Comments on: The Patrimony, Or Obsessions With Liberalism http://larison.org/2006/08/19/the-patrimony-or-obsessions-with-liberalism/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Tue, 22 May 2012 20:31:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: KW http://larison.org/2006/08/19/the-patrimony-or-obsessions-with-liberalism/#comment-4441 Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:57:22 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/08/19/the-patrimony-or-obsessions-with-liberalism/#comment-4441 I've found Frederick Wilhelmsen's <i>Christianity and Political Philosophy</i> helpful with these issues. Christianity concerns itself with two cities. This means that representational government (which Mac Donald ascribes to G & R rather than the O.T) does not, in a Christian polity, fuse power with authority. Wilhelmsen writes, <blockquote> Whether a man be a believing Christian or not he cannot fail to note that the Christian reservation of absolute power to God entails the limiting of power in the political order. The decline in belief in such a God necessarily entails, in its turn, the releasing of power here on earth and its expansion into a simulacrum of a God now thought to be dead or so remote that his death or life is irrelevant. Early modern political theory worked, often obscurely but sometimes consciously, towards a doctrine that secularized power and thus altered its relations to authority, both human an divine. </blockquote> Those who find Cicero instructive should definitely peruse Wilhelmsen's chapter on Cicero and his comments on the demise of the Roman order in a chapter on the "Forces of Darkness": <blockquote> Polybius warned, that the balanced constitution would work only provided rome remained relatively small. In this reservation Polybius differed from Vergil, but his prediction of survivabl based on the mixed constitution when linked with Vergilian destiny are the highest reaches of the Roman will to conquer political irrationality. </blockquote> I also think Novak's comments both at First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=401) and at NRO ( href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDAyZTkwN2MyMzdkMzgyMTVkYTkyZjc4M2UxYzkwZGU=) have been remarkably adroit and perceptive in this conversation. He mentions the importance of being under God. I’ve found Frederick Wilhelmsen’s Christianity and Political Philosophy helpful with these issues.

Christianity concerns itself with two cities. This means that representational government (which Mac Donald ascribes to G & R rather than the O.T) does not, in a Christian polity, fuse power with authority.

Wilhelmsen writes,

Whether a man be a believing Christian or not he cannot fail to note that the Christian reservation of absolute power to God entails the limiting of power in the political order. The decline in belief in such a God necessarily entails, in its turn, the releasing of power here on earth and its expansion into a simulacrum of a God now thought to be dead or so remote that his death or life is irrelevant. Early modern political theory worked, often obscurely but sometimes consciously, towards a doctrine that secularized power and thus altered its relations to authority, both human an divine.

Those who find Cicero instructive should definitely peruse Wilhelmsen’s chapter on Cicero and his comments on the demise of the Roman order in a chapter on the “Forces of Darkness”:

Polybius warned, that the balanced constitution would work only provided rome remained relatively small. In this reservation Polybius differed from Vergil, but his prediction of survivabl based on the mixed constitution when linked with Vergilian destiny are the highest reaches of the Roman will to conquer political irrationality.

I also think Novak’s comments both at First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=401) and at NRO ( href=”http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDAyZTkwN2MyMzdkMzgyMTVkYTkyZjc4M2UxYzkwZGU=) have been remarkably adroit and perceptive in this conversation. He mentions the importance of being under God.

]]> by: tedschan http://larison.org/2006/08/19/the-patrimony-or-obsessions-with-liberalism/#comment-4438 Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:57:29 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/08/19/the-patrimony-or-obsessions-with-liberalism/#comment-4438 Mr. Larison, do you see any correlations between the rise of liberalism/the strengthening of parliamentary government and the rise of land-independent wealth (what I am trying to distinguish between land-dependent wealth and land-independent wealth is the distinction between the traditional nobility and the bourgeoisie)? Mr. Larison, do you see any correlations between the rise of liberalism/the strengthening of parliamentary government and the rise of land-independent wealth (what I am trying to distinguish between land-dependent wealth and land-independent wealth is the distinction between the traditional nobility and the bourgeoisie)?

]]>