor them in the way that the ancien regime would have. We pretend that "all men created equal" erases the fact that some men are born to higher stations than others. As if the Medieval monarch thought he was a "higher being". He knew, as all Christians know, that rights come from God, and that souls are equal, though station in life may not be.

I am reminded of the burial custom of the Habsburg monarchs. When the body of the deceased is brought before the Franciscan Church in Vienna, where the family crypt is, the steward of the church knocks on the door three times. The monks inside inquire thrice as to who is begging admittance. The first two times, the steward responds with the full list of titles of the deceased. The door remains unopened. The last time, the steward simply announces the first name of the deceased, followed by "a humble, sinful man." The door is than opened.

*     *     *

So, let the Le Moynes keep the Baronetcy of Longueuil. Give a duchy to the Kennedys. Make the Vanderbilts Viscounts of Asheville. Name George H.W. Bush the Earl of Kennebunkport. Give Americans the benefit of having a codified upper class to lampoon. Give them little privileges and little responsibilities. Like the seigneurs of New France, let them have a nice house, but make them build a grist mill for the community. Let the President name new nobles for meritorious service to the nation, so that people have a goal to aspire to above and beyond the jet-set lifestyle of Malibu and Miami.

Thoughts on Monarchy

Soon after the election results were in, I joked on my Facebook page that I was going to withdraw from American politics, help the French monarchists restore the King, get Quebec to secede from Canada and rejoin the reinvigorated French Empire, and then have them annex Michigan (and Ontario) so that I could live contentedly under a Catholic monarchy. Such fantastic (but far-fetched) scenarios aside, I do have a soft-spot for monarchical government, as understood in Medieval Christendom. Admittedly, there were defects, but in its idealized form all persons were equal before God and treated with dignity. The King administered God's justice and maintained a reflection of the divine order through his reign. The King was prevented from usurping too much power by the Church, who could pressure the King with various ecclesiastical actions (interdiction, excommunication, etc.). The Church also acted as the provider of community welfare through the various charitable efforts of monasteries and parishes, maintaining a level of political stability among the poor.

Monarchy obviously gets a bad name in the US, which was born of anti-Royal sentiment, yet there is something further to be said of the nature of leadership in a monarchy which is distinct from our current form of democracy. The monarch did not have to gain his power. He was born into it. He was groomed for it from a young age - a spirit of service to his subjects permeated his education. He did not have to sell his soul to corporations or special interests to gain power. He could devote himself to ideals shamelessly. He did not have to pander to various constituencies at the expense of others.

There were abuses of this power, but on the whole I think it may be a better system than our current plutocracy that goes to the polls every four years in order to claim legitimacy.

A Rare American Prophet

We are rather too neglectful of the American Presidency in this little corner of the web. We must confess this is at least partially due to our intense dislike for the last several occupants of the Oval Office, right on up to our current tyrant. Regardless of that trivia, previous Commanders-in-Chief were often also quite splendid orators who said what they meant and said it in style, as opposed to the current politically-correct espousal of topseyturveydom that belches forth from Washington. We are so accustomed to this deluge of nonsense that we regard it as normal and sometimes pay it lip-service praise. I even heard someone say that Obama's most recent State of the Union was great oratory! Yes, and Call Me Maybe is a great musical achievement.

I digress. In any event, I ask you, kind reader, to imagine any current American politician having the gall to speak the words below, spoken by Calvin Coolidge in Philadelphia on the occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence:

"The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped."

Wait, it's not all about money?! We're NOT to become pagan materialists?! Cultivate reverence... for HOLY things!? Spiritual and moral leadership? Our leaders can't be moral and spiritual leaders, there's a separation between church and state, remember?

To those who still claim that our society is on some constant noble march of blissful progress, I rest my case.

Mother Teresa and the March for Life

March for Life 2009, the last time I was able to attend

In the great Catholic moral tradition, taking of any innocent human life is an intrinsic evil. Each human is endowed with an immortal soul and is created in the image and likeness of God. This is the basis of our dignity as human persons. Whenever the source of that dignity is clouded or denied, humanity suffers. This is why I will be in Washington, DC this weekend, taking part in the March for Life. I will be there, alongside a crowd of 300,000 others, firmly witnessing by my presence that all life is sacred - from conception until natural death. We have a responsibility to show love and charity to all of our fellow men - especially the most innocent and helpless among us; the poor, the lonely, the elderly, the unborn. Consider these quotes from Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta on the matter:

‎"Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters."

"What is taking place in America is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another."

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

Please keep me in your prayers, and say a little prayer for all of our brothers and sisters in Christ - even those yet unborn.

Help! I'm allergic to Rick Perry!

The social media sphere has erupted in the past few days over an ad that Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry released. The video was met with an almost fanatical acerbic reaction, as if Mr. Perry had called for the abolition of the continent of South America or something. And just what did Mr. Perry say? He voiced his opposition to the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and he expressed his dismay at the government's bullying of religious organizations of late. Now, let me voice my political disclaimer: I do not identify with the Republican Party, and I tend to view Rick Perry as a juvenile politician at best.

That said, I find it a bit disquieting that many of the same people who berate politicians for their supposed lack of civility are the first to jump on Rick Perry's dissenting opinion. Is this man not allowed to have his morals influence his politics? Thomas Jefferson, no fan of the organized religions of his day, was the first to point out that democracy cannot exist without virtuous citizens. Heck, even the pagan philosophers like Aristotle realized this fact. Why, when a similar sentiment comes from a Christian from Texas do some Americans boil over?

In my mind, there is legitimate room for debate on each of the issues Mr. Perry brings up in his campaign ad. If we truly believe in free speech and free exercise of religion as described in the First Amendment, Rick Perry has every right to voice his opinions as informed by his conscience - that's how democracy works, or should work in theory. But, it seems of late that this democratic dialogue is being increasingly stifled. We are to tolerate and approve of everything and everyone except those who voice religious or moral objections to certain policies or behaviors - those we must berate and scold for their benighted views.

Could Rick Perry's ad have been more eloquent? Could it have focused more on the pressing issues of the day - the economy, war, etc? I think yes is the answer to both. Was Rick Perry's ad offensive and mean-spirited? If you are offended by those different from you, then perhaps it was. Savor the irony here.

Thoughts on Europe

"We were making sand castles, and now we swim in the sea that swept them away" - Rem Koolhaas

"Once abolish the God, and government becomes the God." - G.K. Chesterton

Rem Koolhaas, a Dutch architect (whose work I do not particularly enjoy), has some interesting thoughts about the future of the European Union and the European project in general. His general premise is that Europe needs to be fixed. I believe we can all agree on this point considering recent greatly destabilizing events. He goes on to say that the economic union of the EU cannot go on being viable without political union of the EU. This is something that I've suspected for awhile now. Europe has a somewhat united economy without any means of enforcing economic policy across the continent, the European Central Bank notwithstanding.

However, the underlying problem with the entire European project is that it is a top-down scheme. The entire system is utterly superficial. Often we Americans look at Europe as if it were the United States: with countries that are basically the same living peacefully together. This is emphatically not the case. Europe is a fractured continent - the Greeks are a decidedly different people than the Italians. You cannot, then, foist a bureaucratic mess on to both countries and expect the same results. No number of eurocrats in Brussels will be able to make the Portuguese and the Spanish identical.

A parallel stream of thought on Europe suggests that since Europe has lost its shared Christian culture, it cannot truly unite in a meaningful way anyway. The basis of the word culture is the Latin word cultus, which means veneration. Thus, a culture is a group of people who venerate things in common. For Europe, this was Christianity, until the so-called Enlightenment and afterward. Nowadays, Europe is about as religiously arid a place as you can find. It is a sad fact, but it underscores the point that any European Union-esque project is bound to be unsuccessful because the last substantive bond among European nations - Christianity - has been egregiously eroded.

What could result is a super-national government in Europe. It's possible. However, it would likely possess only one leg of Western Civilization. It would be Roman rule of law, devoid of Athens' reason and Jerusalem's revelation. In short, European bureaucrats would be constructing a government in their own image, an image dependent, not on the cultus of Christ, but on the cultus of power.

Disjointed Friday Thoughts

I've not had much work to do this week, interestingly, so I've been more caught up in the news than I have been recently. Consequently, I've been trying to digest a lot of information all at once. Mind you, not all of these are specific current events stories, but simply things that have been rolling around and echoing in my head.

• I do not understand Occupy Wall Street, and, though I know I am not the most perceptive person, I do not think this is because a deficiency in intellect on my own part. The logic of the "Occupation" seems to be ephemeral at best and nonexistent for the most part. The best line of reasoning I can discern is: I feel entitled to the same preference given to corporations, but without any preference given to corporations (plus some other wacky, economy-destroying idea like waving the magical political wand and forgiving everyone's debt). Oh, and I don't want to have to pay for it, even though my college education has already been subsidized by the taxpayer. I get that people are angry with the injustices done by many powerful people with government help, but I feel like demanding the government to get out of business and further into ordinary citizen's lives is deficient in reason. Frankly and completely honestly, it all seems whiny and a bit silly.
• There are two interesting currents fighting against each other right now in terms of the environment and the economy. One says that the economy needs to keep growing in order to produce more wealth for more people - a simple economic principle, I think. On the other hand, there is a widespread movement to reduce consumption, and invest in long-lasting onetime purchases. With the economists shouting "start spending to get our economy back on track" and the environmentalists shouting "stop spending money on more stuff and reduce your environmental impact" we seem to be in for an interesting show in the years ahead. My personal opinion is that unbridled capitalism in our current way of thinking is completely unsustainable and that eventually we will have to go through some sort of "Great Reset" and find a more equitable way of living on this planet.
• I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with any person with any pretensions of running for the Presidency of this country. I am bound by my conscience to not support our current president due to his unjust stances on religious liberty and practice, conscience protection, and abortion. His record in these areas is simply heinous. No matter the rest of his stances, I cannot vote for a man with such a record on things so foundational to our liberty as life and God. On the other hand, the Republican Party Presidential Primary Circus Incorporated is similarly disenchanting. None of the candidates (to my knowledge) have a realistic idea of how to deal with promoting environmental infrastructure in this country, nor do any have a convincing plan on reinvesting in this country and its future (in the economy, tax policy, and education).
• Speaking of religious liberty, this will be a contentious issue very soon I'm afraid. Conflicts have been flaring up between church and state across the country on a variety of issues. In a number of cases, Catholic institutions and ministries have been forced to close their doors rather than continue ministering (often to the poorest and most vulnerable in society) in violation of their conscience. Free exercise of religion, as protected in the First Amendment is quickly devolving into "free exercise of religion, as long as you don't actually attempt to act on religious principles anywhere near any other member of society."This is a sorry development in a country that was once upon a time a refuge where people of multiple religions could practice and operate according to their own principles without having to worry about rendering unto Caesar that which is God's.

That's all for now. In more personal news, I will be heading up to Notre Dame this weekend to visit friends. I always enjoy visits there, and I'm sure it will be a grand old time. Happy Friday!

An Errant Political Thought

Considering the recent juvenile production of Barack Obama and the Congressional Flying Circus that we as a country have been subjected to recently, I - unwisely - staggered once again into the realm of political thinking. It seems to me, in watching these plodding arguments about the debt (followed by the commentary ad nauseum from every conceivable media voice), that the chief trouble is re-election. How can both parties spin this near catastrophic disaster as a win for both of them? How can Obama make this a plus during the next campaign? How can Republicans make it look like the Democrats all wore hula skirts to the debt talks? Ok, I admit, that last one probably is not on the mind of many, but could nonetheless be achieved with a bit of Photoshop craftiness.

Point here is this: politicians are so damn concerned about getting re-elected that they forget their primary job, namely, governing. My solution to rid ourselves of this madness is to lengthen terms and set term limits to one. Everybody would get a decent shot at their office and wouldn't need to focus any of their midst-of-term energies on getting themselves reelected. Problem solved. Now somebody grab me the Constitution and a thick Sharpie.

In which I say something vaguely political

Yes, observant reader, you did read that title correctly, I am indeed going to say something political on my blog. Mark this as a terrible day indeed. As I am consistently reminded by a good friend, primary season is almost upon us. Indeed, the three-ring circus has already begun with sundry colorful characters throwing their hats into the ring. Everyone has their pretty "candidate faces" on, preparing to woo some octogenarians in an Iowa diner.

And, as usual, I am completely disillusioned by the entire spectacle. Shockingly, no amount of MTV "Rocking the Vote" is going to induce me to be excited about voting for the next president of the United States (partially because I doubt the depth of political thinking among those who are doing the rocking). You might be thinking to yourself, "Why, he is one of those anarchists, intent on destroying all that America stands for." But, you probably aren't (I just enjoy the thought of others thinking of me as some sort of extremist). I am no anarchist, I am an American committed to the democratic republic set forth in the Constitution.

That being said, in my short lifetime I have had to live through the campaigns of some awfully dismal and annoying people. That some of them got very far in the race tells you the average sanity of the American citizen. And again this election cycle, America is being subjected to the babblings-on of people I would find distasteful at a dinner party, let alone in the Oval Office. Your choice America: the sly immoral one or the rambunctious idiot.

You may think that I am being unduly harsh toward politicians. I am. In the youthful Colonial days, we rebelled against a government that was distant, corrupt, and which placed undue burdens on ordinary people. Have we progressed? I simply ask you this question to prove my point: can I become president? You may start shouting, "Yes! Anyone can become president! This is America, land of opportunity! If you want to become president, go for it!" You'd be right in some sense; there is nothing prohibiting me from running for president. What I mean to say is that to become a powerful person in this country, you need to sell yourself to others (corporations and special-interests, namely), and it seems that the more a person sells himself to court the votes of a certain group, the less determined he is to pursue the goals that he holds in his heart to be true.

Thus, many of the candidates look good at the beginning of an election. I agree (at least philosophically) with a few of the people running. Yet, as we saw with Barack Obama, the illusion change and reform is easily shattered. As we discuss in architecture, in order to have a good building, you need to start with an outstanding idea(l). With each step toward reality, the outstanding idea(l) will lose a bit of its shine as room is made for mechanical systems, plumbing, and building code requirements. The idea(l) is watered down, out of necessity. At the end, you may have a good building, if that initial idea(l) was strong enough to guide the rest of the process.

None of the current candidates is proposing a strong idea. Obama has certainly proved himself a weak president, easily swayed by foreign leaders, social opinion, and political opportunism. His convictions are exceedingly difficult to pinpoint because they are so ephemeral and relativistic. His notion that government health care is good because it will give more people a better shot at a better life is good, in theory, but is soured by the direct contradiction of his vehement stance on abortion (his willingness to shut down the federal government rather than cut funding to Planned Parenthood, being the most recent example of his morally reprehensible position). So, he's out.

But, no one else really looks good.

This has been an excessively rambling and incoherent rant, and I'm not quite frankly sure what my point was supposed to be. Just, I guess, that I usually don't talk about politics on this blog because the political arena disappoints me and makes me angry.