The basic philosophical problem with the otherwise impressive Daniel Hannan, is that he has no discernible reverence for ancient Christian monarchy and reserves his greatest jubilation for history's triumphs over kings. There are four places in the world which I never visit without a sense of reverence, almost of pilgrimage. Three are in Britain: Stratford, where the greatest mind produced by our species was shaped; Runnymede, where the idea that governments should be answerable to their peoples was encoded; and Naseby, where the victory of constitutional parliamentary authority was secured. The fourth is the old courthouse in Philadelphia where the US Declaration of Independence was signed and where, later, the Constitution was drafted.To be sure there's much to like here, but while we all love Shakespeare, we shouldn't be surprised if Hannan's favourite tragic play is MacBeth's regicide of King Duncan. All Whig and no Tory, Roundhead values with no Cavalier tastes. So foul and fair a day I have not seen.
The problem with this milquetoast monarchist is that all his heroes are republican, from John Milton to Thomas Jefferson. Yes he looks up to Burke, but probably only the most Whiggish aspects of the man. Aren't the truly great men in history those who managed to fuse their classical liberalism with traditional conservative values - liberal conservative thinkers and principled floor crossers like Burke, Churchill, Russell Kirk and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn?
I mean, what prospect of future progress is there in championing the one-dimensional fact that people wrestled away power from their kings long ago? Yes they did, and yes it was good up to a point, but what, pray, has been happening over the last hundred years or so? Are we okay with the fact that government of the people has grown from taking 10% of our earnings to more than 50% today? Do we really enjoy greater liberty today than we did under the influence of the king's men? Is there any real prospect of ever wrestling power away from politicians and putting it back in the hands of the individual where it belongs? No, not under the current system, the spoils of government are just too enticing for ambition to ignore, politicians prefer the corruption of Walpole over the patriotism of Bolingbroke.
My issue with Daniel Hannan is that while he rails splendidly against the former, he is at best a limp, halfhearted and perfunctory torch-bearer for the latter.
"Politicians prefer the corruption of Walpole over the patriotism of Bolingbroke".
ReplyDeleteYep, that about summarizes it. A beautiful succinct truth.
For all the reasons you cite and more I am sick of "conservative" adulation of this overrated Cromwellian Whig, just because he once demolished the easily demolish-able Gordon Brown. As an unreconstructed Tory who despises the American Founding as Treason, I don't feel that I have anything important with Hannan at all. He should be American and I should be British.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't worry about him. He is small fry. For we've had his big EU Election year performance. I reckon his next big stunt, with fireworks, is in 2015. The date of his next election campaign. Don't tell me you didn't notice. Hee! Hee! Hee!
ReplyDeleteI hear you, Mr. Harvey. The historical tragedy is that we had to choose at all between being British and being American. Had all the American colonies remained loyal, not just the Canadian ones, it is enjoyable to contemplate the "what ifs".
ReplyDeleteNo revolution, no war of 1812, no great war would have ensued if the British Empire was twice the power it already was. Demographics and the tide of power from Britain to America would have sooner or later necessitated a permanent move by the Royals to encastle in North America. And the world would have been made safe for monarchy!