In the last post I outlined what an intellectual foundation for the right would require to be successful, linked the definitive exposure of Curtis Yarvin as a neoconservative operative, and argued that only a right founded upon a belief in Providence can adequately, and consistently, address the common concerns of what is broadly dubbed “the right”. To move past a coalition of common concerns, the state of the American right for at least one-hundred years, a unifying intellectual foundation must emerge.
Having pitched an outline to a Providence centered right I will develop each element of the outline, starting with an account of sovereignty.
First off, it should be said that only “the right” believes that the people are sovereign. No leftist would accept a referendum result, even one with a 9:1 margin, that outlawed abortion. Such a referendum would be declared illegitimate, and all possible legal, and extra-legal, pressure would be applied to overturn the results. If the left was really committed, a Color Revolution might be in order. The right, however, believes, despite whatever anti-democratic talking points they may have, that the people are sovereign. Do you not believe me? Just look at the 2020 Presidential Election. Trump voters were mad because they believed that there some malarkey went on that changed what should have been an easy win for Trump, to a decisive victory for Biden. The claim was not that a Biden win would be morally illegitimate, no matter how many votes he got (this would be, however, the left’s claim if Trump won), but simply that the votes were not counted properly, votes were added, and votes were taken away. Strangely enough, it is the right that supports popular sovereignty and the left that does not.
Why? This is the opposite of what is typically asserted. Democracy is an ideal of the left, not the right. Also, did you not just tell us in the last post that the right has an apprehension of democracy and that it needs a rigorous critique of it? Yes, democracy is an ideal of the left. Yes, the right has an apprehension of democracy. And, yes, I did say that the right needs a rigorous critique of it. So, what gives?
Although the coalition of common concerns, the right, is apprehensive about democracy, it lacks an alternative account of sovereignty to that of popular sovereignty. Sure, a Republic, a Monarchy, or a Corporatist state might be better than a democratic state, but so long as we live in a democratic society, who has sovereignty (ultimate authority) other than the people? Perhaps the United States Constitution? If it was still being adhered to, which it is not, then what do we mean when we say “The Constitution is sovereign”, or “The Constitution checks the sovereignty of the people”? What is being said is “since we have a constitution that was voted upon and ratified by the people, the people are either 1) not sovereign or 2) their sovereignty is checked.” Authority was given to The Constitution by the people, and this would imply that the people are, or at least were, sovereign, for authority is passed on, but never created ex nihilo. This is not even to mention that under Article V, The Constitution can be amended or even rewritten…by the people. Popular sovereignty is not absent because The Constitution is in place, nor does The Constitution put a check on popular sovereignty.
Let me put it this way, if you walk into Congress and told them that they did not have the authority to pass a law that made it illegal to teach that A=A, and if this congress was elected by 99.9% of the people on the sole platform of making it illegal to teach A=A, upon what authority could you make this claim? We are not asking whether or not this law would make A/=A, but if Congress has the authority to prohibit the teaching of A=A. To make something illegal, or legal, is to pass a moral judgement on that thing. If it is illegal to do X, then there is the implicit moral claim that it is wrong to do X, and wrong to such a degree that you will either be fined, thrown in jail, or even executed for doing X. “You cannot legislate morality”, is a silly phrase for the very reason that every piece of legislation is a moral claim with a set of instructions for punishing those doing immoral act X, or to ensure that people are free to, or even incentivized to, do moral act Y. Sovereignty is the ultimate authority to make and interpret laws, and since all laws are moral claims sovereignty is ultimate moral authority.
However much the coalition of common concerns dislikes democracy and seeks its replacement, it has not shown itself capable of opposing popular sovereignty because, being only a coalition of common concerns and not a true right, it has not found an ultimate moral authority outside the people. Yes, the coalition has many deeply held beliefs about right and wrong, but none strong enough to rival their belief that legitimate elections confer legitimate authority. The left, in contrast, has ideals that have more moral authority than the people’s will (equality, freedom, tolerance), and these ideals are the source of the left’s strength. What the left has is a political theology, a grounding myth from which all political action derives, and until the right has a political theology of its own it will remain incapable of taking power.
We are back at Congress, and the bill outlawing the teaching of A=A is about to be passed. Okay, this is bad. Assuming the congressmen would listen, what could be said to stop the bill? Telling the congressmen that A=A is false would not do it, 99% of the American population voted for candidates who ran solely on passing this bill and these congressmen believe that they are morally obligated to respect this mandate. To persuade them, there must be a moral reason to ignore the voice of the people. This is where an alternative conception of sovereignty comes in: men, no matter their station or number, are not sovereign over reality. No man has the authority to deny, let alone compel others, to deny A=A. Yes, he might still go ahead and do so, but this does not change the fact that a mere mortal does not get to decide what reality it. If men had sovereignty over reality, then we could really make A\=A, 2+2=5, and for there to be 72 genders and it would be true everywhere in the cosmos. A law passed that denies the reality of a thing, which always amounts to A=A since it is an identity claim, is not truly a law because the men that passed it are feigning sovereignty that they do not have. These “laws” are sham laws and nothing more than the scribblings of mad men.
If laws that violate reality are sham laws, then only laws that conform to reality are truly laws, and this means the possession of political sovereignty is dependent on conforming to reality. Looking back at the past two posts, Here and Here, we can see that if there are realities of a things, if there are natures to things, then this means there is a Providence who created the world, rules it, has intentions, and is incredibly powerful. Sovereignty, then, derives from Providence insofar that political sovereignty is only maintained as long as a government aligns itself with the will of Providence, which we have seen is same as the nature, or reality, of things. Sovereignty comes from above, not below.
Not only are laws that deny reality shams, but the outcomes of a vote that denies reality is also a sham and ipso facto void. Keep in mind that what we mean by “deny reality” is to deny the nature of a thing, to say that A=/A, to say that thing X is not really X. Laws or Supreme Court decisions that affirm that two members of the same sex can get married is a denial of the nature of marriage, for example. A law that restricts a business owner from expanding, or restricting, his customer base, to use another example, is a denial of property because it is declaring that what is proper to the business owner (his product or service) is not really proper to him, but needs to be available to either no one or everyone.
Thus, a moral authority independent of the people and anti-democratic.
What, to go back a bit, do we make of democracy being a leftist ideal while at the same time leftists not believing in popular sovereignty? This is surely a contradiction.
First, the left finds its ultimate moral authority not in anything above, but in the theories of Rousseau, Marx, German Idealism, and the New Left. Man is still sovereign, but it his ideas, not his numbers, that confer legitimacy. Why did the left oppose DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) back in the day? They would likely deploy a genealogical argument from Foucault to undermine heteronormativity. A leftist reading this would insist that this is so, and that using Scripture or Church history to argue for heteronormativity can be reduced to straight white men manipulating religion for their own power. Or, he might just say “so much for Scripture.” It is not the place here to defend a certain interpretation of Scripture or to argue for the inspiration of Scripture, so it will suffice to say that even in this criticism the leftist is appealing to the ideas of Man, while the rightist is appealing to Providence. Sovereignty of Man, not popular sovereignty, is the leftist position.
It would be very hard to convince a population as large as America’s to accept the teachings of Foucault as having more moral authority as their own votes. It is much easier to tell the people that they are sovereign, that their vote counts, and then frame any deviation from leftist ideologues as “an attack on our democracy.” Ideology loves to cloak itself in neutrality. Portraying oneself as the great defenders of civic life while actually advancing hard ideology and attempting to reverse the outcome of any vote that deviates from that ideology is indeed the ideal sheep’s clothing for a wolf. Democracy is a leftist ideal because they do not believe in popular sovereignty.
Morality is not legislated or governed from men.