Toasting Prince William and his soon-to-be princess this week, the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens made a fine Burkean case for the British crown: “Royalty is the most venerable embodiment of British tradition, tradition is the lifeblood of identity, identity generates social cohesion without resort to force, and social cohesion is the sine qua non of a viable polity.” But I think it’s that “without resort to force” that’s the most important part of the argument. Whatever their customs and traditions, even the most modern polities often find themselves yearning, like the Israelites of old, for a kinglike authority.About which there are several things to say. First: how did that whole 'having a king' thing work out for the Israelites? One of the tropes of early modern political theory is how Israel's experience provides a good argument against monarchy. (Note also in the relevant Biblical passage that God himself doesn't think having a king is a good idea.)
Second: the British monarchy as an example of 'cohesion without resort to force?' The only way one could make this argument is to pretend like the 16th and 17th centuries never happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment