«12. . .2,1662,1672,1682,1692,1702,1712,172. . .2,5122,513»
Bonaparte is your exemplar of monarchy?...No thanks.
Napoleon III ran arguably the most successful, progressive, and efficient administration in history. He was able to restore France's lost status as the dominant power in Europe up until his capture by the Prussians, caught up to Britain on the international stage without engaging in his uncle's disastrous aggressive wars, and promoted national movements across the globe, contributing to the formation of Germany and Italy. His administration was fair and liberal, and did not severely punish dissidents, and in fact amnestied many of them. It also strengthened the position of the Catholic Church in France, which had been under assault by secularists, a process which resumed and accelerated after Napoleon was dethroned, and protected the Pope in Rome from anti-clerical republican forces in Italy. He was broadly popular across the entirety of France's class structure, ending the harsh polarization that had crippled France since 1789, and modernized the city of Paris into the broad-avenued architectural gem we know today.
I know of no other monarch more eminently suited to emulation. Certainly not the lazy Hannoverians, the blustering Hohenzollerns, or the tyrannical and quixotic Romanovs.
Roberts strikes again! Strikes down Louisiana safety law in order to further exalt the mythical "right" to abortion! He just really doesn't care how prejudiced to constitutional order he looks anymore.
https://www.ajc.com/blog/jamie-dupree/roberts-sides-with-supreme-court-liberals-abortion-case/qpAT4vznU9cLsflfilh7fJ/
The case is June Medical Services v. Russo.
Also interesting to question whether a concurrence counts as a "fifth" vote, or if it really counts as a 4+1+4 breakdown. A split verdict would have left the appellate court verdict upholding the law in place.
First of all I do not consider being progressive or even efficient necessarily good things and his success is highly contestable. France had not really lost its status as a major power anyway but I do not think it fair to say it was "dominant" under his rule considering not only his disastrous defeat in his only serious, full-scale war against another great power, but also that Britain could have also won against him and he was probably incapable of truly defeating Russia. His "catch-up" to Britiain was at best in prestige, but Britain's empire far out-gunned and out produced his. I do not generally support Italian or German unification but it is a bit ironic to applaud him for helping to form a unified German state. I don't like liberalism. While you are correct that secularization (or, more properly, laïcité) was, in a sense, paused under his administration this does not mean the church regained its old rights and freedoms and his liberal regime in many ways was simply more tolerant of letting the church stay the way it was while the society he promoted did in fact substantially secularize de facto. I suppose modern Paris looks pretty nice, but there is a very good chance I would have preferred the old city.
Areas of rough agreement (it's not like I think he was the devil): I agree that he was pretty tolerant of dissent. I also agree that he protected the Pope for some time, though largely to gain support and prestige thereby, withdrawing later. I also agree that he was fairly successful in unifying France for some time, though the pent up energy of the socialists, extreme liberals, and radicals blew France apart after his defeat.
Areas you fail to mention: he had tons of mistresses which were a constant scandal and distraction from actual governance, not to mention distinctly immoral and awful. He was insanely arrogant. He was widely considered a farce by his peers and a mediocre leader good at putting on appearances.
Greatly preferred exemplars (just to name a few): Magnus VII, Henry III, Louis IX, Edward, Charles I, James II, Henry VI, Emperor Karl.
Heck at least someone like Charles V died and ended his reign in a good way whereas Napoleon III died in exile with his France torn apart. I would honestly prefer King John to Napoleon III.
I think leadership has no point if it is incapable of setting a goal and achieving it; in that sense, efficiency is all-important. And as for progress, no one has ever enjoyed living in a regressive society in material decline. Economic growth and technological innovation are essential for improving the lives of human beings. A government which is not concentrated on improving the lives of its people is useless.
There is more to geopolitical dominance than military strength.
France certainly became the dominant power in Europe during his reign; Britain was fairly disinterested in continental affairs and even more disinterested in committing troops to effect its foreign policy vision. The sole exception to this, that I can think of, is the Crimea War, which was integral to Britain's strategy of containing Russia's naval capacity. Prussia was turned inward on German affairs, Austria had little vision or power, and Russia's military and tsarist government were not competent. The Bourbons during the Restoration had taken a backseat in foreign policy, and the July Monarchy was lackluster. Napoleon III on the other hand prosecuted a definite and largely successful foreign policy, except in the Americas, which were frustrated by the conclusion of the American Civil War in 1865.
The inability to "truly" defeat Russia also seems irrelevant to Napoleon's evaluation as a good monarch, seeing how few if any leaders in world history have been able to "truly" defeat Russia, even Napoleon I or Hitler, the most powerful military leaders of their day.
Likewise, as with my analysis of French military strength above, apropos Britain's navy, I don't think Britain's superior economic strength is a factor in gauging Napoleon's effectiveness as a leader or the strength of his diplomatic position in Europe.
I don't necessarily applaud him, I just acknowledge that he was successful, even if it was short-sighted. His most consequential mistake.
I'm not sure how relevant his mistresses are to the efficacy of his government, so I think that's a rather trivial concern. The greatest threat in that arena to the stability of his regime was actually Empress Eugenie, whom I credit for undermining Napoleon and her son during the Prussian war.
As for him being a "farce", the only one I know of who thought that was Marx, and I don't hold his opinions in high esteem. Secondly, any foreign leader who saw him that way is a hypocrite, considering how seriously they had to take him in foreign affairs.
I'm also a fan of Charles I, though I think he was far less competent than any of the Bonapartes, including Napoleon III, considering he failed to prevent or end the English Civil War. Napoleon effectively managed the prejudices of both reactionaries and conservatives, and liberals and radicals, almost always to his advantage. Charles I is an admirable man, no doubt, but lacked the adroitness and flexibility of Napoleon, a fact which sadly led to his death. You may not be a fan of liberalism, but at least Napoleon knew how to manage it.
John was actually a competent administrator and military leader, so he wouldn't be so bad. But he left Britain in considerably worse shape than Napoleon left France. France is what it is today thanks to Napoleon III.
I'm obviously disappointed, but I'm also cautiously optimistic. Roberts did not sign the "liberal" opinion, which is a full-throated endorsement of abortion, and a few things he says in his separate opinion suggest that he's open to overturning Roe v. Wade.
--
"Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents."
"There is no plausible sense in which anyone, let alone this Court, could objectively assign weight to such imponderable values and no meaningful way to compare them if there were." (He's talking about "the potentiality of human life" versus "the woman's liberty interest.")
"We accordingly will not disturb the factual conclusions of the trial court . . . In my view, the District Court's work reveals no such clear error, for the reasons the plurality explains. The District Court findings therefore bind us in this case."
--
The "question presented" in today's case was: "Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's decision upholding Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court's binding precedent in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt." Roberts said: yes, it does. But he did not take the additional step of endorsing so-called "abortion rights."
The main opinion in Casey had only three votes, so it is not technically "binding precedent." Let's see if Roberts is willing to overturn Roe if the question is squarely presented to him.
From what I understand, Roberts sided with the liberal justices because of court precedent. In a 2016 case, the Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Texas. Roberts dissented in that case, and he mentioned in his opinion today that he still felt that way, but he says that precedent must be upheld.
Edit: ah! Our resident legal expert beat me to the punch.
I know posting each time Trump does something ridiculous is kind of pointless, but I just had to share this one for those who hadn't heard: today Trump retweeted a video in which one of his supports can be heard clearly shouting "White Power!" multiple times. He deleted the tweet three hours later, and the White House claimed that he hadn't heard the White Power part. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/28/884392576/trump-retweets-video-of-apparent-supporter-saying-white-power
Perhaps the President could use a hearing exam, in addition to several other medical tests...
That's not half as grievous as the news about Trump having intelligent reports that Russia was placing bounty on our soldiers heads in Afghanistan. And the man sworn to protect and defend American lives has done nothing.
This sounds vaguely familiar . . .
Assuming the reports are accurate (a big if), what exactly is he supposed to do? Go to war? I doubt anyone in America would vote for that. And Russia is already living under a blistering sanctions regime, so I'm not sure what options he has.
I'm not going to hold my breath. Roberts has given me absolutely no cause for optimism in his 15 years on the court that he will be anything other than a tool of the judicial establishment.
The White House's explanation (or excuse) isn't far-fetched. "The President doesn't listen."
(not the actual quote but the gist of what the press office said)
One wonders how highly he values the polite applause of socialites at D.C. cocktail parties.
He knows which justices law students and professors gush over in law school and which ones are reviled. It's only human, I think, to want to be in the former group. But upholding the law is a superhuman responsibility. It is also an empty pursuit to chase applause from those who see your entire perspective as unacceptable. He'll never be liberal enough for them.
I'm curious if there is a comparable figure for private debt, as well. I know the amount of corporate debt held by U.S. companies is supposedly substantial.
I still get the feeling that national debts will, at some point, be restructured, forgiven. It's not something I think is absolutely necessary, but given the alternatives, I'm sure something like that will happen over the next 50 years.
I disagree. Very few leaders throughout history actually bothered to listen to the needs of ordinary people and used popular support as a basis for government. It may be a broad-sounding definition, but it still leaves us with the same cast of characters. Populism is much deeper and emotional than "poll-testing" opinions. You mentioned Paul Ryan, again, for instance. Paul Ryan actually said he took the needs of foreign citizens into consideration, even before those of his own constituents, so I would be surprised if he actually went to his constituents (who voted for Trump in 2016), asked them "hey what do you guys really want, more than anything else?", heard them say "globalism!" at the top of their lungs, and then went to DC to do their bidding. I'd be surprised if he ever even met a constituent outside of a staged event.
They very well could be. The problem being that I don't know any ordinary, working class person who sits around thinking, in their heart-of-hearts "gee, what my family really needs is a liberalized trade regime!" Even in 19th century Britain, the world leader of free trade, where it was pretty popular a policy, I don't know of too many people for whom that was an issue of dire importance, except the elites. Elitism and populism are diametrically opposed. If you need a bipolar spectrum in lieu of left-right, that's your spectrum. And Paul Ryan's "I know better than thee" attitude is the poster of elitism.
This wouldn't be the first time, I think, where we thought we were talking about the same thing and then it turns out we have different pre-conceived notions. This is why Confucius exhorts the "Rectification of Names"; when people use language differently from its plain meaning, and use individualized, specialized meanings, discord ensues. That's why the social justice language police are so dangerous, because they've corrupted the meanings of so many words, so that, for instance "abortion access" is now "reproductive health", even though terminating a pregnancy is neither reproductive nor healthful. But I digress.
Yes, Britain's peace really only applied within the empire, though I supposed that could be said of the Pax Augusta too.
I'm not sure I agree with your characterization. The British, Russian, and Japanese involvement was much more considerable than a "random division's worth of troops". Without an intervention, the rebellion could have easily turned into a second Taiping Rebellion, which cost tens of millions of lives, and the Qing dynasty was in a poor position to stop it.
As I tried to explain, European peace was only possible when Germany, Austria, and Russia were at peace. Once those three, the most critical parts of the puzzle, were separated, war resumed, both after 1848 and in 1914. It is not as odd as it seems. Britain has almost never been a major player in continental affairs apart from financing bigger players like Prussia. France is usually the wild card, as with both Napoleons, and Louis XIV and Louis XIII before them. France is a "kingmaker", but their outlook is too opportunistic to (historically) have been a stable pillar for Europe. Germany, Austria, and Russia all had very similar characters, making them natural allies for peace. Unfortunately, they were also all neighbors in a poorly defined part of the world, making them natural rivals.
Most of Europe was recovering from WWII during the Cold War, and only had 20 more years after that until the collapse of the Soviet Union. The repatriation of foreign nationalities at the end of the war, combined with the multilateral EU encouraging economic cooperation, also removed most reasons to start a war, since borderlines were along ethnic lines (as Napoleon III had tried to do the previous century) and countries now shared resources, rather than extracting them from external colonies (unthinkable in the 19th century). But the rest of the world is not so lucky. Millions died in Africa, the Middle-East, and Eastern Asia during the Cold War under the indifferent eyes of the superpowers. And around two million (that I can think of) have died since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Balkan Wars, the wars in the ME and Africa, and overall borderless violence does not win any points for the United States' "global leadership" in my book.
From what sources I can find, the British aircraft production does not really pick up until the time of the Battle of Britain, which is when it finally surpasses Germany's, whereas France was not producing much aircraft at all, and was actually trying to import from America, in some places. The only area I think the Allies were on pace with Germany was in tank and artillery (in both cases badly utilized as troop support, in contrast to Germany's armored spearhead tactics), and the only place they exceeded them was in naval arms.
It occurred to me I never directly answered this question. I would say anyone who holds power in society and separates themselves from the masses (culturally, socially, etc.) are elites. People who could easily fit in this category are almost all politicians, most celebrities, and most of corporate America. I would not define it necessarily by amount of wealth or profession. Doctors or athletes could certainly fit into the elite category, but I wouldn't place them there by default. There are a number of elitist doctors and athletes, to be sure, but I don't think there's enough political consciousness there for most to be elitist as a rule.
Tagged: Basilicus, 
The Gallant Old Republic.
Napoleon is the national hero of Poland. He funded the training of our soliders who then fought for our freedom and trained next generations.
He may be a great villain of the west and the great empires of his time, but he was a hero of the people that were oppressed at the time. We all know that he helped Poles, only because he knew we will fight in his battles in exchange and ultimately it was a small price for him, but it was a heroic act compared to all other nations simply forcing us into their armies.
In the end, even if I would not agree that Napoleon is the ultimate perfect monarch, I have to say he is a hero and will be a hero. Every time anyone sings polish anthem, they say thanks to Bonaparte for training us and that "he showed us how we ought to win" as the anthem says.
As an ethnically French person and a Catholic I have to say that while Napoleon wasn't perfect he was better than the revolution. The revolution killed anyone who disagreed with them, defaced Notre Dame, toppled statues of St. Joan of Arc, and killed nuns simply because they refused to stop their religious practices. Napoleon put a stop to the madness and helped preserve Catholicism and French culture within France. (Kinda) I'd say he isn't bad in that regard. He certainly was a brave and rather genius general and to the French he's probably a hero. To the British and their allies they probably hate him for taking over a huge amount of europe.
Culture of Life and Under ledzia
His architectural works and his interest in the welfare of the working poor were indeed admirable. I'd also note that his protection of religions wasn't just about Catholicism either -- he helped break down a lot of anti-Semitism that was present in France and the territories he went on to conquer.
Of course, the flaw of monarchy is not that good monarchs cannot exist, but rather that the system in itself does not especially predispose towards good leaders. Rather, it is mere accident of birth that gives power, and the only way to subvert that system is through murder and games of succession.
So actually, as someone who is in England, I'd agree with the broad assessment that as tyrants go Napoleon III was a good tyrant, mostly benevolent and mostly just, and an achiever of great things. However, he was still a tyrant, and worse still a tyrant who seized power by overturning the constitution of the French Second Republic.
In contrast the Third Republic (and I suppose democracy in general) has many villainous individuals and terrible decisions, but that core of accountability to the will of the people is so very important. Ultimately, while I loathe Trump and dislike Boris Johnson, I'd rather live in a democracy under a leader I voted against than in an Empire under a leader who can only be held accountable by military force.
You might of course put some of my opinion down to Britishness, and the native bias in these islands against Napoleon. To which I'd clarify the statements above by also pointing out I'd like to boot Queen Elizabeth out of Buckingham Palace and onto her royal backside, as there's no room for monarchy of any sort in the 21st century.
Suffice to say I do not support liberalism or nationalism and my conception of a good monarch is based on the Middle Ages where the actual person of the monarch and his character matters significantly more than the end result of his pragmatic administering (I'm not saying it doesn't matter, just that it is not all important). I'm not sure how being an immoral person of dubious character wouldn't effect good governance. My truly exemplar would be both a good person and a good administrator (keeping in mind that everything that goes wrong is not necessarily the fault on whoever is in charge). Magnus VII, for example, is much better than Napoleon III.
Forget about policy and political swing! Let's face it: if the US is ever forced to restructure its debt, if it ever misses a bond payment, the economy (mind you the world economy) will tank overnight with the devaluation of the dollar. The current global economy is built on the dollar's stability.
«12. . .2,1662,1672,1682,1692,1702,1712,172. . .2,5122,513»
Advertisement
