Joseph de Maistre: Divine Origins of Constitution
You will be using this document along with the next one to do a comparison exercise. How do the points De Maistre makes support conservatism?
Due: MIDNIGHT, Thursday, Nov. 30
Due: MIDNIGHT, Thursday, Nov. 30
posted by RJS at
7:53 AM
7 Comments:
Joseph de Maistre's document is in direct opposition to the written constitution, a major characteristic of any upholder of conservatism. He defends the conservative distaste of constitutions by saying a piece of paper is in no way capable of expressing the many subtlies and nuances of ruling a country. He expresses another conservative ideal by saying the only effective constitutions are ones that simply embody what has always been understood and done, in other words, a constitution cannot amply solidfy a new idea. This dislike of change and desire to do what had always been done are other staples of conservatism. Using the 10 commandments as an example, he also states that only God or those chosen by God can create any lasting constitutional law, which may suggest those born into power, the aristocracy and monarchy, and those who supposedly carry out God's will, the clergy, are the only ones truly capable of creating a constitution more durable than wet tissue paper hanging from a barn in michigan during a snowstorm. The aristocracy, monarchy, and clergy also happen to be the triumverate alliance of conservatism.
By
laura, at Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:35:00 PM
Well, I must say that I agree that no government will stand when removed from God, God is that which "without whom nothing is strong." I also believe that government could be improved if we focused on what we knew was right rather than on what we felt was necessary. However, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." As is, the points that Maistre advocates hold true only so long as rulers are determined to follow their internal sense of morality- follow God.
Conservatives like Maistre like to present that face, but rarely do they fall back on it. Rulers, artistocracy, all have far too much of a niche in the world to willingly surrender it. (How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.) Maistre supports conservatism by presenting it as the only divine government on earth. Government is a creation of man, however. No creation of man can be perfect or divine- especially when constructed by men who care more about maintaining their individual rights than promoting a wider degree of goodness.
Maistre says that the more something is penetrated with Divine principle, the more durable it will be. Really. Now the question is not how just, moral, or righteous the institution is, but how well it succeeds in a corrupt world. History has shown that the greatest men ( and indeed the greatest Man), if measured solely by a standard of worldly endurance, do not have a very good record.
By
ThomasBatson, at Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:19:00 PM
Yeah, being a liberal, I didn't like this too much at all. Constitutions are set out to define basic structure of government and set the fundamental rules by which it should always be governed. These said rules are typically not of the restricting type, unless one looks from the point of view of a government looking to opress the populace. The rules are typically defining where power ends, not begins, not allowing governments to take away certain necessary rights for any people, freedoms, not rules per se, as there aren't the rules that determine what non-government folk should do, like saying one shouldn't murder somebody. In this way, the Ten Commandments are not even in the same group as what a constitution ought to be. They are restricting on the people, not on the governing body (which should make sense, given the governing body is God in this case). I have brought you out of Egypt, so here's what you have to do: no other gods, no idols, don't use my name incorrectly, do nothing on Saturdays/Sundays, honor your parents, murder, adultery, and stealing are out, and none of all this coveting and bearing false witness of your neighbor. Now that that's clear, spread your joy of my message. That's not the perfect constitution, those are laws, which are a completely different sort of thing, restricting a different group. Now, the rest is directly @ Thomas: Our government is legally separated from God, so we agree, it will not stand as long as plenty of other empires have. The really long-lasting nations will be the ones completely accepting of God, like Iran, Tibet (whoops), and the Vatican City (that's held on for a good while, though now only a shadow of its former temporal power). And, I apologize for the following heresy, but people only feel religion is necessary, they don't strictly know it's right, that's why it's called faith. No, nobody knows that having certain systems of government is right either, but I'm sure you would agree it would be better to take action and make one that let anarchy reign until we've all figured out how to govern perfectly. What is this "wider degree of goodness" that should be pursued by a constitution? Individual rights and equality are of the first priority, not sufficient control over the citizens for the benefit of the richest people in the nation. I'm sorry we disagree on mostly everything. Sidenote: You don't say "conservatist" or "conservist", it's "conservative", both as a noun and adjective. I make long responses when I'm annoyed...
By
Unknown, at Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:22:00 PM
Joseph de Maistre's work "Divine Origins of Constitution" is obviously conservative due to the fact that the 4 points he has chosen as incontestable truth all mention the instability of a written constitution. Conservatives only support constitutions that they wrote themselves, and these 4 points say that the principles exist before the written law, or that written laws are only the development of spoken law. In other words, written constitutions are over rated and the spoken law is way better. He then goes on to compare constitutions to the 10 commandments, by saying that the only written constitution that is allowed would be the 10 commandments. This is also an exampl of conservatism because it shows the bond between the government and the church. 2 of the parts of the conervative triangle.
I'm definately in agreement with Nate, in that the 10 commandments are not the same as a constitution, and that a constitution should deal with equality before dciding what is moral since that ability lies personally in each citizen.
By
manxomefoe, at Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:58:00 PM
de Maistre poses an interesting arguement on the subject of constitutions. He asserts that all constitutions whose aims are to create gains for certain people at certain times will never be effective in the long run because their message is not immortal, as the ten commandments are in his belief. this is simultaneously promoting ecclesiastical institutions as it is exposing what is in reality a major truth about constitutions: they will all eventually fail, be dissolved, rendered useless. *cynicism. But yes, the staunchy defense against the "radical agenda" of the constitution and the example of the commandments as the only constitution that worked (a sort of hint to those hippies to accept the church) and of course, his exposition of the danger to the stability of the state a constitution would pose all lead to a sharp bias to the conservative side. Sorry this is a bit late, something came up, i couldn't help it. Please don't count it against me.
By
Victoria, at Friday, December 01, 2006 12:42:00 AM
de Maistre is obviously a conservist. He believes a constitution would only weaken the government because he has seen, in other nations, constitutions benefitting the rich and weaking the laborers. This shows he does not like change and believes a constitutional monarchy is not going to help anything. de Maistre says that the only true constitution is the Ten Commandments because they are God's words for our lives. This also goes back to conservatism because it shows the alliance between the throne, the landed, and the church. de Maistre continues his argument by saying "No human institution can endure unless supported by the Hand which supports all." I completely agree. Otherwise, the nation would never last.
*internet is not working at home*
By
taylor, at Friday, December 01, 2006 9:25:00 AM
DeMaistre starts off saying that there be no other written constitution than the ten commandments(at least I think that’s what it was about). This even suggests that church and state work together to form a governing body. He also talks of ‘examining history’ in which past governments and countries are used to base a new conservative government on with state, church, and aristocracy. A government without God is human, and in this sense, is doomed for destruction. This train of thought is ultimately conservative due to its linking government and Divinity.
By
TeganLove, at Monday, December 04, 2006 8:28:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home