I finished reading Leftism Revisited and I am disappointed in some ways. The writer seems an atrocious snob, though that is a bit of a culture clash (funny I never thought that about Buckley). More to the point he sometimes seems illogical, despite his reputation.

He calls Churchill genocidal which when you think about it isn't so far from the truth(whether or not ends justified means in his case). But he also calls Titus an example of a monarch who was not corrupted by power(uh...please repeat the phrase "next year in Jerusalem"). Furthermore, he lays much of the charge for the bombing campaign(which was devised by professional military men long before the war) on "democracy". Even though monarchial governments would have behaved more or less the same way in the same situation. After all in the only comparable test in an ideological war that threatened monarchism as an institution and the individual lives of monarchs was the French Revolution/ Napoleonic wars-in which the behavior of the Ancient Regime rather convinces one that they would certainly have behaved the same way as America and Britain under the same pressure. To be fair the author is probably thinking of the Habsburgs, who often didn't take war all that seriously anyway.

Furthermore Finland,the most democratic of all belligerents(there was no more infrastructure then in switzerland their) in world war two arguably behaved better then all of them, if only because they hadn't that much firepower to spare(by comparison Americans and British bombarded civilians commonly enough at the time; they very seldom mistreated conquered ones). And the author gets some facts wrong. Finland was not wantonly attacked twice by the Soviets; the winter war was a wanton attack, but the continuation war was rather ambiguous.

Minor nitpicks aside, the writer seems to believe in legitimate monarchial authority which sounds better in fantasy then in historical context; almost every dynasty was started by a usurper making legitimacy a will in the wisp.

Furthermore the writer shows an astonishing lack of empathy for what it would have been like to endure institutionalized bullying for generations(maybe he could have remembered his schooldays). "The herd" didn't need envy to become explosive; normal resentment of offense would have done. Of course the writer is right that the poorest of the poor were never really the source of rebellion; they were beyond resentment. The real source was people with enough resource to have the luxury of taking offense.

A lot of the problem, of course was that the writer was comparing his hatred of democracy(defined as leftism) with the aristocratic structure of the 1800's and 1900's which really wasn't so bad. He was also letting his tribalistic resentments run away with him, rather understandably. He did have a point that if the old austria-hungarian regime had been left in place after WW1, the Balkans might not have looked so vulnerable.

It is easy to be intimidated by the credentials of Eric von Kuenelt-Leddihn. But the book is more dubious when you read it closer. Again a large problem is indeed culture clash; the writer talks like the movie version of Captain von Trapp and honestly that is more entertaining in a movie. One is reminded again that Central European conservatism really is not the same sort of thing as the American or British variety. I wish I could say I liked the book, and liked the author more but honestly I didn't. He certainly came off as an honorable man and all that. But I have to say that after seeing the old regime up close the more I like America.

You know, despite the cliche, it is hard to think of many times when 51% of the population consciously voted to exterminate 49% or anything like that. Populations have committed atrocities in a fit of rage, and they have elected leaders who committed atrocities in their name. But it is hard to find many instances of an actual referendum on genocide.

Just name it, Ben.

Greg - we're on the same page there: a democracy isn't much different than a democratic republic.

You mentioned the genius of the (original) American government - but to be honest, I'm a fan of the new one. I *like* the Incorporation doctrine - that now the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments as well, not just the federal one. I'm *glad* that states can no longer set up state religions, or require a statement of faith from politicians before they take office, and that women and non-landowners can vote.. etc.

Sure, there's some things I'd change about the government if I was given the choice, but I think things are much better now than 200 years ago.

Jason: not that I disagree with you about the mistakes of democracies in the 20th century, but there *is* one glaring, obvious exception who I won't name. =p

No need to; I use a computer. It has a dictionary whenever I need. I don't even use a desk most of the time; I use a laptop.

Why?

Do you keep a copy of Webster's open on your desk at all times?

When you think about it, though, the very worst errors in this century weren't made by democracies. America could have done a lot better politically(and militarily for that matter, although she did reasonably well there)in both world wars and the cold war. But America never bred a Gavrilo Phillip(well all countries breed those but he was the only one to create that much of a mess), a Kaiser Bill(who was more a fool then a knave really), let alone a Stalin(though he did quite well from his rather vampiric point of view). As for Switzerland, which is more democratic then America, really, they managed to avoid both wars.

As for the previous century, democratic governments did not seem to behave better or worse then monarchial ones all things considered. It is a curious fact though that America has never been able to avoid a great European war even though geographically well placed for it.


The Ancient philosophers were partial to a "mixed" government that had elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. When done right that does seem to work out producing states like England or Venice.

One problem with Democracy as it is now is that it is impossible to work at the national level. Being one three hundred millionth of a monarch of the united states(so to speak) is more a symbolic right then an actual power. If the US was more decentralized, then Americans could actually have more actual power over there lives. "Subsidiarity" is a fancy word, but it might be worth trying. Though it may turn out to be just another polysyllabic political theory that doesn't work in practice.

One thing distasteful is that it seems that a lot more of life is being politicized then should be. We could remember that politics is for man and not man for politics.

But with one minor exception: A democratic republic (which describes the United States only in part) is not much better than democracy by itself. For long-term stability, it needs a charting document to lay down ground rules. In the United States, of course, that document was the Constitution. That's why men like Thomas Jefferson and Richard Henry Lee were so anxious for a Bill of Rights. They knew the importance of setting boundaries around the state to protect individual liberties. The genius of the (original) American government was that it set up barriers against both the tyranny of rulers, and the tyranny of the masses.

We *don't* live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. Is that better? In some ways yes, since presumably our representatives will take the time to get educated about subjects that we citizens don't have time for. And it helps with logistics - no need to tally the population's vote for every bill, or for the population to take the time to come out and vote on every little thing.

On the other hand, a democratic republic has much more room for corruption than a plain democracy - it's easier to bribe a few congressmen than millions of citizens.

I'd say they are subject to different dangers. Monarchies are subject to arrogance in the rulers, democracies to ignorance and folly in the ruled.

Interestingly right now I am reading a book by Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn(that's right folks, he really was a "von") called Leftism Revisited, which addresses the same subject. Interestingly the author apparently was a monarchist, which shows what an eccentric old codger he was. But it does bring an interesting perspective.