Checks on Elite Abuse of Power

Recently, on another blog, a reader posed, in the comments section, the question "What serves as a check on elite abuse of power?"

The response I submitted is elaborated on below. My response was not approved, for reasons I can understand, and, indeed, sympathize with.

I am a student of history. I find history fascinating, as well as instructive. As a conservative, I must believe that mankind has not changed all so very much over the ages, and as a conservative, I believe that by looking at the past we can better understand, as through a glass dimly, our present and perhaps our future.

In seeking to answer the question, "What serves as a check on the abuse of power by the elites?" then, I looked to history. Since I have recently been reading some Russian, and some French, history, I turn to these examples.

The status of the Russian peasant was changed to that of serf in 1649 by decree. While certainly not enviable, before that point, the Russian peasant was bound to the land at that time, and became property. (Here I distinguish between feudal dependency, which had been a feature of most European domains, and outright serfdom.) Under serfdom, a landowner could buy, sell or transfer serfs to other landowners. Living under a regime that reduced his status to that of commodity, what recourse did a serf have against abuses by the nobility?

While France has always been agriculturally rich, through the middle ages and into the modern era, the nobility exercised almost complete authority over the peasantry, and oppressed them with taxes and corvees for labor. In the absence of a legal regime to ensure protection of the peasants, how could Jacques Bonhomme protect himself against the abuse of the authority of the nobility?

The answer, for the less dewy eyed of our readers, should be clear. Revolutionary violence was not invented in 1776, or in 1789. The history of both Russian and France is littered with peasant uprisings. (Lest the Anglo-sphere pat itself too severely on the back, I might mention Wat Tyler and the Peasant's Revolt of 1381.) Stenka Rezin convulsed Russia with a peasant uprising. When peasants---or, indeed, any class---find themselves in an intolerable situation, there will generally be an early recourse to violence.

While the great peasant rebellions of history are remembered, many, if not most, peasant rebellions were on a smaller scale. Almost inevitably, given the lack of military organization among the peasantry, these rebellions were quickly crushed by the existing powers. That is, of course, of small consolation to the inhabitants of the chateaux and dachi that were killed, frequently under conditions of utmost brutality, by rebellious peasants who had been pushed beyond their limits.

Elites tend to push. Pushed far enough, the masses tend to push back.

It is no accident that the tale of the sword of Damocles is so well known, or that Shakespeare wrote "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."

When elites push too far, comforted by their legal, moral and ideological regimes, the push-back from the masses is, with distressing frequency, a savage and brutal violence.

The Philosophy of the Report

As regards my political philosophy, I must confess, with some reluctance, to being conservative.

I say "with some reluctance" because what is today called conservatism seems, to me, to have traded its inheritance for a mess of pottage, and "conservative" is generally another way to say "GOP supporter."

I do not support the GOP. In my evaluation, the Republican Party is to a slight degree less hostile to, and less destructive of, what I regard as traditional America, and traditional American values, than the Democratic Party, but it is a close call. To my mind, both parties are bought and paid for shills of corporatist America (sometimes bought and paid for by the same companies).

I am an unapologetic nationalist. I rather like President Eisenhower's comment, "I have one yardstick by which I test every major problem - and that yardstick is: Is it good for America?"

I believe in a strong national defense, while thinking that America has become over-militarized, and bemoaning that conservatives of today have turned their backs on John Quincy Adams' declaration that America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

I am a nativist. I was born into a country that was 87% white, 12% black, with a statistically insignificant sprinkling of other races. For the life of me, I cannot see what was so terribly, horribly wrong with that. (Per the US Government, Hispanics in 1970 were approximately 5% of the population, lumped under the white population.)

I have tremendous respect for various other peoples of the world, for varying reasons and in varying amounts. I admire the Afghans for their vicious hillbilly resistance to change, I admire the Persians for their poetry and their carpets, I admire the Jews for their long history and ability, I admire the French for their courtliness, I admire the Italians for their long history of art, I admire the Swedes and the Finns and the Turks and the Basque---and I see no compelling need to admit vast numbers of any of those peoples into the United States.

I believe that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, but do not believe that all men are created equal in talent, or ability, or virtue. I do not believe that the equality of man means, guarantees, implies or indeed is connected to any equality of outcome.

I suppose, depending upon the definition used, that I am a racist. I believe, that is, that there are various races, and that both physical and mental abilities and development vary among such races, and, indeed, among smaller populations which could perhaps be referred to as sub-races. I am, in American terms, white, and with more specificity Anglo-Celtic with a dash of German. I am quite proud of what my forefathers did.

I am a fairly unapologetic Christian. I find my faith comforting in many ways, and uncomfortable in others. Christianity forms the basis of my ethics, and imposes responsibilities upon me that I might happily ignore were I an atheist. Being Christian no more causes me to hate those who profess a different religion than being white causes me to hate those of different races.

I am reluctant to endorse any radical new solutions; having seen the havoc wrought upon the stability and prosperity of my country by various radical new solutions over the past half century. Among the radical new innovations adopted by the United States, which I believe have exerted a radically deleterious effect upon the country, I number no-fault divorce, women's lib, disproportionate impact and the radical expansion of criminal's rights and, most recently, the very new innovation referred to as homosexual marriage.

I believe that men and women are different, and complementary. I believe that children are best raised by a husband and wife who are father and mother to the child.

I do not believe in the perfectibility of man.

I believe in the importance of the environment, and wise use of the bounties of this earth.

In short, the political philosophy of this Report is frequently, if not always, diametrically opposed to current philosophical fads.

Why Hunsdon?

For the last year or so, when I have submitted comments to various conservative blogs, I have used the nom du internet of "Hunsdon." I am not, in point of fact, Hunsdon. In point of fact, even Hunsdon was not Hunsdon---he was more properly Henry Carey, created Baron Hunsdon by his kinswoman Elizabeth I. Of greatest interest to me was his extensive service as Warden of the Eastern March, that portion of the border country lying between England and Scotland.

Hunsdon served as warden of the Eastern March for nearly thirty years, and as Lord Warden of the Marches for seven years.

This was the time of the border reivers, an unsettled time, when the stability and civilization of Edinburgh and London were only vague rumors, and where law was enforced with fire, and with sword, and with the rope. Word on the border was that Hunsdon was hard, but fair.

Hunsdon was famously blunt, even in court. When Queen Elizabeth offered, as he was dying, to create him Earl Wiltshire, he responded, "Madam, as you did not count me worthy of this honour in life, then I shall account myself not worthy of it in death."

In writing this blog, I shall strive to emulate Hunsdon. I shall pull no punches, but throw no punches absent reason. I shall strive to comment fairly on matters of concern or import.