In the previous post, I discussed the idea of The Great Chain of Being and how the concept was applied by contemporaries in early modern England to maintain societal and government order. I also discussed how the English people broke the Great Chain of Being when they executed King Charles I (1625 – 1649). After an unsuccessful trial run under the Commonwealth of England (1649 – 1660), the chain was rebuilt with the restoration of King Charles II (1660 – 1685). This return to a monarchy reminded me of the reversion to the mean; society and government revisited an order that they knew best. In the last post, I asked how this period of England’s history might be relevant to understanding America today. This, I will answer presently. But I must also qualify that I use the term “reversion to the mean” loosely. I recognize that the form of government societies “select” (or, more precisely, abide) is not accomplished through mere statistical chance. I use the expression as a term of art.
For all of my lamenting about the stupidity of Americans who seem hell-bent on ushering in the nation’s first dictator, a question constantly nags me: Could it last? I have written extensively about how once we lose our democracy, we won’t get it back. In truth, I must admit I think perhaps so or perhaps not. The only thing — the only solace, so to speak — that gives me the slightest bit of hope is the fact that Americans have no tradition of living under a dictatorship. People don’t know what they are getting themselves into, and I don’t think the majority will like what they’ve voted for or allowed to happen. As I look back to other examples, the histories of some countries make more sense when viewed in the context of people “electing” a form of government they know best. Obviously, England is the first instance. They flirted with a republic but restored their monarchy. However, the kingship was much changed — from an absolute monarchy under Henry VII (1485 – 1509) to the beginnings of a constitutional monarchy following the Glorious Revolution (1688 – 1689) under William III (1689 – 1702) and Mary II (1689 – 1694). And it’s been a limited monarchy ever since — England’s reversion to a (altered) mean.
Then I thought of Putin in Russia. Here, too, I see a reversion to the mean. Before the Russian Revolution (1917 – 1923), some form of monarchy ruled Russia for nearly a thousand years, specifically by tsars beginning with Ivan IV (1530 – 1584) and ending with the execution of Nicholas II (1894 – 1917), which, like England, was also done in the name of the people. Russians, too, flirted with a form of representative government under communism, but that quickly gave way to a dictator — Stalin (1941 – 1953). Even with the fall of the U.S.S.R. (1922 – 1991), Russians once again tried to implement a democracy (of sorts), but that, again, was eventually co-opted by another dictator — Putin (2000 – 2008, 2012 – present). Russians seem exceedingly fond of this style of government and societal order: A dictator (or tzar) leading their way with elections conducted only for show.
Germany is another example, which may explain how the likes of Hitler (1933 – 1945) came to power. For hundreds of years, the principalities that eventually formed the unified states of Germany as an empire (1871 – 1918) had been governed by kings and princes. It was only following World War I (1914 – 1918) that Germany toyed with a republic, which failed spectacularly — the Weimar Republic (1918 – 1933). In short, citizens clamored for a form of government they knew best and believed would work better: A dictatorship (also known as a non-hereditary form of monarchy). Enter Hitler, who swept into power through elections and then promptly made himself dictator without so much as a shrug from the people — a pure reversion to the mean. To be sure, Germany is not a dictatorship or a monarchy currently. (Although a line of the Hohenzollern dynasty still exists.) So, in some fashion, they broke the chain — for now. Even so, it took a world war and the utter destruction of a nation to oust their autocrat in favor of a democracy.
France is yet another example of a country that has not reverted to a monarchy, but even their history evinces that they tried to do so a few times. Indeed, the French Revolution (1789 – 1799) ended hundreds of years of monarchy with the execution of Louis XVI (1774 – 1792). They, too, attempted a republic (for about a decade, similar to England) that ushered in the Reign of Terror (1793 – 1794) and ultimately led to Emporer Napolean I (1803 – 1814, 1815), which, in turn, eventually led to the Bourbon restoration under Louis XVIII (1814 – 1824). Again, the people basically traded in Emperor Napoleon for the return of a king. Then France veered back to the Second Republic (1848 – 1852) under Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, who crowned himself Emperor Napoleon III (1852 – 1870). This led to the Third Republic (1870 – 1940). What a mess. (France is actually in its Fifth Republic era.) But the point is the same: France reverted to the mean — a monarchy of some sort — a few times before finally settling on a stable republic.
Clearly, I could find other examples of nations that permanently broke the chain, suggesting a reversion to the mean is not always fate or that nations can create a new mean. Nonetheless, what do these select histories proffer about America? To be sure, America has no history of a monarchy or rule by an autocrat. A democratic mean is the only form of government we understand and recognize. (However, some Founding Fathers begged George Washington to consider something more than a four-year presidency. And it is also not lost on me that the founding of our nation was entirely based on throwing off the yoke of monarchy — the penultimate action of breaking the chain.) In short, it is not in our national DNA to be anything other than a representative democracy, despite 40 percent of the population hoping to alter that genetic blueprint. Once traitor trump re-enters to the Oval Office, do we as a country act like England and return to what we know best — a democracy — or do we act like France, which changed their government forever? Note the counter-intuitiveness of this comparison. England struggled to keep their monarchy, while France struggled to shed it. We, in America, are struggling to keep our democracy. What does seem sure is this: The struggle will be long once traitor trump returns to the White House. (Note how diversions from the mean usually last about a decade. Witness the Commonwealth of England, the French Revolution, Nazi Germany, and Russia’s post-U.S.S.R democracy.) As I have suggested many times, another civil war will likely be required to return to our governing mean. I would not count on a Glorious Revolution to win back our democracy. Sadly, I see no way out, only through (a civil war). And like all the nations above — that all f***ed around and found out (in some cases, repeatedly) — we’re about to do the same!