Why Liberals don't understand

Yesterday I was puzzled by a short, casual conversation I had with a class colleague. It has occurred to me that the republican tradition of thought and speech is so forgotten, and contemporary debate has departed so much from it, that people actually can't understand, and usually misunderstand when one speaks of republicanism. It seems to me like if we were talking two different languages, where the notions of one translate into the complete opposite in the mind of the other. This difference must be mended, and some common ground must be built from the classical republican tradition for liberals to ever start to understand what we are saying in the first place, which doesn't seem to be the case most of the time.

First of all I would like to explain from where my inspiration in republicanism comes from. I think this is something shared between intellectuals and academics in this tradition, but it is a feature that seems to be left aside. Republicans are deeply influenced by the Roman experience. Rome is a symbol of the highest degree in our thought and ideas (even more than Sparta and Athens, Venice or Florence). However I've realized that common-sense thought has a completely different understanding by the symbol Rome, and from here springs the most radical of contradictions.

It took me some time to realize this, but when I speak Rome, I've noticed that almost everyone thinks and remembers the experience of the Roman Empire, the period of the Caesars, the longest tyranny known so far. The great abyss between me and most liberal interlocutors starts here. When I speak Rome, it seems self-evident to me that I'm referring to the Roman Republic, its institutions, its laws, its traditions, its multiple inter-generational heroes and their political virtues and prudence. The Rome of the Scipios, of Fabio Maximus and Marcellus, Titus Flaminius, Aemilio Paulus, Cato the Older and even up to the decadent times of Cicero and Cato the Younger, Brutus and Cassius. The Rome that defeated Pirrus and Carthage, and that put the Macedonian dynasties to their knees. This Rome is so different, and contrasts so much with the Rome enslaved by Octavius, that the sole names Imperator and Caesar should strike republicans with obnoxious feelings. This is the first thing that people must understand when we speak the name of Rome, and not the nefarious names of Caligula and Nero. Not only is it Caesarism reason of repugnance in itself as a tyranny, as Tacitus well portrays, but also for the reason it was Caesarism that violently killed the republican dream, as we read in Sallust.

Another name that strikes liberals in a totally alienated way is that of Machiavelli. The Florentine writer is probably one of the most influential and venerated thinkers in Western republican tradition. Most people would be surprised by this, and it is because most people associate Machiavelli with The Prince, the most insightful treaty on tyrannical rule. They forget that more than The Prince, it is in The Discourses that we read the sincere and honest Machiavelli. A treatise based on comments on Titus Livy's History of Rome, The Discourses are a profound explanation of the classical republican creed previous to liberal ideas, and its respective abhorrence toward tyranny (In The History of Florence there is also a wealthy account of Machiavelli's republicanism as opposed to tyranny). People, in a curious parallel of thinking in Rome as the Empire instead of as the Republic, hear and think of Machiavelli as The Prince, instead of as The Discourses. Of course popular culture is partly to blame. The Prince is so much more famous, just as Ceasars are so much more portrayed in movies and literature than the ancient patriots. No wonder why people get so surprised when you tell them that your examples and highest symbols are Rome and Machiavelli, names that common-sense remembers with dread instead of admiration. This memory of only part of the story (the ugly part), plays a role in what makes the republican tradition so alien in our liberal-dominated times.

These misconceptions, errors in communication, make liberal and republican tradition seem so exclusive, whereas in sooth it's not the case. Common ground between both is not scarce, especially because liberalism first emerged as a branch of classical republicanism. But today's liberal confusion of portraying republicanism as an authoritarian ideology kindred in spirit to fascism is nothing but a blatant calumny, demonstrating nothing but short-sightedness and ignorance. However it is true that republicanism in its classical form is a-liberal, which is not the same as to say anty-liberal! A-liberal in the sense that its political values are previous to liberalism, and somehow lack many of its features, and for good reasons. While liberals are so concerned about the danger of coercing the individual, republicans are deeply disturbed by the potentiality of the tyrant, historically embodied by Julius Caesar. Liberals don't care much about who's in power and how, as long as he behaves and respects individual rights; republicans can't understand this respect for citizens without addressing the structure of political institutions in relation to citizenship itself.

Probably the most contrasting difference between liberals and republicans is that they focus, give priority and value different things. Tyranny, that is, uni-personal arbitrary and illegitimate rule is the most obnoxious possibility for republican tradition; considered the ultimate state of political slavery. Whereas for liberals individual rights and entitlements are universal, and any violation of what they interpret as these rights is illegitimate (Even the tyrant has rights). For republican thought this might be nothing more than absolute naivete, because the most important value is patriotism, the love for your country, its institutions and its liberty. This could contradict what liberals consider individual universal rights, especially if it implies making war against another country, where the most human of rights, life, is systematically alienated. This might be true also for republicans, but from our perspective it's a price we have to pay in the service of our country. Individual rights are just simply not that relevant when the safety and liberty of your country is at stake (Lincoln proved it). This is a statement of facts that usually liberals are not willing to acknowledge. Differences of this short are those that would permit, for example, discrepancy regarding Israel. Whereas I as a republican admire the strength and courage of Israel's republic, a liberal would focus on its terrible human rights record. It's not that I deny this record to be condemnable, which it is; it's just that I don't consider it politically relevant. The same happens when liberals are willing to negotiate with a mild dictator (as it happens so often when they use the fetish concept self-determination), whereas republican thought finds them obnoxious and worthy of intervention and replacement (let us say, a nefarious tyrant like Saddam Hussein, or today's Gaddafi!).

In conclusion, something that liberals are inclined to do: they confuse patriotism with nationalism, which would make republicanism side by side with a regime of a man like Mussolini, for example. Under republican standards, any regime like those of Bonaparte, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Peron, Castro, Chavez, etc., stand in the hall of the Caesars; of Tiberius, Caligula, Neron, Commodus, etc. A liberal could like Marcus Aurelius (like J. S. Mill did), but a republican would always repudiate its regime as a matter of political principles. Republicanism demands republic, and it's logically irreconcilable with any style of tyrant. Hobbes is a correct example that liberals wouldn't necessarily pass this test.

A defence on the Right to bear and keep Arms

In the United States there is a long debate regarding the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Personally, I'm a strong advocate of the rights established in it. The amendment as it is written in the Bill of Rights reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are plenty of arguments used in favor of regulating the right to bear and keep arms. These arguments take actual relevance in the aftermath of massacres, like the resent one in Tucson, Arizona. Many say that this right only endangers the life and security of average Americans, as mentally unhealthy persons carry, and sometimes use arms to perpetrate massacres. The anxiety caused by this right is intensified by school shootings, like Columbine (1999) and Virginia Tech (2007), which takes the life of youth and children. Especially for mothers, the right to bear and keep arms usually represents a threat to their children. Another current argument is the regulation of this right in order to combat crime, particularly gangs in big cities. Usually violence caused by firearms is the main reason used by liberals to regulate them. Recently I even heard the argument that the Second Amendment should be repelled by another amendment, so to end the debate in favor of disarmament.

Now, I'm not gonna follow the recurrent conservative answer "guns don't kill people; people kill people", because it has almost turn into a fetish; a pill argument to simply end the conversation. Instead of trying to convince the liberal, or making her understand the reasons for it, we just simply alienate ourselves from the other. And democracy cannot survive without debate and a level of agreement between the parts. Such a defense is mediocre, and it doesn't even tackle the real and valuable reasons why the Second Amendment should and must prevail.

Let us start by analyzing the content of the written text and its meaning. The first part of the amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". The reason is already given. It implies that the survival of the freedom of the political community, the people composing it must be minimally organized in order to defend it. The goal is preserving freedom. It also implies aggression: external or internal threats to the constitution of freedom. We are before the most republicanist of arguments; freedom demands from its citizens the duty to defend it. Militia is the technique. This means that the United States cannot solely depend on a standing professional army to defend it. The citizen must also be engaged in the defense of their country and its institutions. How could he ever do this, fulfill this duty, if his right to bear and keep arms is infringed?

It is warranted to ask, why would the citizens have to engage themselves in the defense of their country if a standing professional army is already in place? To know the answer to this question we must go back to the times of the Founding Fathers. The American Revolution must also be understood as a rebellion against European power and ideas. But in this amendment we see a rebellion against one of the core characteristics of the European Modern State that was developing since the 17th century, but that was theoretically explained by 20th century German sociologist Max Weber: the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence. Weber discovered that the European State in its modern form expropriates all its individual and grouped members from any kind of use of violence, and by creating a monopoly of its means it claimed legitimacy over them. This policy was advanced by both monarchical governments, as by latter parliaments and republics in Europe. The result was an all powerful State that claimed the right to declare war and suppress sedition without opposition. Only the State would guarantee the defense of its citizens, leaving them defenseless from the State itself. The virtual link between people and democratized State helped hide this charade; because, if the State was the political abstraction that represented the people, the State would be the people, and the individual and grouped citizens wouldn't have to be armed without being defended.

The Americans thought differently. Their experience showed that the republic, and the liberty that springs from it, cannot be preserved without its citizens being actively engaged in certain duties. Among them the duty to defend the constitution against aggressors. One thing that the Europeans neglected, and that, thank God, Americans still preserve, is the common wisdom that the State is also a potential threat to the freedoms established in the republican constitution. State and Republic are not the same. Republic is freedom, State is planing and organizing. Republic is an idea of free community, State is a human machine of administering public policies. If the State claims a monopoly of the means of violence (of the means of self-defense), not always, but usually, it can use that monopoly to end the Republic; especially and mostly if the State has at its disposal a professional standing army. Quoting European, Hispanic-American, Asian and the Russian examples of this phenomenon are so abundant that it would be sterile trying to. How defenseless Americans would be if one day, and let us pray that day may never come, a tyrant usurps the power of the State and the citizens lack the weapons to defend the Republic against him. That would be a certain tragedy!

Today Americans rest comfortably on the security of their constitution. More than two centuries of the republic's success have blind them of the ever existing dangers against freedom. Many still carry this wisdom within their hearts. But an increasing minority has lost perspective of the value of the Second Amendment. Recent tragedies expressed by the shootings of civilians have turned their attention toward a social problem (which is reasonable and warranted), but they forget the political meaning of the right to bear and keep arms, without which no free State can be secured, and which infringement puts its survival at jeopardy.

Liberty in pills

"I shall not be very desirous of living in a city in which individuals are more powerful than laws; for that country alone is desirable in which property and friends may be safely enjoyed, not one where they me easily be taken from us, and where friends, from fear of losing their property, are compelled to abandon each other in their greatest need. Besides, it has always been less painful to good men to hear of the misfortunes of their country than to witness them; and an honorable exile is always held in greater esteem than slavery at home" (Machiavelli; History of Florence; Book IV, Ch. 7).

Any coincidence? Sounds familiar?

Opening the year with Machiavelli

What is a freedom and free government? Let his authority speak for itself:

"Republican governments, more especially those imperfectly organized, frequently change their rules and the form of their institutions; not by the influence of liberty and subjection, as many suppose, but by that of slavery and license; for with the nobility or the people, the ministers respectively of slavery or licentiousness, only the name or liberty is in estimation, neither of them choosing to be subject either to magistrates or laws. When, however, a good, wise, and powerful citizen appears (which is but seldom), who established ordinances capable of appeasing or restraining these contending dispositions, so as to prevent them from doing mischief, then the government may be called free, and its institutions firm and secure; for having good laws for its basis, and good regulations for carrying them into effect, it needs not, like others, the virtue of one man for its maintenance. With such excellent laws and institutions, many of those ancient republics, which were of long duration, were endowed. But these advantages are, and always have been, denied to those which frequently change from tyranny to license, or the reverse; because, from the powerful enemies which each condition creates itself, they neither have, nor can possess any stability; for tyranny cannot please the good, and license is offensive to the wise: the former may easily be productive of mischief, while the latter can scarcely be beneficial; in the former, the insolent have too much authority, and in the latter, the foolish; so that each requires for their welfare the virtue and the good fortune of some individual who may be removed by death, or become unserviceable by misfortune" (Machiavelli: History of Florence: IV: Ch.1).

Why being a Republican?

Recent reflexions have led me to think about the current relevance of being a republican. And by this label let it be know that I talk about the comprehensive political ideology that supports a specific form of government as opposed to all the others, as well as the ethical requirements and consequences of such form of government. This said, for now I'm not talking about the republican party of the United States.

I was rethinking about the relevance of being republican because of the fact that the republic as a political program of form of government has triumphed in the Western world. After centuries of struggles, wars and revolutions, at last republican institutions are predominant in our civilization. We don't have to fight the evils of tyrannical monarchs anymore. All those tyrants are defeated. Here in the United States everyone is republican, in the sense that much more than the average citizen acknowledges, defends and admires the republican constitution of their country. Being a republican, as well as believing in its freedom is something "everyone" honestly claims. There is no need to stress its values against its enemies, all of whom seem to be defeated. Why insisting in defending some principles that are apparently redundant in our times?

The difference between parties is less of a dichotomy of republican against democratic principles. Both parties have lost connection to the real meaning of their names, and they serve now only as labels in the day to day public debate. I insist, both democratic and republican parties are republican in the sense that I explained. And they are because both defend the principles expressed in the constitution of the American form of government. None is supporting the establishment of a monarchy or anything closely resembled. Both are sincerely patriotic. Both defend what is commonly referred as the Democratic Creed. What is their difference then? Not a small one I would say. More accurate names for what they really stand for would be: conservative party for republicans, and liberal-progressive party for democrats. And the difference does not lie in opposed conceptions of the republic. On the contrary, both deeply committed to its creed, in what they really differ is in how the republican form of government should be administered. But the republic itself is never into question. In this sense both are republicans as a matter of principle.

Why insisting today in being a republican then? What difference does it makes? If we are republicans, independently of being conservatives or liberal-progressives, why labeling us with a name that does no say anything peculiar of us? It seems to me that the defense of republican values is never outdated, for thinking so is nothing but the naive idea that the achievements that we conquered are eternal. As time goes by the republican institutions corrode themselves, and windows for new threads open. One of them is the standing professional army, probably the latent and most dangerous force in overthrowing republics. Another is the increase of public apathy or malcontent. A third one is the politicians tendency for corruption. A convinced republican must know that freedom is never fully secured and a committed citizen is always on the watch for potential tyrants and foreign enemies. In this sense republicanism makes a call for constant militancy in the ideas and values expressed in the constitution of our republic.

The democratic party had a name with meaning when it got Andrew Jackson to the presidency, and the vote franchise was extended to all adult males without distinction in property nor class placing them all as equals. The republican party had a name with meaning when it got Abraham Lincoln to the presidency, and the emancipation reform that put an end to the existing dominion of some men over others setting them all free. Democratic equality and republican freedom where both accomplished at the birth of their respective parties. But today it seems that both stand for things totally different. Time made common and usual what once was extraordinary and novel. The meaning of being a republican today lies more in the preservation of that conviction in the values expressed in the constitution of the form of government. But also awareness of the future dangers that the republic's freedom will face, and be ready to stand against them with courage and patriotism. Tyrants are murderers of republics, and there is at least one born every new generation of citizens. It is against that possibility that modern republicanism must stand for, and cut and destroy the possible weapons that might be used against its freedom.

Thucydides and Republicanism

"For though it be the part of discreet men to be quiet unless they have wrong, yet it is the part of valiant men, when they receive injury, to pass from peace to war, and after success, from war to come again to composition, and neither to swell with the good success of war nor to suffer injury through pleasure taken in the ease of peace. For him whom pleasure makes a coward, if he sit still, shall quickly lose the sweetness of the ease that made him so" (Thucydides: I: 120).

This might sound an ethic of an eye for an eye, but real political wisdom is at place here. Liberal pacifist ideas are so common these days, and especially among educated middle class young people, that what seems to be the most basic common sense is underestimated as simple chauvinism. War is never good from a moral standing point. But then, politics and morality depart when the most extreme circumstances come at play. When a country is attacked, or humiliated, or some external aggression is inflicted upon it, how can we expect it to lay down? As Thucydides accurately points out, that would be nothing but a cowardly behavior.

Another thing is at play. Peace and prosperity bring pleasure and laziness. Liberal thinking, again, at defending the individual's choice at all cost, render any kind of personal sacrifice (either for country or religion) as irrational, unnecessary or crude fanaticism. The problem of the ease of peace is that, by making men lazy, it makes them cowards; it softens their characters, making them fall in love with their pleasures; and when the time comes that their liberty to be lazy is threatened and the risk of being taken away by tyrants or conquerors, they are overthrown by panic or indolence, which result in crude slavery. Today's liberal ideas (and particularly libertarians'), are nothing but a very complicated set of political and ethical beliefs that are the truest road toward losing any liberty at all and falling into the longest period of slavery.

"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" John F. Kennedy, presidential inaugural address, January 20, 1961.