It is more a testament to Mann and Dewey and the great wave of immigration that overwhelmed the nation's indigenous Constitutional culture with a European worldview that we have slid so far, much to the delight of European investors who meant us no good will by virtue of its instigation through abetting the Civil War.
I am delighted with the author's observation of the importance of respect for tradition and posterity. He fails, however, to recognize that one who would truly live for one-self enriches that daily life by extending the horizon of one's goals and aspirations beyond that life's own span. No need for kings or riches, as the heavenly one will do.
Ah well, he is young and yet still has time to learn.
The problem is, as I see it, that people will not remain vigilant. They will turn from God. Even in good times only a small minority of God centered people exist; in bad times, only a few. Obedience to social heirarchy need not violate justice unduly, and can make bad times survivable. If your community consists of serious Christians now, there is no guarantee about future generations. And those serious Christians will certainly sort themselves out into a heirarchy, and try to pass on social position to their offspring.
I am uncomfortable with his assertion that hierarchical obedience in service to an established hereditary order is necessity to a free society. I think he misses the true message offered by de Toqueville, that people whose obedience is to God and country as the source of their own freedom, will, as long as they remain vigilant, meet every requirement for both vision and continuity he rightly cites as essential to continued liberty.I think that when you describe an obedience to God and country, he would say that is a hierarchial obedience in service to an established hereditary order. In other words, de Toqueville is offering a reaffirmation and specification of the very idea you are saying the author missed.
It is more a testament to Mann and Dewey and the great wave of immigration that overwhelmed the nation's indigenous Constitutional culture with a European worldview that we have slid so far, much to the delight of European investors who meant us no good will by virtue of its instigation through abetting the Civil War.I think these two concepts are tied together. Over generations, in nations throughout the world, there has generally been a distrust or prejudice against foreigners. The enlightened push to remove this prejudice has had adverse consequences that Burke would easily have foreseen, such as the erosion of culture and the degredation of national security. The fear of any single foreigner is irrational; the consequence of a nation losing all suspicion of outsiders, however, is just as severe as the breakdown in sexual morals the author describes. Hatred of foreigners is morally indefensible, but accepting them as one of our own when they are not is a recipie for disaster. It is a tough balancing act on which the western world has been too often on the side of liberalism, and the results have not been good. We should all agree that bigotry, including the hate and including the degradation and including the infringements on dignity and liberty, is wrong and should not be tolerated by a civilized society. But we should all recognize that protecting national interests, including culture, is not bigotry.
I am delighted with the author's observation of the importance of respect for tradition and posterity.
The modern world is much smaller than the old world, and as such immigration and intermingling of cultures would have out of necessity expanded and evolved. But to try to force the issue in some striving for brotherhood may have a romantic appeal but likely has practical consequences of a devastating nature. 9/11 demonstrated this.
People who would run run from a "Savior" cling to Truth.