Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Pat, John, and the Others Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/pat_john_and_the_others#28409 Post contents: Interesting posts about nationalism, populism, reaction, and elistism. Historically, it was the "reactionary" and highly Catholic "populace" of the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily that ran out of Italy Napoleon's (modernising) legions in 1799 (the Sanfedisti); it was patriot Andreas Hofer's band of Tyroleans who kept thousands of French troops tied down in the Tyrol. Throughout the 19th century it was Carlist Catholic populace in Spain, LED BY THEIR local "elite" nobility, who waged a "Civil War" for the Faith, the legitimate king, traditional rights, and regionalism against a centralizing liberal monarchy---and it was just such a populace, imbued with Faith and allied to a large portion (but certainly not all) of the Spanish Army that launched a "Cruzada" against a Marxistoid Republic where thousands of priests, nuns, and bishops were martyred, not to mention hundreds of churches torched, countless assassinations, and other depravations to numerous to mention. I could go on; but it seems to me that the issues are not as clear cut here. As Lenin proved (and perhaps Hitler, too) an "elite" cannot succeed unless it somehow enlists vast popular support, in some form, eventually. Many of the dozens of counter-revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries against the depradations of classical liberalism and centralization, then socialism and Marxism, have been waged by conservative and religious populations, oftimes lead by local notables (e.g. Rochejacquelain and de Charette, in the Vendee; Zumalacarregui, in the First Basque War; Cardinal Ruffo in Italy; and the list can be extended), but sometimes with a popular leader emerging from the lower ranks. Most of the "nationalisms" exhibited on the part of the above-mentioned groups is not the same variety as the xenophobix form we have seen in the 20th century; rather, as in Italy, it was FOR the restoration of the legitimate Kings of Naples and the Faith, nothing more. In Austria, FOR the restoration of Austrian lands to the rightful, God-given monarch in Vienna. In Spain, what began as a dynastic war to restore the legitimate king, soon developed into an ideological battle between the traditionalist, regionalist, and very Catholic Carlists, opposing a centralizing, classically liberal monarchy, under which historic regions (formerly kingdoms and principalities) were shorn of rights, customs, and usages, in favor of power emanating from Madrid. Liberalism equaled standardization, total laissez-faire, and the imposition of new "laws" by a new financial oligarchy, neither endowed by birth nor by Providence with any special quality, other than the ability to get wealth and hold it (often by force). In the 20th century, in France (e.g., Maurras), in Spain (e.g., Vazques de Mella, Victor Pradera, etc.), in Austria (e.g., Vogelsang, then Othmar Spann, and later Dollfuss), in Portugaal (e.g., Saldinha), etc., you have mostly Catholic writers and philosophers writing about subsidiarity, authority, the derivation of power directly from God to the sovereign, plus the defense of the family, of historic regions and institutions, and the Church. Most of the popular and counter-revolutionary movements took place in Catholic lands, although there were certainly intellectually rightwing currents in Prussia in the 1820s-40s (von Radowitz) and even in England (e.g., perhaps Disraeli?). Populism in the US is of a different sort, of course. Of groups and movements that could be termed "populist," well, there are the Jacksonians, the "know-nothings," the prohibition movement, the formal Populist Party, and later the Progressives (e.g. LaFollette), and even the "dixiecrats" of 1948 and maybe Wallace in 1968. I think it is certainly difficult to pen terms "right" and "left" on these movements with any great degree of accuracy. My great- grandfather, Hill Ennett King, was a North Carolina Populist Party leader, a newspaper editor, a (former) Democratic legislator, candidate for Congress, and finally State Commissioner of Agriculture; he later became (and remained) a Republican (after Populist defeat in 1900). Yet, his philosophy, if I may call it that, was pretty complex, at least looking back at it. He favored what he called a "just wage" for a day's work, but he also sounds like an English "distributist" in much of his writings---encouraging farmers to stay on the land, favoring small business, the family farm. He opposed liberalisation of the suffrage, whether for women or blacks. He wanted the state to officially recognize Christianity in its laws. He opposed what he called "foreign adventures" outside the USA. A Confederate veteran (at age 16), he gloried in the South's military heritage, but felt that war was a horrible bane to be avoided. In sum, he felt that the American (and North Carolina) government had become "too big and too modern" for the lives of the citizens, and should be "reformed back to the days when a man could live on his land and make a living there." How would I characterize him? Was he a "liberal" or "conservative"? A "leftist" because he opposed giant corporations and monopoly? A "rightist" because he favored turning back the clock to an earlier America of small farmers and independent yeomen? He was a populist, like Marion Butler (one of the most prominent), and yet is quite difficult to make the kinds of statements about him that have been made on these threads in recent days. He was a "nationalist" in the sense of his belief in a strong America, but also a "regionalist" and believer in states' rights (as a Confederate veteran). He was a "populist" in that he worked to mobilize poorer farmers and small businessmen to take power from increasingly removed elites. In any case, perhaps this example doesn't do the conversation justice, but it causes me to pause when I hear such terms brought up. I think such terms require nuance and study in depth. Sent at: 2008 11 20