I dare you to read the following and not, on some level, read it as a commentary on the current state of American politics:
They are absolutely wrong when they say that the people's poverty safeguards public peace--experience shows the contrary. Where will you find more squabbling than among beggars? Who is more eager for revolution than the man who is most discontented with his present position? Who is more reckless about creating disorders than the man who knows he has nothing to lose and thinks he may have something to gain? If a king is so hated and despised by his subjects that he can rule them only by mistreatment, plundering, confiscation, and pauperization of his people, then he'd do much better to abdicate his throne--for under these circumstances, though he keeps the name of authority, he loves all the majesty of a king. A king has no dignity when he exercises authority over beggars, only when he rules over prosperous and happy subjects. This was certainly what that noble and lofty spirit Fabricius meant when he said he would rather be a ruler of rich men than be rich himself.
A solitary ruler who enjoys a life of pleasure and self-indulgence while all about him are grieving and groaning is acting like a jailer, not a king. Just as an incompetent doctor can cure his patient of one disease only by throwing him into another, so it's an incompetent king who can rule his people only by depriving them of all life's pleasures. Such a king openly confesses that he does not know how to rule free men.
The excerpt is actually from the framing narrative of St. Thomas More's Utopia. It's a funny little text, Utopia. Parts of it read like they were cribbed from the Communist Manifesto, and parts of it sound like a Tea Party rally. This political inconsistency might stem from two background elements. First, More is writing a witty satire. He's being a slippery devil with fictitious versions of himself, and sly characters whose names translate into things like "nonsense peddlar." In this regard, More is composing satire akin to John Stewart or Stephen Colbert. If anyone tries to call his bluff, he can throw up his hands and say he was just being silly...and then point to seeming internal contradictions in the text.
The second element is the confusing state of late medieval / early Renaissance economics and politics. He is writing at a time when a feudal barter system is transforming into an internal mercantilism based on capitalism. Transitioning economic periods are rough, regardless of the costs and benefits of any particular system. And, of course, he's writing under a monarchy at a time where a political concept like "self-interest" pretty much only had pejorative connotations. Thus, characters in Utopia seem to advocate an almost libertarian sense that government should keep its nose out of foreign affairs and out of the subject's purse and at the same time also endorse state-coordinated efforts to regulate the economy. So, while it would be tempting to try to pigeon-hole More's text into one or another modern political body, its early modern values and conflicts keep it from being hijacked by any one group.
Of course, I'm absolutely certain someone as brilliant as More would agree with my particular position on any given matter...
Comments