Monarchism Won't Save Us, Pragmatism Will

A Basic Principle of Catholic Action

In an interview I did last week with Timothy Gordon, I spoke of the need of political pragmatism as foundational for Catholic Action in the political sphere. This was in the context of opposing certain strains of misguided methodologies of political action advocated for by some Catholics, especially found among certain Monarchists, although the same sort of misguided methodology is found in any number of “un-pragmatic” systems advocating for inflexible adherence to things like the Constitution or other elements of the American system, the democratic process, etc., in order to sacrifice the common good for sake of “principle.”

In this article I wanted to expand on these thoughts, give the foundations for why this makes sense, and to apply these considerations to Monarchism and Democracy in particular.

Introduction

The purpose of the state is to direct the people within a society to the common good. Hence, that organization of society which is best able to direct that society (concretely considered) to the common good is the best form for that society. Now, when it comes to the organization of this society, there are a few things to keep in mind.

First, there is a non-necessary relation between various forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, polity/democracy) and the common good. On the one hand, there is no form of government that necessarily precludes the abuse of tyranny, i.e., the seeking of the private good of the rulers over the common good. Further, there is no form of government that necessarily produces and includes only those virtuous leaders who seek the common good. Hence, there is a certain liberty as to the form and organization of government.

This same principle applies to any of the means of political action that are not necessarily evil.

Second, there is a distinction between forms of government abstractly and practically considered. For, when considering the essential characteristics of a form of government, we can weigh how it is or is not disposed towards certain characteristics of good government. Yet, this is to consider the form abstractly. For, these characteristics are simple dispositions which may not actually come to fruition in an actual order toward the ends of government. Thus, on the one hand, we can consider the virtues of a form of government abstractly, and, on the other hand, we can consider the virtues of a form of government practically, i.e., how it, in actuality, will play out in this or that society.

Third, the characteristics of this or that society are to be the chief consideration of our political action. The end of politics is action, i.e., to bring about that form of government which is best disposed to the common good in this or that society. Hence, it is not only useless, but positively harmful, to advocate for an alien form of government which has virtues abstractly considered. Rather, we ought to always take into account the relevant characteristics of our society in order to discern which form of government will be most efficacious. Without using means that are evil, Catholic Action is something pragmatic in nature.

Fourth, mixed forms, devised by the genius of men, are able to go beyond the simple forms of monarchy, aristocracy, and republic, and can retain the various virtues of each form while also guarding against the possible downsides of each.

These considerations form the principle of flexibility and pragmatism that must be present both in governance and all forms of political action. To adhere rigidly to a certain means or proposed solution is positively damaging to political action. We ought to always be re-evaluating and re-considering which means are most effective.

Simple answers that are universally applicable are often the most popular. When it comes to the form of government, it is impossible to give either a simple or a universally applicable answer. We must proportion the means to two standards and only two standards.

First, we need to proportion it to the moral standard. We are never able to use evil means in political action. It may be prudent to tolerate certain evils that greater ones do not come about, but it is never lawful to (proximately) cooperate with evil or to will it in any other mode.

Second, we need to proportion it to the standard of end and circumstance. After the elimination from consideration of any evil means, we now have the entire world of options to consider. Any other means is fair game. Here, the question becomes practical. In light of contemporary circumstances, which of those means will be the most efficacious? Which realistically will be able to be implemented in order to achieve the common good while fulfilling the obligations of justice and charity?

Against the Monarchists

This is why the “simple answers” given by the Monarchists fall flat on their face, and this on a two-fold basis.

First, the implementation of the means is unrealistic. Not only is there no plan for the reimplementation of the old hereditary monarchy, there is absolutely no plan that could realistically bring this to bear outside of a miracle from God. To advocate for this as a solution is simply unhelpful.

Second, the implementation of the means is concretely unhelpful. Even if we were to bring back the old monarchical families, then what? We would not only be handing authority over to a liberal (in most cases), but also a family of liberals. The best case scenario is the scenario of Juan Carlos I in Spain, where the King abdicated before he could screw too much up (he left this to others on his behalf). These individuals are not traditionalists who will govern for the sake of the common good. They will keep the status quo and rule for their own gain.

Of course, it would be fine to appreciate the great monarchs of the past and even to advocate for a greater appreciation of these monarchs among others. Further, there are many virtues that can be inculcated by the continued civil reverence for the royal family in honor of their ancestors and as a point of unity for the nation.

The particular point of error is found in concluding from these two points that the re-implementation of the pre-modern hereditary monarchies is somehow a realistic point of departure to heal modern errors.

Objection: “But isn’t monarchy the best form of government?”

Here, there are three errors that come from an inadequate understanding of the traditional authors.

First, they understand monarchy in an overly restrictive sense as if it only implied the hereditary monarchies of the past. This is not the case. The rule of one can occur in a republic with a strong executive supremacy with the same benefits of the form. It does not require the external trappings of the old model.

Second, they refuse to distinguish between what is better or worse abstractly and what is better or worse concretely. Abstractly, monarchy is the best of the simple forms of government, but, concretely, it may be the worst for this or that society.

Third, it does not take into account the distinction between simple and mixed forms of government. While compared to aristocracy and the republic abstractly, monarchy is a better simple form, this is not the case when you mix elements from each in order to best achieve the benefits of each form of government, as stated above.

Against the Democrats