Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Who Are We? Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/who_are_we#26408 Post contents: Mr Almoni, I think you are quite right in your assessment of Weberian versus Maistrian legitimacy. It comes down to metaphysics, of course, not politics, but then again all great political questions of legitimacy hinge on metaphysics. A Thomist could not accept the Weberian conception of legitimacy, nor could any French Legitimist, Carlist, or any old-style monarchist who believes not in positivism but in succession and sovereignty being decided by the grace of God's Providence. The problem is an undue stress on the comparative (and thus subjective) aspect as opposed to the objective. One must treat of such questions of objective legitimacy according to the corresponding objective criteria, which precludes positivism. Naturally, there are infinite opinions of what this objective standard actually is, but the point remains. Quite frankly, I do not think 'conservative' functions well as a noun and should always retain its original place as an adjective. The Legitimists, actually, have a similar problem in that they are not ideological. They defend an assortment of theological propositions, organic customs, and prejudices that developed through history with the nourishment of a sane, fervently Catholic society. In an age of discussion and policy platforms, such a position poses considerable difficulties to proselytisation. The same applies for the Carlists. While these two groups are undisputedly 'conservative,' whatever that word means, so could the Gaullists, Orléanists, and Isabellines be so considered once we introduce, yet again, the Weberian definition. Do the Legitimists and Carlists accept the French Republic or constitutional monarchy, respectively ? Absolutely not. Do the Gaullists, Orléanists, and Isabellines ? Yes (respectively). Yet both the ancien régime and the new are considered 'legitimate institutions' under the same definition, which Bramwell rebuts and undermines in his corollaries numerous times. And how could the radically Whiggish American revolutionaries be considered 'conservative' when the deeds which made them notable consisted of breaking away from the traditional institutions through violence and pamphleteering to found a republic on Lockean liberal philosophy ? Because Burke defended them (the men who affiliated them with his party) ? Maistre condemned them. We run into the same problem as above. And Great Britain, not the United States, is the most stable current regime. The United States is on an inescapable path towards Nanny State socialism and social Marxism. I would hardly call a government with failure to maintain itself written into its fundamental laws 'stable.' Even the Communist Party in China is considered legitimate by the Weberian definition ! Sent at: 2008 08 29