Can there be any connection to the planned, upcoming September 12, 2009 March on Washington?  Can many crowds of disembodied beings come to really assemble in the capitol city of a nation?   Well, considering that every human being is supposed to have a guardian angel, perhaps so.

The curious title of this article, at first glance, might so seem quite strange and necessarily quizzical to uninformed readers not intimately acquainted with Publius and his Federalist Paper Number 51.   These important lines have, therefore, been seemingly quoted innumerable times:  “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.   In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”   But, the first two sentences of the cited quote are highly debatable in the realm of political epistemology, as will be so rightly seen, in this present article.

However, The Federalist Papers yet remain, one ought to note, the best interpretation of the original intentions and meaning of the US Constitution, which is, in fact, America’s second Constitution; the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1781 was the first one.

Views of Angels and Political Man: Theology and Politics

Decreasing numbers of people, however, are fully aware that Madison’s political metaphysics was based heavily upon his Protestantism that conflicts directly, for instance, with different Roman Catholic views concerning angels and, on another important matter, politics qua political science.   

Though he was not yet a Catholic when he wrote it, one can still refer to Mortimer J.  Adler’s The Angels and Us for some truly good and needed background reading concerning the nature, characteristics, and realities of angelic beings, besides consulting such important texts as Heinrich A. Rommen’s The State in Catholic Thought: A Treatise in Political Philosophy and his The Natural Law.   It can be well noted, in specific line with this particular discussion, that the vast majority of the nation’s Founding Fathers were, of course, Protestants and their theological considerations were, necessarily, reflected in their political thinking, which is, thus, fairly logical and not at all to be unexpected.

Catholicism, however, would inform political cognition that even if men were supposedly transformed somehow into angels, government would, nonetheless, still be needed; moreover, the very heavens are ordered, governed, by the Lord God Almighty, the King of Kings, and everything, including, the angelic hosts are immediately dependent upon the metaphysical order, the government, of reality; if the impossible should happen, if God, e. g., for one second ceased to be, by definition, absolutely Godlike, then the entire universe would, logically, cease entirely to be; all of ontological reality, the universe and beyond, is merely contingent being, not supposedly necessary or in and of itself being required to exist as reality.   

So, yes, the angels are quite definitely and certainly subject to the “government” of the Divine Being concerning His governing of all of reality qua reality.  The Divine government, meaning the heavenly arrangement of authority, power, and justice, therefore, would still, in fact, be necessary if men were angels, directly contrary to the political thinking of Madison/Publius. 

Notably, Adler had extensively explored, in his book entitled: Six Philosophical Mistakes, what he recognized as the “angelic fallacy” that has terribly afflicted and unfortunately influenced modern philosophy and, consequently, modern political philosophy and, in turn, modern political science.  

Linked to such basic matters is the interesting fact that, in opposition, Catholicism has had axiological, epistemological, and ontological implications that have significantly influenced political theory and thinking for centuries, which aligns itself with classical political philosophy, not modernism in political thought.

This is critically seen in the above cited books by Rommen as well as E. B. F. Midgley’s The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations.  Also, one can profitably consult such books as: Alasdair Macintyre’s After Virtue, his Whose Justice? Which Rationality? and Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry; in addition, good reading encompasses Frederick D. Wilhelmsen’s Christianity and Political Philosophy.  And, with all of that reading comes, among other important considerations, the critical and requisite realization that political epistemology is, indeed, involved regarding how one can come to know about what kind of true knowledge can be gained about the nature of government.

Equally, classical political philosophy, as informed by Catholicism, would correctly state that if men were governed by angels, then certain degrees of both external and internal controls on government would, however, still be realistically and properly needed.   Angels are not, in fact, representative of absolute perfection, only their Creator, by definition, is, was, and will forever be perfection itself; they are yet subordinate creatures, though pure spirits, of course; but, they were, nonetheless, created by God and, therefore, are ever not equal to His Being.  

Madison, when he wrote that metaphysically incorrect stuff about angels, must have forgotten that about one third of the original angels are now permanently in Hell; this has had tremendous results, theologically speaking and, moreover, logically informs people about the rather obvious limitations of even the angelic beings.   

Not surprisingly, these Protestant versus Catholic theological and other points of view do then have more than just purely academic or simply abstract consequences; they, therefore, directly affect both important and divergent interpretations of political philosophy and, by necessary extension, political science, of course; theology, moreover, can be noetically found to be at the integral and core origination of any genuine politics as to its formulative conceptualization, its foundational, political metatheoretical theoretics.   Ideas have consequences, as Richard M. Weaver had correctly noted; moreover, people do not live in experiential, social, or cultural vacuums as either abstract entities or angelic creatures.

Political man (all rational human beings) needs to intellectually embrace the koinos kosmos (universal order) of classical Natural Law teachings, Divine Law, and the perennial philosophy, meaning classical political philosophy (Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Alasdair Macintyre); and, on the other hand, ought to then soundly reject the mentally and, thus, morally crippling  idios kosmos (private order) of nominalism (relativism, pragmatism, empiricism, etc.) and what can be reasonably called cognitive modernism (Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Feminism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, and all the other ideologies of modernity).

Although Publius (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) had generously hoped otherwise, the US Constitution has not helped, in the matter of the Federal government, being really able to adequately “oblige it to control itself.”  

There was something inherently deficient and defective, constitutionally speaking, by which the Federal government, beginning at least with Abraham Lincoln’s complete destruction of the Southern Confederacy, had transformed itself into a European-style nation-state; the then further empowered Federal government gradually had eroded any remaining aspects of states’ rights that had existed prior to the War Between the States.  Referring back to Lincoln’s suspension of the Constitution, in less than 90 years of the political existence of the USA, therefore, Americans were seen killing their fellow Americans, over 600,000 of them, on native soil no less.  

To the empirical extent that the Constitution reflected the perennial philosophy, it had then succeeded; where it has deviated, it had and has still, increasingly, failed to properly achieve sustainable levels of freedom and civil social liberty under law; the people of this nation are, for instance, significantly less free than when the Constitution was written, or even for many decades thereafter.   

How so, one might reasonably ask?   If someone in, say, 1800, 1820, or 1850, had greatly disliked what was going on in his home state back East, he could then go out West for securing more freedom and breathing space; today, the multiplicitous and ever still multiplying laws, rules, codes, and regulations of the Federal government are truly pervasive and pandemic; moreover, in definite empirical support of such a pivotal point, Dr. Milton Friedman used to repeatedly say, without any exaggeration, that if the American people got all of the government that they had paid for, they would be then living under a police-state tyranny.  

The 50 states, in essence, have mainly or mostly become mere operational and functional ciphers, on the whole, for the extremely powerful, expansive, and ever aggressive national government in Washington, DC.  When civil society liberty becomes, through much governmental fiat, increasingly truncated, of what real value is legal reliance upon constitutionalism as a reliable political safeguard for the citizenry?

Where Liberty Dwells, There Is My Country

Publius, in the late 18^th century, had thought, e. g., that the Judicial branch of the national government, of what today is more simply denominated as the Federal government, would be, on average, the least dangerous branch regarding active and demonstrable threats to the real freedoms and tangible liberties of the people; this has not, in fact, substantially proven to be the historical and actual case, as is well noted by, e. g., Mark Levin’s Men in Black and in his much more recent book, Liberty and Tyranny. 

The US Supreme Court has, therefore, wrongly constituted itself too often, especially at least since the 20^th century and after, as a sitting constitutional convention; one can note that it has been boldly writing up manifestly unconstitutional “judicial legislation” from the bench.  On the other hand, the present concerted assault upon civil society coming from the current US Congress and the White House, both controlled by the Democratic Party, has called forth significant and crescive opposition in this country.  

Obama and company have become supinely enthralled to their own ideological propaganda (as was true of Jimmy Carter and most of the Carterites) by actually believing that the majority of the organizers and masses involved in the protest movement are just merely Republican Party operatives and such related personnel and followers.   Interestingly, both Obama and Carter have resorted to “m” words; for Carter, he saw a malaise; for Obama, he sees a mob.  And, paper constitutions have never stopped real or would-be tyrants from initiating vile acts of oppression, suppression, or repression, by the way.   

The forever wise words of Benjamin Franklin are, therefore, still true: “Where liberty dwells, there is my country.”   But, the substantial reduction, not expansion, of liberty is what will occur through efforts at developing a progressivist/liberal system congenial to the needs of a social-democratic State, not a free, representative, constitutional Republic. 

Many fear, many numerous citizens are intensely worried, that truly important freedoms and liberties may be mainly lost under the ideologically convenient guise of reforming health care and, moreover, its often logically attendant aftereffects.

The plain truth is that the bulk of the people involved in the various protests are, on the whole, mainly average folks, Independents, and disaffected Democrats, with some Republicans, of course.   The basic hierarchy, the core leadership, of the Republican Party, as was so empirically proven with the idiotic nomination of Senator John McCain in 2008, is basically controlled by the neoconservatives who are, in fact, generally sympathetic with the formal objectives of socialism, if not with all the means usually employed to favor it in America.  

This substantially grass-roots, mass-protest movement is, however, not really controlled or orchestrated by the Republic Party; notably, of course, former President George W. Bush was, in fact, definitely a Big Government supporter, not a believer in small government, as was so easily shown, repeatedly, by his explicit favoring of massive spending efforts, which had pleased the majority of the neoconservatives and some conservatives.

But, most of the core conservatives of the GOP did not really enjoy the harsh spectacle of a Republican President truly expanding the Federal government.  Thus, as seen from the foregoing discussion, one perceives that both of the major political parties have not, in fact, gotten the profound message so far: No more Big Government.  This most especially, of course, applies to any meanly purported “health-care reform. “

March on Washington, DC: Violence Predicted

The past tea parties held all across America have, apparently, not yet extremely awakened the powers-that-be and, in addition, the various summer town hall meetings, likewise, have been still unable to significantly stir up the consciousness of the political professionals in the nation’s capitol city.   Perhaps, it is felt that the planned March on Washington will, finally, provoke at least some supposed serious thought in the minds of those political leaders who wish to go, currently, beyond the present confines of the welfare-warfare State in their dealings, as to possible national legislation.   

Idiotically, perhaps, Obama will strangely try to absurdly co-opt the proceedings by claiming, insanely, that the protest vindicates fully his own public call for reform.  Indeed, the people do want true reform through mainly free-market oriented mechanisms, so that there are then a wider variety of alternatives, programs, insurance policies, etc. made available to increasing numbers of citizens, not to illegal aliens, as is the clear intention of the national-socialist legislative proposals; to most people of this country, the government is not yet seen as the all-in-all for protecting everyone’s lives in terms of physical health.

In particular, a truly tremendous fear, among some millions of Americans, that the Leftist ideological direction, being taken toward a national-socialist health-care system, will logically create the basis for a related social-market economy; this would, logically, be on the European model necessitating, ultimately over the course of time, a full-scale, social-democratic State, which seems, on balance, reasonably palpable as to a fairly realistic political assessment that could be suitably made; in general, e. g., France usually seems to be the offered example for basic emulation. 

Many people, however, are really worrying about the possible and probable implications of having bureaucrats and bureaucratic regulations determining if certain lives may be deemed economically unworthy of existence; this is in terms of the probable and seemingly requisite rationing of government health-care provisions covering all potential medical patients.   Human beings as “political men” are, after all, not angels but mere mortals who do, intimately, depend upon their known physicality to practically survive, meaning, of course, as to the health and well being of their actual mortal bodies. 

So, rational provision for health is then a justifiably important consideration and, moreover, not just for certain political reasons; inadequate degrees of hospitalization, lack of certain surgical coverage, etc. can then readily influence, literally, matters of life or death.  The “land of the free and home of the brave” may, increasingly for medical purposes, be not known as incorporating the mere existence of the living.

Though it is hoped that such will never happen, the coming demonstration, some people fear, will see agent provocateurs (of the government) provoke enough incidents to supposedly justify the actions of the government; a largely sympathetic and supportive press will give the welcomed benefit of the doubt to what will happen.  The killings at the National Mall are to be properly seen, however, in the earlier critical context of Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez that were revolutionary Leftist rehearsals and provocative ideological tests to see exactly what the American people would do. 

If Waco and the rest were horrible things done under a presumably despotic, reactionary Republican Administration, they would then have been burned extremely deeply, by the mass media, academics, progressivist/liberal politicians, etc. into the broad national consciousness forever; meanwhile, on the contrary, they have just simply fallen down the fabled Orwellian memory hole of mainly forgotten and historically faded incidents of the days of yore.   Perhaps, nonetheless, besides freedom of speech concerns, the important matter of national health care will be a much different issue.

Failures of National-Socialist Health-Care Systems

In Canada, with its own national-socialist system, at least 800,000 people are now still actively waiting for highly needed hospital beds so that they may obtain, in the future, surgeries, etc.; some 30,000 to 40,000 Canadians, moreover, must come, every year to the USA, for obtaining various kinds of medical treatments, which can, in fact, really help to save actual human lives; in Great Britain, for the last six years, about 1200 people have already died from various institutional, regulatory, and related forms of official neglect, according to the latest study done of the dreadfully disappointing activities of the British National Health Service.  

 Is France, as is often alleged, really supposed to be the truly best example of governmental health care?   In August 2003, it was the actual case that about 15,000 elderly people died, during a major heat wave, primarily because of the enormous shortage of doctors and hospitals that has been, in fact, ideologically encouraged; this was due to their collectivist health-care system’s creating of economic disincentives for increasing the number of French doctors and hospitals.

Yes, there are, one reasonably perceives, significant and rather very compelling matters of life or death to rationally consider, as pertaining to the future creation of an American version of such a collectivist-oriented system of health care suitable for the masses.  The underlying and actual issue, for the Federal government, is not supposed noble concern for the health of the citizens but, rather, one of power.

As always, nonetheless, the rich and wealthy will not be required to access the disgusting, substandard, and dehumanizing programs that will be made so publicly available; equally, all Federal employees, all members of the US Congress, and some other categories of people will, also, not then have the highly dubious “privilege” of, thus, suffering with the ideologically and otherwise abused masses, meaning the working class and the bulk, the vast majority, of the middle class.

Conclusion

For some strange reason, there, thus, remains a great deal of undying hatred and genuine anger being directed justifiably toward this Leftist ideological attempt to establish such a national-socialist health-care system for the majority of the American people who, of course, are just poor mortal creatures, not angels. 

And, Madison’s conception of the Constitution notwithstanding, the Congress, as the Legislative branch of the Federal government, has the power to pass such legislation that will, therefore, help to forcefully determine the true future limits of the civil rights and liberties of the American people.   If such a law passes, the defects in the Constitution ought to become much more readily apparent, to the more observant people in this nation.

At such a dramatic point in time, that infamous Act of Congress will surely “enable the government to control the governed” in much more extensive and rather intimate ways.   But, however, when will it then ever feel really obliged “to control itself”?   Perhaps, many politicians are just expecting the people to piously pray, for any expected help, from angels.   

On September 12^th, 2009, the First Amendment will, therefore, be remarkably tested as to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”   Or, perchance, will Obama see only a vicious mob, an incipient insurrection, needing to be appropriately suppressed by genuine force, by real violence?   The past is prologue.