He Walks Among Us, But Is Not One Of Us
Earlier today a friend of mine asked me where I fell on the political spectrum. As we spoke on the matter I was struck by how difficult this was to answer using the modern terminology that is so popular today. “Oh so you’re a classical liberal not a libertarian?”, is there really much difference hese days I might ask? The truth is I find it hard to say which side I am on at times, because neither side really appears to be on my side as it were.
Anyone who has even casually read my writings, or had so much as a five minute conversation with me in person, would know that I am on the right as far as my politics go. I am not shy about my absolute distaste for progressives and the post-modern left in general. I am not totally at home among the contemporary right either, however. I certainly have no problems with capitalism. On the question of free markets versus centrally planned economies the verdict is in and Karl Marx is out. However the essence of modern conservatism, which is really just liberalism before liberals all got thin skins, does not truly describe me either.
Just as the socialist strives to make the state the center of society, so too does the modern day libertarian-conservative seek to center society on the market. In truth I find both choices to be a poor foundation. Both redistribution and materialism are rather pointless goals to center ones existence on. Freedom and liberty for their own sake are not goals I particularly aspire to, but rather self-sufficiency and the dignity that comes from standing on one’s own feet. In the same vein, while I do not believe in handouts and coddling, I do believe that we do owe a certain obligation to our fellow man.
Julius Evola once wrote that his politics were those that would have been perfectly fashionable before the French Revolution. That’s a statement that would be very unfashionable today, sadly. It is one that I feel rather akin to. Often I look at the present and feel that my politics went extinct at the turn of the 19th century. I look to the past and I see ideals upheld of chivalry, and nobility, and the understanding that one’s position in life came with both privilege and duty. Care for one’s fellows did not come from the coercion of the state but rather was an obligation of one’s position. The King ruled, but he ruled with the expectation that it would be for the good of his people.
Of course, as some will doubtlessly point out, it did not always work out in that fashion. To that I would simply state that you can level such criticisms against every creed that has ever been known upon this earth. Point out the injustices of capitalism, and the disciples of Friedman will say “No, no, no. That’s not really how it’s supposed to work”, and if you raise the specter of the Soviet Union’s gulags a chorus of “That’s not real socialism” will be issued from today’s neo-Marxists. The truth is that no ideology can ever be perfectly applied, for human beings are utterly and irredeemably imperfect.
Claiming an ideology for yourself ultimately comes down to taking a set of principles. You chose a spot for yourself and stand upon it. Reactionary, High Tory, Tradtionalist, Monarchist….all are terms you could apply to me and not apply to me. Ultimately, however, what I stand for is God, Queen and Country. Respect for those above myself, and a duty of care to those below. Honour, faith, family, and duty. Keeping true to tradition while also being mindful of the present. That is the spot I stand on. That is the hill I choose to die on. Men are not absolutely equal to one another, some are truly superior to others in some aspects. Some are better suited to certain tasks than others. Yet we are all at the end of the day men, created and loved equally by God. That is my ideology. That is my creed.