The loss of Depravation (I NO LONGER HOLD MANY OF THE THINGS SAID HERE)

The sense of depravation is an experience that every decade after another has been lost in our current culture. What first started as a war against the corrupted and tyrannical Catholic clergy in Europe, turned into a war against the principles of its faith. Trying to be more rational we end up becoming nihilistic. No longer the war was against the bishops, but it was against God. By the turn of the 20th century we inherited two thousand years of Christian morality and tradition, but no longer with the hopeful belief in Christ. Curiously enough this loss of our moral standards came with the final triumph of democracy, and the first thing that comes to my mind is what Plato wrote in Book VIII of The Republic. However, let us remain in our monotheistic times.

Our loss was not only in the field of morality. No longer able to distinguish clearly between good and evil, we also lost our capacity to distinguish between the beauty and the ugly. Our sense of aesthetics was also gone. In a culture that gave birth to Rembrandt, we now enlighten ourselves with "conceptual art". In a society that gave birth to Beethoven, we now enjoy the talent of Britney Spears and Daddy Yankee. In a civilization that gave birth to Shakespeare, we now sit and watch the Jersey Shore. For me the difference is anything but problematical, if not self-evident. However not everyone sees it that way. What once was the line between the genius, the mediocre and the vulgar, today is a matter of taste. Is it because we are now more enlightened, because progress has made us better men, more tolerant and free-minded? Or is it because the state of our current culture is so wasted, so broken, that no longer can we recognize ourselves and we have given license to our most depraved senses?

I started this comment with the word depravation. I would like to return to the original meaning of this post by pointing out the squalid, if not crippled, state of our contemporary culture, the Western civilization. To remind us the loss of our aesthetical values is nothing but a way of remembering the loss of our moral values. As this goes on, our actions and practices as a society and the individuals living in it grow more depraved. We cannot stop it because we are handicapped of our sense to perceive and experience depravation as what it is in itself. Again, today is only a matter of taste. The peak, or the crown of this phenomenon is our stance regarding homosexuality.

Beware of what I'm about to say: our human soul is morally base, we incline toward corruption very easily, and I advance that almost all individuals, excepting perhaps the Saints, have and withhold a kind of depravation. To state a very usual example, pornography. A person that has lost the sense that pornography is a depraved cultural phenomenon has lost any sense of moral conduct whatsoever. He cannot even think morally. Morality as such is seen incomprehensibly. But still, pornography is widely watched even by persons with moral understanding. The difference is, while some admit their depravity with humility and probably guilt, others deny the notion of depravity itself, and engage in it without any experience of remorse at all. What I want to stress here is the inevitable depravation of our base instincts and our impossibility to eradicate them from our spirit. What we do, instead, is behave in society, we try to conceal it or to moderate it somehow not to insult or offend others around us, as a matter of education and respect.

Now I make my stance on homosexuality. Only a person that has lost a sense of morality would deny the experience of depravation. This has happened to a vast portion of the Western population. Because of this, homosexuality, which beyond personal opinion is a moral depravation wherever it is placed in any fragment of our Christian inheritance, is today seen by many as something completely casual and even legitimate. What a person does and thinks in his private sphere is not of my business. As I have stated previously, we all share a kind of depravation. Homosexuals have theirs; in this case the condition of homosexuality itself. I find that normal.

What I don't find normal, nor legitimate, is that motto that runs "Gay Pride". However something is true about it. Pride is one of the capital sins in Christian theology. It's precisely the moral baseness that prevents us from acting with humility and admitting that we might be wrong. Pride is equal to arrogance and haughtiness. I'm twisting the real meaning of "Gay Pride" on purpose for the sake of the argument. I'm not against individuals' depravations. That's up to everyone individually and their relation to God enjoyed in their private spheres. I'm talking about this pride of showing off to the world their depravation, and trying to force us to admit it as something casual and natural in the public sphere. The loss of our sense of depravation has made one of the most depraved behaviors, only surpassed because pederasty exists, a thing of common speech. Homosexuality, and what they call gay rights, is make public what should be private. Forcing everyone to bare the depravations of others in public, in the squares, in the parks, on the streets, in the supermarket, and even inside the churches.

I don't deny that depravation might be natural within our souls. It can't be purged. Such pretension can even be monstrous. But I think that our depravations should be keep up to ourselves. "Gay rights" and homosexuality has turned into an issue in which living a respectful, moral and conscious public life is impossible if not even a motive of derision. The cause of liberty, by being wrongly used against morality, is turning virtuous republicanism into a depraved ochlocracy; especially in the last country of the Western civilization that preserves barely what we once used to be as a culture: the United States.

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).

Closing the year with Machiavelli

I don't have to come up with new arguments, because all of them are already written. I don't have to use new words to explain what takes place in Venezuela, as it takes place in all Hispanic-American republics, regarding political parties, avarice and ambition. What today happens in Caracas, happened centuries ago in Florence and ages ago in Athens. I would like to say that it is art and philosophy, but I'm talking about faction and corruption. I would like to say that is only the government, but it is the same with the opposition parties and factions.

For the sake of the argument, just read city as country, liberty as democracy, and Italy as Venezuela.

"Certainly in the cities of Italy all that is corruptible and corrupting is assembled. The young are idle, the old lascivious, and each sex and every age abounds with debasing habits, which the good laws, by misapplication, have lost the power to correct. Hence arises the avarice so observable among the citizens, and the greediness, not for true glory, but for unworthy honors; from which follows hatred, animosities, quarrels, and factions; resulting in deaths, banishments, affliction to all good men, and the advancement of the most unprincipled; for the good, confiding in their innocence, seek neither safety nor advancement by illegal methods as the wicked do, and thus unhonored and undefended they sink into oblivion.

From proceedings such as these, arise at once the attachment for and influence of parties; bad men follow them through ambition and avarice, and necessity compels the good to pursue the same course. And most lamentable is it to observe how the leaders and movers of parties sanctify their base designs with words that are all piety and virtue; they have the name of liberty constantly in their mouths, though their actions prove them her greatest enemies. The reward which they desire from victory is not the glory of having given liberty to the city, but the satisfaction of having vanquished the others, and of making themselves rulers; and to attain the end, there is nothing too unjust, too cruel, too avaricious for them to attempt. Thus laws and ordinances, peace, wars, and treaties are adopted and pursued, not for the public good, not for the common glory of the state, but for the convenience and advantage of a few individuals.

And if other cities abound in these disorders, ours is more than any infected with them; for her laws, statutes, and civil ordinances are not, nor have they ever been, established for the benefit of men in a state of freedom, but according to the wish of the faction that has been uppermost at the time. Hence it follows that, when one party is expelled, or faction extinguished, another immediately arises; for, in a city that is governed by parties rather than by laws, as soon as one becomes dominant and unopposed, it must of necessity soon divide against itself; for the private methods at first adapted for its defense will now no longer keep it united. The truth of this, both the ancient and modern dissensions of our city prove." (Machiavelli; History of Florence: III; Ch. 1).

Pessimism from Exile

Now that Chavez is, again, moving forward his dictatorial agenda with the recent set of measures regarding the University, freedom of speech through the internet and more measures to reduce private property to nothing more than a concession of his goodwill, I need to express some things.

He is waging the same strategy he uses every single year since the students fully enrolled in the struggle against his tyrannical rule; he is advancing his plans during holidays, where most of the people is interested in having a good time with their families than risking their lives participating in politics. However, today, the 23rd of December a group of students gathered at our Alma Mater (I recently graduated from this University, the main University in our country) to make a protests against Chavez's law of universities that would practically end its existence as such.

The truth is, I'm writing from outside my homeland. I no longer share the danger of fighting for Venezuelan freedom, and I ask my people to continue the fighting whilst I'm comfortably sitting on a couch in North Miami. Why do I keep insisting in Venezuelan freedom if I have already deserted it? It's so easy that I actually feel it's shameful.

However I have my reasons. First, my ties to my country remain strong, even though I have been trying to remain away. But most importantly, I have given enough and taken enough risks in fighting for Venezuelan freedom. As an average person, I grew tired. Call me a coward, but I also have other goals in life that I'm no willing to sacrifice.

Freedom is the most important good for a free spirit and mind. We Westerns lean toward the free spirit. I am no exception. Back home I participated in the common struggle against Chavez tyrannical regime. We all faced the police, the national guard, the regime's gangs, even the military. We faced them, and many times it turned violent; and many times, even though fear sprang strongly in our hearts, we kept on going. As with faith, freedom might be among the only goods worth dying for. We tried to trigger the revolution that would topple the government. We conspired, we tried to organize. We, those that do not believe in the hypocritical and mediocrity of political parties and opposition leaders tried our own way. We failed. We tried to create a third way to oppose the tyranny. The parties and their imbecility poisoned our leadership and excluded those that dissented from them.

We were faced with a dilemma; continuing the struggle led by the most short-sighted mediocre leadership, or give up, which means two things: join the regime or fly out. I chose the latter.

Today I see these students that adamantly keep on fighting the tyranny on a 23rd of December. Somehow I envy them, but I also feel pity for them. On the one hand, having hopes to make freedom prevail by turning martyrs is something praiseworthy. On the other, it seems nothing more than a silly insistence to save a people that does not worth the effort. Nonetheless, my hopes are to see the rising dictatorship of Chavez overthrown by whoever have the strength to do so. One of the few things that I have learned from both books and our personal experience is that revolution for freedom is never achieved without violence, blood and death. Only an extraordinarily civil unrest would trigger any of both a capitulation of the regime, or its final triumph over liberty. No one can deny it, we gave it a try. But life goes on, and people have other goals, other wishes for the future. As most of my friends I am exhausted of trying to trigger Chavez's overthrow. Venezuelan people doesn't seem to be prepared for freedom. Those that do want it and do appreciate it might have to go look somewhere else.

A comment on Machiavelli's Florence

"Wars abroad and peace within the city had caused the Guelph and Ghibelline factions to become almost extinct; and the only party feeling which seemed occasionally to glow, was that which naturally exists in all cities between the higher classes and the people; for the latter, wishing to live in conformity with the laws, and the former to be themselves the rulers of the people, it was not possible for them to abide in perfect amity together" (Machiavelli: History of Florence: II: ch.3)

The enlightening thing about reading Machiavelli is the depth and complexity of content we find commonly in so small fragments. By the end of the 13th century AC, Florence had experience a series of revolutions and counterrevolutions that sprang by the division between Guelph and Ghibelline, the main political line of cleavage in Italian Middle Ages. Nobility was divided between the parties of the Pope and the Emperor, a contradiction that caused war, revenge and hostility within almost all Italian Cities (with the extraordinary exception of Venice). Such an ideological antitheses prevented any kind of patriotic feeling from emerging between Italians, as Imperial armies and the Church's excommunication decrees spread all around the peninsula. The critical vision of Machiavelli regarding the Italy of his time is the reason many consider him one of the fathers of European nationalism, starting the 16th century AC.

But once this line of cleavage started to blur, as Emperors couldn't control the Popes' capacity to incite division, the difference among the nobility also lost meaning. Machiavelli shows an early understanding of class division in society that closely resembles later historic materialism. The natural struggle in any society, our Florentine author is well aware of, consists of social class division, and consecutive party allegiances and revolutions will bear this powerful mark. The materialistic division of society is today difficult to deny, as continually it repeats itself in every case,and somehow Marxism doesn't seem so novel after all.

But what is even more interesting is Machiavelli's final statement. The people is interested in the rule of the law, whilst nobility is interested in power. The class struggles assumes a particularly political nature. It is not about welfare or liberty from the world of needs, but we are in the realm of political freedom. The assumption is that democratic forces in society are inclined toward what the Greeks called isonomia, and we translate as equality before the law. As Marxism, Liberalism doesn't seem that extraordinary. The party of the people sees in the rule of self-imposed law the only guard for freedom, whereas nobility is only concerned with imposing its regime of privileges. The aim is not possessing the means of production, which are only but means to become influential. Controlling political power which is what gives food for pride and glory is the real aim of ambitious domination.

This is a general review of a single fragment in one of Machiavelli's most important works, however not so widely famous. My share with you is just part of our entire reflection of politics and the nature of liberty in the republic.

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.