America is too big to have the same style of Republic that our Founders had envisioned.
Just think about how in America’s infancy there were only 13 colonies consisting of white Puritan-minded colonists who were so fresh from England that they were happily identifying as Whigs and Tories. Their situation was not like ours–where soon, half of the population will be black, Hispanic, or Asian, each subset consisting of its own culture. And as far as religion, sure, the citizenry was mostly of the Hebraic-Puritan persuasion, and they were hostile to Catholics; however, the talking heads of that day mostly agreed upon what their culture ought to be. In fact, so sure were they of the nation’s religious unity, that Thomas Jefferson once remarked “that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.”
After 1776, there was little over 3 million citizens in America. Today, there are over 300 million. Blacks and Indians are no longer viewed as sub-human (a good thing). America’s ruling oligarchical elites now pride themselves on the ideas of a multi-ethnic nation, a multicultural nation, and most of all, a nation that is anchored to anything except Christianity. Over a quarter of Americans are non-Christians, likely being either atheists or some other non-Western religion. Islam is actually honored by our PC popular culture in a unique, passive-aggressive style, and Jewish culture is extolled on network television.
This nation is not the same puritanical collection of colonists it once was. It is bigger and more fractured than it ever was. It is an empire, consisting of a multitude of different cultures.
Consider the following passages from Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book, AntiFragile: Things That Gain From Disorder:
“If you increase the size, say, multiply the number of people in a community by a hundred, you will have markedly different dynamics. A large state does not behave at all like a gigantic municipality, much as a baby human does not resemble a smaller adult. The difference is qualitative: the increase in the number of persons in a given community alters the quality of the relationship between parties…If you multiply by ten the number of persons in a given entity, you do not preserve the properties: there is a transformation.”
When we discuss national or local politics, we do not meet up in the local bar, raise our mugs, and proclaim our grievances. Instead, we quietly type away our thoughts on an impersonal Internet that waits for us on a computer screen. We do this because it’s dangerous to speak aloud in such a way in a bar. Not everyone in today’s taverns was raised as you were. It’s not likely that everyone in the bar will share the same religion. And thanks to plurality, there are different ethnicities in that pub, each one likely coming from a culture that is foreign to yours.
The seasoned, “adult” America that we are now does not behave or react in the same way that the fresh, new baby America did when it was first founded.
“Further, biology plays a role in a municipal environment, not in a larger system. An administration is shielded from having to feel the sting of shame (with flushing in his face), a biological reaction to overspending and other failures such as killing people in Vietnam. Eye contact with one’s peers changes one’s behavior. But for a desk-grounded office leech, a number is just a number.
“Someone you see in church Sunday morning would feel uncomfortable for his mistakes–and more responsible for them. On the small, local scale, his body and biological response would direct him to avoid causing harm to others. On a large scale, others are abstract items; given the lack of social contact with the people concerned, the civil servant’s brain leads rather than his emotions–with his numbers, spreadsheets, statistics, more spreadsheets, and theories.”
What is more indifferent and cold than watching and reacting to national news? How can the individual citizens of the United States feel a camaraderie with one another when there are so many of us spread so far apart and with so many differences? A man in Texas has hardly anything in common with a man in New York. A person from Oregon likely cannot happily drink beers with people in Alabama.
When politicians spout their talking points, they do so in reaction to opinion polls. When a man runs for president, it is an enormous challenge for him to keep his constituency ever-present in his mind’s eye, as he is flooded with a torrent of politicians who have demands of their own.
“There is another issue with the abstract state, a psychological one. We humans scorn what is not concrete. We are more easily swayed by a crying baby than by thousands of people dying elsewhere that do not make it to our living room through the TV set. The one case is a tragedy, the other a statistic. Our emotional energy is blind to probability. The media make things worse as they play on our infatuation with anecdotes, our thirst for the sensational, and they cause a great deal of unfairness that way. At the present time, one person is dying of diabetes every seven seconds, but the news can only talk about victims of hurricanes with houses flying in the air.
“The problem is that by creating bureaucracies, we put civil servants in a position to make decisions based on abstract and theoretical matters, with the illusion that they will be making them in a rational, accountable way.
“Also consider that lobbyists–this annoying race of lobbyists–cannot exist in a municipality or small region.”
America was not meant to function this way. This nation was designed to be a democratic republic that would represent a people who shared the same culture, language, and beliefs. But America did not stay that way. It has changed utterly. While America was once a beacon of rebellious Whig Protestantism in the late 1700s, now only half of the nation that’s still Christian is Protestant at all. There is absolutely nothing holding this raft of humanity together–other than an underlying mutual agreement that we all stay comfortable and have a good economy.
St. Bellamarine states that a monarchy is the most stable form of government to have in times of chaos. He further states that democracy can also be a good form of government, provided that the society shares many things in common and is a well-measured and well-mannered society with low chaos.
Yet, America has never been as chaotic as it has been right now. And with this insane level of chaos that our nation is experiencing, throwing democracy to the mob is a path of madness that only further empowers oligarchs. The country is tearing itself apart, and there is no one firmly at the helm. Instead, we have a system of manipulators who run numbers and experiment with different quantities of opinions. The culture is aimed in a certain Leftist direction, and there is hardly a single man (other than the Media’s political enemies) who is held realistically accountable for anything that goes on.
With a Catholic King, this empire that America has become would be under control. Culture and religion would be brought into society. The nation would have a father figure to look to for guidance. A standard would be set for all men. Politics would be less impersonal. A king would not tolerate a media who plays upon “our infatuation with anecdotes.” The country would not be steered by abstract-thinking civil servants, but a flesh and blood man and his royal family.
America is not the young child it once was. The country and the tribes that comprise it have matured into a feral, tameless, deranged adult. If left unbridled, the nation will become consumed with madness. The continent will become a land of savages once more, and this age of prosperity we have been living in will be remembered fondly as mythology.