Silence Dogood Wire

Because of its frequent vulgarity and lack of sophistication, people often forget that television is a form of art. Of course it is mass entertainment but, then again, so was Shakespeare. His plays were performed in front of an often rowdy audience of commoners, and many of his works contained dirty jokes and innuendo. Yet today Shakespeare is regarded as a master of the English language and one of the greatest students of human nature. His plays cut to the heart of life and depict the struggles of human beings with profound insight and realism. He presents us with characters that inspire and engage us, and displays the full spectrum of human emotion. A well-done television show can accomplish the same feat.

The British drama series Downton Abbey certainly deserves to be regarded as one such masterpiece. The show follows the aristocratic Crawley family and their servants through 1912 to 1925. On a historical note, the setting is quite interesting as the show portrays the profound changes that WWI wrought on British society. Class waned in importance and social relations were less clear cut. Indeed, in 1930, when Winston Churchill wrote about his youth, he said that, “When I survey this whole era I find I have drawn a picture of a vanished age.” The character of society, of politics, the methods of war, the outlook of youth, the scale of values were all changed, and changed to an extent I should not have believed possible in so short a space without any violent domestic revolution. Viewers watch as a powerful family navigates changing social norms.

The show is already quite unique in the way it portrays these changes. Nowadays it is common to view the past with what C. S. Lewis called “chronological snobbishness.” Most people believe the future inevitably progresses towards more enlightenment as we shake off the customs of our benighted ancestors. But Downton takes neither a romantic view of the past nor a naive view of the future. It merely shows the past as it was and allows viewers to understand both the dislocations and benefits of temporal progress. 

Surprisingly, the show also illustrates the importance of an antiquated sexual ethic for both practical considerations like child bearing and forming meaningful relationships. When Lady Mary falls for the dastardly Pamouk it forces her into the arms of Sir Richard Carlyle and damages her relationship with Matthew. Furthermore, when she manipulates Tony Gillingham, she risks scandal and causes him great unhappiness. Similarly, when Edith gives herself to a very decent man whom she intends to marry, the resulting child makes her life much more complicated. The show doesn’t preach, nor does it denigrate the concept of romance. It merely shows that in contrast to our modern view, life has consequences.

The noblesse oblige shown by characters like Lord Grantham is also a hallmark of the show. Far from engaging in a Marxist interpretation of history, the writers illustrate the complex human relations between social classes. While no one is perfect, the family shows a profound concern for the well-being of their tenants and servants. In turn, the servants show a great deal of affection and loyalty towards their kind employers. Carson the butler would die for the family and Mrs. Patmore is sometimes moved to tears by the kindness shown to her. Indeed, the villains of the show are those like Thomas and Miss O’Brien who display an unjust resentment towards those of a higher social status. While striving to improve one’s lot is commended (think Gwen becoming a secretary), envy and greed are shown as corrosive to human relations and the individual soul. 

This brings us to the subject of villains. In modern cinema, villains are often shown as mere products of their environment. Downton takes a decidedly different stance. While the series’ villains are shown to have had hard lives, this fact does not excuse their bad behavior. Ultimately, they commit acts of evil because they have freely chosen it, not because social circumstances have coerced them into a particular way of life. In this way, Downton is deeply anti-materialistic and illustrates the power and importance of human agency.

The highlights of the show, however, are its romantic stories. Indeed, Downton both separates and unites the concepts of love and lust, which our culture has forgotten. In addition to the profound importance of physical love (think of the older Mr. Carson desiring both physical and emotional attachment to Mrs. Hughes), the show also points to the importance of loving another person’s soul. Indeed, Carson’s love of Mrs. Hughes’ soul is what leads him to desire a close physical relationship. 

The show also beautifully demonstrates the transformative power of love. It is not just a fleeting and intense emotion but a commitment to another person. In fact, loving makes both the lover and the beloved more lovely. For example, Lady Mary is softened and made more beautiful by her relationship with Matthew Crawley. When Mary remarks on her own coldness, Matthew disagrees and says that he is the only one who sees her as she truly is. He sees her physical beauty but also her inner beauty. And his love of her makes this inner beauty more manifest.

Ultimately, Downton is a masterpiece because it shows life as it is. Life is not a Marxist power struggle nor a Freudian game of sexual repression nor meaninglessly materialistic. Rather, life is an often sad and uncomfortable struggle that is redeemed by love, friendship, and consciously choosing the good.

Everyone in America understands that deep political conversations are difficult. When the topic is taxes and foreign policy, the speakers generally remain civil. But when the discussion moves to issues such as abortion, transgenderism, gay marriage, and Constitutionalism the participants quickly engage in emotional proclamations and accusations of bigotry. In much of the public square – and even the home – rational discourse has given way to appeals to personal experience and attempted emotional blackmail. Indeed, the closer one gets to issues of fundamental morality, the more chaotic and unhinged the conversation becomes.

While issues of morality have always driven men to disputes – even deadly disputes – the absence of reason is a distinctly modern feature of Western political life. 

One can trace this problem to a number of thinkers but in many ways Max Weber best explains the modern problem. Weber, a renowned German sociologist in the early 20th century, created the concept of a fact-value distinction. According to his analysis there exists a world of facts that can be scientifically discovered and a world of historically created values that cannot be rationally verified. Values are not the subject of scientific analysis and thus they cannot be said to be true or false. Thus, the social scientists must refrain from commenting upon right and wrong. The philosopher Leo Strauss aptly remarked that this would allow a scientific man to describe all aspects of a concentration camp but “we would not be permitted to speak of cruelty.”

In large measure, the modern West adopted this viewpoint. While few would hesitate to speak of the cruelty of a concentration camp, most agree with Weber’s fundamental point: there are facts and there are values. Richard Rorty, a famous philosopher in the 1990s argued that “All thought inevitably derives from particular historical standpoints, perspectives and interests” (quoted in West Four Texts on Socrates). Who are we to say what is truly good or evil in an ultimate sense? There may be a truth of the matter about molecular physics, but our intuitions about good and evil have no grounding in reality.

Culturally, we see the fact-value distinction at play in the modern acceptance of all lifestyles as equally valid. It is impossible to say what is truly good because each person has a set of subjective values that cannot be compared to any ultimate standard. In other words there is only “my truth”

Given that we no longer acknowledge the rich tradition of ethical inquiry stretching back to Socratic and Biblical times, one can say that our moral discourse now implicitly relies on the philosophy known as “emotivism.” Emotivists argue that the statement “this is right” equates to “I like this.” Similarly, “This is wrong” really means “I don’t like this.” Moral statements possess no inherent truth, they are mere expressions of opinion. In the emotivist world, everything becomes emotion.

Rational discourse about right and wrong cannot exist in an emotivist universe. When people differ over a question of morality they can merely give their opinion. Because reason cannot be used to determine which “value” is correct , emotional appeals, name-calling, and anger are all that remain. Hence the unintellectual and disrespectful nature of our political debates. 

The path out of our unhinged discourse doesn’t lie in the belief that every way of looking at the world is valid. Far from leading to tolerance, such a view leads to the conclusion that emotional manipulation, anger, or even force are the only ways to win an argument. Alternatively, the belief that there exist objective truths encourages rational discussion in search of said truths. 

Furthermore, a belief in moral truths encourages citizens to defend their heritage. The Founding Fathers didn’t struggle for a particular historical viewpoint. Nor did they fight for things they merely liked. Instead they fought for “self-evident” truths laid down by a Creator. Freedom and responsibility require a rejection of vapid moral discourse and recovery of philosophical reflection. 

Perhaps the most common gesture in the modern West is a shrug. When confronted with complex moral questions, people prefer to avoid answers in favor of apathetic non-judgmentalism. There is almost a fear of calling actions either right or wrong. The great writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn warned the West against this moral weakness after his escape from the Gulags of the Soviet Union. In 1975 he told an audience “it is almost a joke in the Western world to use words like ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ They have become old-fashioned concepts, yet they are very real and genuine.” His words should serve as a clarion call to the twenty-first century as well.

Indeed, the inability to determine and defend right over wrong represents the profound influence of moral relativism on our culture. This philosophy holds that enduring moral truths are an illusion. Instead, there exist ever-changing codes of conduct created by human beings.

Opposed to this view is the notion that an unchanging natural right can be discovered through reason. Revelation can also supplement natural right by providing insight that our human minds cannot fully understand. The Founding Fathers, perhaps more than any other men in history, implemented the doctrine of natural rights. In the Farmer Refuted, a young Alexander Hamilton proclaimed, “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” According to Hamilton and his fellow revolutionaries, moral laws exist whether or not a government or even a nation recognizes them. Thomas Jefferson famously echoed this sentiment when he wrote that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

The debate over natural right, however, extends back much further than the Founding. Over two thousand years ago, the Greek philosophers vigorously defended and refined the notion of natural right against moral relativism. Plato’s Republic, for example, begins with a discussion about the nature of justice. 

The main character, Socrates, debates- or rather questions- Thrasymachus about his theory of justice. According to Thrasymachus “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger.” Thus, he rejects the notion that there is a natural order that humans discover. Rather, whatever powers that be determine right and wrong. After a careful analysis of his argument, Socrates forces Thrasymachus to admit that justice actually exists. However, he quickly proceeds to claim that injustice is better. Throughout the rest of the work, Socrates then attempts to show that justice is desirable in itself. 

Aristotle, the student of Plato, also believed in the existence of natural right. According to him, all men have a natural telos or an end towards which they strive. The end which we obviously all seek to attain is happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness is not merely a warm feeling but an activity of our soul. Humans achieve their end (which is happiness) by performing rational activity in accordance with virtue. According to Aristotle, both our end and the way in which we achieve our end are prescribed by nature. Thus, despite their differences, the Founding Fathers, Plato, Aristotle, and the great heroes of Western philosophy held that a moral order exists outside of man. It is the job of governments and individuals to conform themselves to this order.

Modern philosophy sought to throw off the chains of a morality independent of man’s will. Machiavelli, the great Italian philosopher, rejected elements of classical philosophy in the early 16th century. In The Prince he endorsed brutal methods for establishing a state. According to the scholar Leo Strauss, Machiavelli held that “virtue exists exclusively for the sake of the commonwealth; political life proper is not subject to morality; morality is not possible outside of political society.” Indeed, because the state creates order, they must have no scruples when seizing power. Only after the state has been formed can morality be said to exist. Thus, morality is wholly dependent on man’s will.

Thomas Hobbes made this point even clearer in his Leviathan published in 1651. He claimed that morality doesn’t exist prior to the creation of a state. Rather, a sovereign must be created in order to establish codes of conduct.

Again in The Farmer Refuted, Alexander Hamilton excoriated this view stating that Hobbes believed “Moral obligation…is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he ran into this absurd and impious doctrine was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent, superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge, of the universe.”

In many ways, the contemporary West accepted Hobbes’ views while rejecting those of Hamilton. While people may still resist the government dictating their moral choices, they no longer believe in a natural right. Whereas Hobbes and Machiavelli thought that a sovereign creates morality, modern man believes that each sovereign individual creates his or her own morality. Thus, there is no standard by which we can criticize the actions of others, the government, or even ourselves. Our response to something wrong is merely “I don’t like that.” Lost is the language of moral logic that animated debates over the last 2,500 years. 

Recovering moral sensibility requires regaining contact with the greatest parts of the Western tradition. Indeed, freedom itself necessitates a recognition that we are not free to build our own moral systems. Only by discovering right through the use of reason can we adequately describe the world in which we live, defend the rights we possess, and maintain our heritage.  

In an age of twenty-four-hour news cycles and one-sentence tweets people often forget an important lesson: two things can be true at once. Especially in the realm of foreign relations, commentators often forget that decision makers must accept trade-offs to secure long-term benefits. The United States and Britain, for example, partnered with the U.S.S.R. in order to defeat Nazi Germany during WWII. Despite Stalin’s dictatorial rule, the realities of geopolitical competition forced a choice between the lesser of two evils. As Churchill once remarked “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons.”

In the contemporary era, the United States must also accept two facts about modern Russia. First, the country is ruled by a terrible dictator. Second, despite its possession of nuclear weapons, Russia is a second rate power. In fact, Russia’s GDP is slightly less than Italy’s. Indeed, Russia is far from our greatest adversary. Nonetheless, despite our relative isolation, the U.S. provides substantially more aid to Ukraine than any European country.

Initially, the United States invested in European security in the aftermath of WWII. The rise of the Soviet Union coupled with a destruction of European infrastructure forced the U.S. to take a leading role in the defense of the continent. 

Given cessation of the Cold War over thirty years ago, providing the lion’s share of military equipment is inefficient in a perilous world. The Trump administration recognizes this important reality. At a meeting in Brussels Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insisted that Europe must provide the majority of funding for Ukraine.

Contrary to the histrionics of media figures and foreign heads of state, forcing Europe to pay for its own defense does not amount to an abandonment. The EU’s total GDP exceeds Russia’s by a factor of ten. If Europeans possess the willpower to defend themselves, they certainly possess the resources.

Moreover, placing Europe in charge of its own security serves more than just financial interests. It is essential for American grand strategy. According to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, the United States cannot fight a major two-front war. Thus, in addition to raising our defense budget, our leaders must encourage allies to share the burden of defense while America focuses on the most pressing concerns. This appears to be the strategy of the Trump Administration.

Rather than pursuing outdated Cold War policies, the president wants to shift American focus towards our greatest adversary: China. Just days after President Trump took office, foreign ministers of the Quad (United States, India, Japan, and Australia) met in Washington. In a joint statement, the attendees reaffirmed their “shared commitment to strengthening a Free and Open Indo-Pacific where the rule of law, democratic values, sovereignty, and territorial integrity are upheld and defended.” The four nations also agreed to a future summit in India. As analysts have noted, the early meeting illustrates the Trump Administration’s desire to combat Chinese influence.

In addition to his insistence on defense burden-sharing, President Trump’s pursuit of peace with Russia may also support his strategic pivot. Much like Nixon, he is attempting to decouple Russia and China from one another. In the eyes of our enemies, his strategy appears to be threatening. Indeed, in the midst of President Trump’s talks with Russia, Xi Jinping said that Russia and China are friends. Driving a wedge between the two could significantly enhance national security and lessen the danger of a major conflict.

While President Trump’s strategy is less than ideal, it may be necessary in a less than ideal world. The United States does not have unlimited resources and faces a much greater threat than Russia. Far from acting as if the world were black and white, leaders are forced to make tradeoffs in the midst of conflicting claims and varying interests. The new administration’s gambit has the potential to increase national security and isolate our greatest adversary.

Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the greatest military commanders of all time, paid keen attention to his soldiers’ morale. He once claimed that “In war, moral factors account for three-quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one-quarter.” The ancient Greek author Xenophon made similar observations in his work The Education of Cyrus. Cyrus the Great, the first Persian Emperor, assiduously attempted to instill confidence and discipline in his troops. Even with the greatest numbers and most advanced equipment, a trembling and demoralized army will lose to a smaller, more determined force. 

What holds true for militaries also holds true for nations as a whole. Materially strong nations that lack moral resolve never overcome their more determined neighbors. Hardened barbarians can destroy soft and decadent Romans, even if they possess inferior equipment and worse infrastructure.

For this reason, a statesman must maintain the morale of his citizens and the vision of his nation. National leaders are not merely upper-level bureaucrats who adhere to fixed rules and poll-tested platitudes. Rather, they both guide and respond to the national spirit.

In many countries, leaders have forgotten this goal. Those who gather at Davos, for example, distance themselves from the people in order to impose their own global ideologies. This problem also presents itself in America. As the late Henry Kissinger wrote “[t]he civic patriotism that once lent prestige to public service appears to have been outflanked by an identity-based factionalism and a competing cosmopolitanism. In America, a growing number of college graduates aspire to become globe-trotting corporate executives and professional activists.” In many places, national pride has given way to shame and rejection of Western values.

Europe, however, has gone much farther down the path of national decay. Economic sluggishness, burgeoning censorship, and mass migration all contribute to a general malaise. Politicians are unresponsive to the wishes of voters as illustrated by the recent rout of the U.K. Conservative Party. Far from representing a permanent leftward shift, the election demonstrated the Conservatives’ lack of concern for their voters. As CNN reported, “Starmer’s [Labour] party only increased its vote share by a few percentage points from its dismal 2019 showing.” Indeed, according to Politico “Actual voter turnout was the second-lowest in a century.” Concerns about the general management of the country, especially immigration all contributed to the defeat.

Numerous other examples demonstrate the dissatisfaction of many Europeans with their governments. Populism is on the rise in France and the Netherlands and a growing number of anti-immigration candidates recently won historic victories. In each country, elites have scrambled to prevent right-wing parties from exercising political power. In the midst of this turmoil, J.D. Vance provided a voice of moral clarity. 

Last week, the Vice President delivered remarks at the Munich Security Conference. A typical politician would have highlighted international threats and encouraged increased defense spending. Nonetheless, the Vice President shocked his audience when he said “the threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.” Vance then proceeded to reprimand European leaders’ embrace of censorship and speech codes. Such actions, he said, are “the most surefire way to destroy democracy.”

Furthermore, the Vice President issued a warning about the dangers of unfettered immigration. As he noted, “No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants… And more and more, all over Europe, they’re voting for political leaders who promise to put an end to out-of-control migration.” The Vice President acknowledged the reality of these concerns and urged others to do the same. 

Essentially, the Vice President’s speech was designed to remind Europeans of their democratic heritage. As he told his audience “I’ve heard a lot about what you need to defend yourselves from, and, of course, that’s important. But what has seemed a little bit less clear to me and certainly, I think, to many of the citizens of Europe, is what exactly it is that you’re defending yourselves for. What is the positive vision that animates this shared security compact that we all believe is so important?” Indeed, without a shared commitment to our respective civilizations accompanied by a willingness to defend them, a close alliance loses its meaning. 

Like the statesmen before him the Vice President understands that military supremacy is futile in the absence of moral resolve. Increased defense spending  also requires strong and committed nations. For “how will you even begin to think through the kinds of budgeting questions if we don’t know what it is that we’re defending in the first place?” Indeed, Western military might requires confidence in the future and a firm commitment to our shared civilization.

Contrary to the protestations of the mainstream media, President Trump does not pose a radical and unprecedented threat to democracy. In reality, he ran a quite moderate campaign. Rather than fully endorsing conservative principles (or prosecuting his opponent) the president occupied the middle ground that Democrats abandoned. On the economy, immigration, and social issues, he articulated many popular and common-sense positions. 

Democrats realized their mistake only later in the campaign when they began to feign moderation. Thus Kamala Harris ran ads featuring Trump’s border wall and pledged to spend hundreds of millions on extending it. Previously, the former vice president supported decriminalizing border crossings and called the wall a “medieval vanity project.” She also supported transgender mutilation surgeries for prisoners and illegal immigrants. Later, in the 2024 campaign, she suddenly became coy on the issue, merely stating that she would “follow the law.” Her brief flirt with sanity was too little too late.

Indeed, the recent election should serve as a wake-up call for Democrats to attempt a reclamation of the middle ground they lost to President Trump. Given their coterie of high-paid consultants, one would think this is exactly what they would do. 

Nevertheless, it appears that Democrats are inseparable from their radical left-wing base. They cannot fathom that Americans genuinely prefer moderation to a woke revolution. 

This inability to read the political current was put on full display during Governor Tim Walz’s recent appearance on MSNBC. Responding to President Trump’s brief freeze of federal funding, Walz warned his audience “This is real…They’re talking about defunding the police.” He then urged his viewers to ignore distractions like whether Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute because “of course he did.” Walz also expressed concern for the federal employees who may be fired. Never mentioned was the fact that according to a recent audit, only 6 percent of federal employees work full-time in an office.

In many ways, Tim Walz represents the heart of the Democratic Party. He pontificates, endorses absurd positions in the name of compassion, and repeats media talking points. He finds fear-mongering about President Trump much easier than providing a feasible alternative.

The delirium among Democrats is also apparent to those who tune into major news outlets. The highlight of CNN is now watching conservative Scott Jennings destroy his counterparts as they discuss policy. During the presidential campaign, for example Jim Acosta pointed to Trump’s “dehumanizing” rhetoric surrounding immigrants. Jennings responded by asking “Would you say it is more or less dehumanizing than murdering and raping someone?” On every major issue it seems that the left is more worried about hurting people’s feelings than delivering results. 

Ultimately, there are two scenarios for a future Democratic victory. First, President Trump may misread his mandate and go too far. If this occurs voters may punish incumbents by voting them out of office. This would merely represent a dissatisfaction with Republican governance rather than an approval of Democratic principles. Second, Democrats could undertake a systematic renewal of their party by adopting common-sense immigration policies and abandoning their radicalism on social issues.

The second scenario occurred with the election of former President Bill Clinton in 1992. He made overtures to Republicans and rejected many aspects of the traditional Democratic Party. In his 1996 State of the Union Address, for example, Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over.” He also acknowledged the coming of “the era of balanced budgets and smaller government.”

Democrats would do well to follow Clinton’s example. However, it could take a while. Twelve years passed between Ronald Reagan’s victory in the 1980 election and Clinton’s triumph in 1992. Thus, if President Trump and his allies play their hand right, we may be entering a period of historic and much-needed Republican governance.

Most people outside of Washington, D.C. recognize the tedious and artificial formality that characterizes so much of our political discourse. Political opponents who attempt to destroy each other in the court of public opinion, and sometimes even actual courts, give each other compliments. Before asking questions during committees senators engage in prolonged thank yous to various figures. While these artificial manners can promote civility, oftentimes they serve to obscure reality and prevent people from speaking the truth. In other words, politicians tend to be inauthentic. Rather than speaking their minds they repeat poll-tested platitudes.

President Trump is certainly not one such politician. He always speaks his mind, sometimes to a fault. It is for this reason that so many people admire him. They prefer candor rather than pseudo-respect, especially when we face crises both foreign and domestic. Indeed, the President’s Second Inaugural Address was a lesson in candor. He eviscerated his predecessor’s terrible use of executive power.

President Trump began his remarks by stating that America is on the precipice of a golden age in which “Our sovereignty will be restored. Our safety will be restored…And our top priority will be to create a nation that is proud and prosperous and free.”

After this hopeful introduction, he pivoted to “the challenges we face.” He then proceeded to catalogue the profound injustices that were done to the United States by the previous administration. Far from engaging in pointless formality, he honestly described the failures caused by his predecessor as the former president listened from behind the podium. President Trump pulled no pouches, stating that, “For many years, the radical and corrupt establishment has extracted power and wealth from our citizens.” In addition, the United States had “a government that cannot manage even a simple crisis at home while at the same time stumbling into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad.”

After recounting these problems, the President began laying out solutions he would pursue as president. These included the enforcement of immigration law, energy independence, and the restoration of President McKinely’s name to what is now Mount Denali. While the last proposal may seem insignificant, it served as a powerful rebuke to the left’s attempts to rename historical monuments and erase American history. Indeed, President Trump signalled a shift away from shame about America’s past to pride in the accomplishments of our forefathers. 

It was at the end of the speech, however, that the president reached the height of his rhetorical powers. In this final section, he called on Americans to reclaim their heritage as “history’s greatest civilization.” In perhaps the greatest line of the speech he encouraged the United States to “pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.” What followed until the end of the speech was a tribute to American exceptionalism.

After recounting the great achievements of the nation, President Trump ended his address by assuring the audience that “our golden age has just begun.”

The address succeeded because it was honest; honest about challenges we face, honest about our ability to overcome them, and honest about our great heritage. Indeed, President Trump delivered a truly inspiring Inaugural Address. If his administration succeeds, it could be a historic one.

In 1762 Jean-Jaques Rousseau published one of the 18th century’s most influential books. He began The Social Contract with the bold statement, “Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains.” In many ways, Rousseau was a pessimist during a century of optimism. He saw the corruption of monarchy and objected to the notion that expanding knowledge would inexorably lead to progress. His writings pointed to a disillusionment with culture and civilization. 

Although Rousseau did not directly call for a return to a pre-civilized state, he often venerated what is known as the “noble savage” (i.e. man in a primitive state of nature). In his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, for example, he asked “Would you like an abridged account of almost all our wretchedness? Here it is. There existed a natural man. There was introduced into this man an artificial man; and a civil war, enduring throughout life, arose” (quoted in the Durants’ Story of Civilization vol. IX). In essence, Rousseau promoted the idea that man was naturally good but gradually became corrupted by his institutions. 

French intellectuals such as the great encyclopedist, Denis Diderot, frequently made use of this concept. In his dialogue, Supplément au Voyage de Bougainville, Diderot described a fictionalized account of European explorers making contact with primitive Tahitians. One of the interlocutors in the dialogue venerates the natural lifestyle of the natives, stating that “the cruelty among them which has sometimes been observed is apparently due only to their daily need to defend themselves against wild beasts. The savage is innocent and gentle whenever his peace and security are left undisturbed. All wars spring from conflicting claims to the same property.” According to Diderot’s account, the Tahitians were primarily peaceful, even sharing their women in common. In essence, they were noble savages.

The notion of the noble savage, uncorrupted by civilization, was used to great effect by Benjamin Franklin. During his time in France he often played the part of a simple Raccoon-hatted American, despite his incredible intellectual achievements. Thus, he provided fascination to the upper-classes who had been immersed in the writings of Diderot and Rousseau.

Far from ending at the close of the 18th century, the view of primitive peoples as virtuous communitarians continues to influence modern discourse. It gained massive cultural authority in the 1980s when Marxist historian Howard Zinn presented the Native Americans as peaceful communists in his A People’s History of the United States: “So, Columbus and his successors were not coming into an empty wilderness, but into a world…where culture was complex, where human relation were more egalitarian than in Europe, and where the relations among, men women, children, and nature were more beautifully worked out than perhaps any place in the world.” Indeed, the idea of the “noble savage” is one of the most potent forces in American cultural life. The free love movement of the 1960s sought to break down the supposedly unnatural and oppressive bourgeois values that promoted monogamy and the nuclear family. In our present era, breaking down gender norms is justified on the grounds that people will be able to express their “true [or natural] selves.” 

Of course, the noble savage is historically inaccurate. Pre-civilized societies were incredibly violent and warmongering. As historian Mary Grabar recounts, when Columbus reached the new world there “was a request from the cacique of Marien, the Indian chief of the northeastern part of Haiti, that Columbus establish a base there. The chief wanted the Spaniards to protect him from enemies on the island.” Far from being proto-communist flower people, tribal groups perpetrated numerous acts of violence. According to Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker “If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.” In reality, the peaceful primitive society is nothing more than an intellectual construct.

But the issue of the noble savage is more than a historical dispute. Rather it introduces profound and radical disputes over human nature. Proponents of the noble savage reject traditional wisdom by holding that man is spontaneously good. Far from requiring the rules of civilization, mankind is corrupted by them.

Such an outlook is diametrically opposed to the outlook that characterized much of Western history. In the Judeo-Christian worldview, for example, man is held to be tainted by original sin. Thus, he must struggle against his unjust desires in the quest for moral improvement. The noble savage ceased to exist at the Fall. Furthermore, Plato, the great Athenian philosopher, promoted the cultivation of reason as an antidote to a chaotic and unjust soul. In the eyes of Plato, the order of a just city reflects the order of a good soul. His student, Aristotle, also argued that man is a political animal and can only achieve his end in a community. Thus, these two strands of Western thought (Jerusalem and Athens) promote a movement away from primitivism and towards moral enlightenment within a just social order.

The great political philosopher Edmund Burke also emphasized the necessity of civilizing traditions when he criticized the chaos and violence of the French Revolution. Burke believed that inherited institutions provide the basis of morality and stability. Without these traditions “No one generation could link with the other. Men would become little better than flies of a summer.” Thus, according to Burke, gratitude is required for those who have passed down time-tested laws and moral rules. 

The belief in the noble savage, by contrast, promotes ingratitude. We see echoes of this idea in the prevalent scorn for the past and criticism of our ancestors that characterizes so much of modern culture. In this view, it was no great achievement to establish constitutional government, eliminate slavery, or raise the standard of living. If men are naturally good, then we should have attained these things much earlier. Those who worked to civilize and improve society were, at best, engaged in a fool’s errand. Complete revolution to overturn the social fabric would have brought these goods about much sooner and at less cost. Hence the unforgiving criticisms of the Founders for owning slaves. 

Those who castigate Thomas Jefferson or George Washington as irredeemably bigoted assume (against all historical fact) that men will naturally oppose slavery. The self-righteous proponents of this belief claim that they owe nothing to the past for their moral outlook. One who understands the fallibility of man, by contrast, feels gratitude towards men like Washington and Jefferson for providing a set of values that continue to govern his conduct. The revolutionary implicitly accepts the idea of the noble savage in order to elevate his own moral standing and radically critique society. A more sober judgement looks upon the present moment with as the result of centuries of effort and sacrifice.

Watching President Biden deliver a speech is akin to watching a children’s play. The performance flows poorly, he frequently stumbles, and the lines are written by someone else. Unlike a child, however, President Biden holds the most powerful office in the world. Thus, despite his dismal oratorical skills his performances are still worth watching.

Perhaps the most important speech of his career occurred on January 15 when he delivered his Farewell Address to the Nation. During these remarks, presidents often attempt to solidify their legacy by highlighting their accomplishments and providing a vision for the future. Given his terrible performance as president, Biden’s speech assumed even greater importance. His goal should have been to deliver a vague and inspiring speech. Vague in order to avoid any mention of his faults and inspiring in order to make it memorable.

The first half of the speech adequately accomplished this goal. President Biden began with a description of the Statue of Liberty and its metaphorical relationship to the soul of our country. Compared to other speeches, the imagery wasn’t particularly moving, but the speech stayed on course. 

After this introduction, the president briefly and vaguely catalogued the accomplishments of his administration. He avoided talk about the border, mentioned the economy only once, and claimed that “we’ve pulled ahead of our competition with China” whatever that might mean. Up to this point, the speech went smoothly. President Biden had very few stumbles and his speechwriters didn’t make any errors in judgment.

It was in the final section of his speech, however, that the president revealed the divisive and radical character of his presidency. Far from resting content with a list of his supposed accomplishments, the president felt he needed “to warn the country of some things that give me great concern” and thereby set a tone for the future.   

Seeking to channel the energy of Theodore Roosevelt, President Biden warned the country that an “oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.” Rather than ending on a note of unity the president sought to promote class conflict. Quite ironic from a man who recently gave George Soros the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Then, in an attempt to emulate Dwight D. Eisenhower, President Biden warned of a tech-industrial complex that allows Americans to be “buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power.” Because “Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit.” The president clearly referred to Elon Musk’s acquisition of X and Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to stop biased fact-checking on Meta. As he leaves the presidency, Biden hopes to once again seize the means of informational dissemination for the Democratic party.

Furthermore, he called for a radical infringement on the separation of powers through a restructuring of the Supreme Court. According to the President “We need to enact an 18-year time limit — term limit — time and term — for the strongest ethics ref- — and the strongest ethics reforms for our Supreme Court.”

Now that the Court interprets the Constitution according to its original meaning, the Democratic party wants to radically alter the judicial branch. Republicans never made a similar push despite the Supreme Court’s indulgence of liberal prejudices for 60 years. President Biden frequently accused his opponent of loving his country only when he won, but it seems that he is much more guilty of that charge.

Indeed, President Biden’s call for more governmental centralization was the climax of his speech. Far from inspiring Ameircans to unite with one another he engaged in a demagogic attempt to foster class conflict and degrade the rule of law. Joe Biden’s acrimonious exit serves as an analogy for his public life; vain, unprincipled, and morally bankrupt.