Uncategorized

King George III, Thomas Jefferson, and the Neocons

Article by Paul Gottfried.
——————————————————————————————————
Anyone but a movement conservative groupie might wonder what George III, who reigned from 1760 to 1820, is doing on the same list with Hitler and Stalin. George was a constitutional monarch who went along with his parliamentary government when it imposed the Stamp Act on the American colonies and when it opposed (however languidly) the American rebellion. He did not run concentration camps nor even engage in vast projects of income redistribution. His Majesty exercised far less power than our current American executive.
“The new guys on the block can’t stand the remnants of an order to which they had not belonged.”

Nor did he land up on anyone’s “ash heap.” Although the British Crown lost direct control over the thirteen colonies, it became the new American republic’s major trading partner. Moreover, George managed to hold onto and bequeath to his profligate son George IV the rest of a vast overseas empire mostly acquired by his father George II. By all accounts, George was a successful monarch in retaining as much of the British Empire as he did and in defeating an aggressively annexationist France under Napoleon. Under George’s rule Great Britain would become the world’s most powerful country. George and his ministers are today associated not with an ash heap but with their country’s glory age…

…The neoconservative abhorrence of monarchy took a particularly vulgar form when the New York Post’s resident yenta Andrea Peyser went into a tear against Prince William, his new bride, and the hated British royals. A VDARE columnist took special offense at Peyser’s comment that the wedding guests looked “disturbingly white.” The writer wondered what would happen to a columnist who observed that the guests somewhere looked “disturbingly Jewish.” Andrea would never say anything so impolitic; nor would she ever speak slightingly about Martin Luther King’s love life or Michelle Obama’s ungainly appearance—unless Michelle’s hubby canceled an arms shipment to Tel Aviv…

…Among early Americans, Jefferson stood out for his disapproval of monarchy. He once even spoke against allowing too many immigrants to come from monarchical societies, lest they contaminate our republican way of life. Jefferson was so averse to the idea of immigration that he advocated an agrarian society in which the “exchange of artisans” would not be necessary and the “operation of manufactures” would be kept in Europe. This antimonarchist would have allowed only “the cultivators of land” to resettle on these shores. But such statements were made in the heat of battle with Hamilton and other Federalists, who Jefferson thought were trying to impose an English-style monarchy on the newly independent states. I doubt Jefferson’s utterances have had the slightest effect on our media elite. They probably have never read them anyway. Besides, Jefferson said many things about racial disparities, immigration, large urban populations, and cultural pluralism that would make them gag. His were certainly not the sort of anti-royalist views the neocons have in mind. What drives them up the wall is the fact that others continue to make a fuss over those who were running the block before they and their friends took it over…

Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply