Montesque and Government

I just finished listening to an RC Sproul message. He was discussing politcal systems of all things. Actually, I think he started on the 18th century enlightenment, but started discussing Montesque's calssifications of politcal systems. Apperently, Montesque defined three classifications for forms of government and identified the key component within the society, within the culture, that allows and enables that form to survive. The three that Montesque defined, as explained by RC Sproul, are Monarchy, Dictatorship, and Democratic and the key attributes of these forms are Honor, Fear, and Civic Virtue, respectively. He also theorized that whenever any of these systems fail, they will be raplaced by one of the other two. Let me explore these further.

Monarchy requires a strong leader that is able to capture the loyalty or his subjects. This requires that the subjects have the honor to ascribe loyalty to those who are due it. This is similiar to the 'political' system of the family. The parents are due loyalty and obedience, not only because of their greater experience and knowledge, but also for the practical reason that the parents provide to the family. This requires that the children have the honor to recognize the place of the parents in the family. The problem with Monarchy as a political system today is that I do not believe a person can maintain the respect and loyalty of any sizable group of people for any length of time. In ages past, monarchs were considered better than their subjects, but the egalitarian ideals, combined with a information infrastructure that allows anyone to learn anything about just about anyone else, the concept is not possible.

Second on the list is Dictatorship. It seems fairly simple that a dictatorship requires fear within the populous. In any governmental system that is not a military occupation, the real power lies with the people. The general populous will always outnumber the leaders and the leaders will rely on the people to produce. The only way for an individual, or a small group of leaders, to rule a population without popular support is to invoke fear in the people. Without fear, the dictator is quickly replaced by a popular leader.

And lastly, the Deomcracy is dependant on civic virtue, on the idea of the rule of law. Although civic virtue is more than just observance of the law. Civic virtue to belief in something bigger than yourself. Civic virtue is respecting the rule of law because everyone recognizes that is better for everyone to follow the law.

Now this is the most interesting to me. You see, classifying political systems this way and listing the requirements for each begs a question in my mind; What about a society that lacks all three? I daresay that while a culture can have more than one of the three requirements (honor, fear, and civic virtue), a culture cannot have none of the three for long. Specifically, when a people lose honor, which is the basic ability to respect others at least as much as themselves, and civic virture, i.e. the rule of law, fear will flurish

I was going somewhere with this. Honest, I was. But it seems to have gotten lost in the transcription. Perhaps I will continue this later.

In general, I am proud to live in the country that I do. This are the things are shake that position:

1. The American electorate seems to have collectively sold-out to the promise of comfort and relief that I believe is a path toward socialism.

2. The idea of states rights and many other provisions of the Constitution have been completely abandoned.

3. Eli Stone and Pushing Daisies have both been cancelled by ABC.

4. Paul Blart, Mall Cop raked in over $30 million, which was more than any other movie last weekend.

5. Al Franken may be the junior senator from Minnesota... and Amy Klobachar is the senior senator.

Wow. So it's been a while. I guess it's appropriate that this post is on Inauguration Day when my last post was the day after the election. But before I discuss the inauguration itself, there has been a transtion-related point that I want to make.

Obama ran on a platform of "Change". At times it seemed that every other word out of Obama's mouth was "Change", almost like the word "smurfy" to the little blue guys. However, when we look at Obama's selection for his staff and cabinet, I don't see alot of change... We have former President Clinton's wife as Secertary of State, one of former President Clinton's chief political advisors as Chief of Staff, former President Clinton's Energy Secertary as Seceratary of Commerce (until he withdrew his name due to scandal), and former President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General as Attorney General.

In addition, Barack may have differentiated himself from the Democratic field of presidential nominees during the primary season, but he certainly seems willing to lean on their experience once he is in office. Four of the eight losers in the race for the Democratic nomination were selected to be members of the administration in cabinet-level or higher positions. It seems to me that the "change" that Obama is delivering is simply a change back to Democratic Party control and not the brave new world that Obama has spoken of.

However...

Watching the Inaugural Address that Obama delivered this morning, I saw very clearly what he has that the Bush Administration has lacked, in fact, has sought, without success, for 8 years. Barack Obama right now has a majority mandate from the people. Bush has followed the polls and sought public approval for years. Probably ever since Gore v. Bush determined him the winner in 2000. It appears that he has acted out of fear of what the public would think of him and his policies. Every decision was spun right out of the gate to try to appeal to the majority of people, to appeal, even, to Bush's political adversaries. This apperance of compromise has been clothed in "bipartisanship", but succeed only in disappointing allies and emboldening enemies.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, seems to have a swagger, a confidence that Bush has lacked. I believe this comes mainly as a knowledge that he is the first black president of the United States. It may also come from favorable press coverage. The results of the election, while unquestionably naming Barack the winner, were not so heavily weighed to give the appearance of major consensus; 47.1% of the country wanted someone else to be president. But, however it happened, Obama enjoys that luxury now. I'm interested to see how long he can hold onto it. And what he does with it while he has it.

Point of Interest: Barack Obama won with 52.9% of the popular vote. The last President to garner a greater percentage of the popular vote was W's dad, Bush 41, 20 years ago.