Children of the British Empire: "Defenders of the Realm"
Two strains in the English psyche account for the British Empire and its Commonwealth: titans of industry and other objectivists who understood how to compete, to take, exploit, and amass wealth and power. Theorists and other subjectivists who understood how to share, support, and govern. Both needing order: the former by disempowerment from the top down, the latter by empowerment from the bottom up.
Two competing strains irreconcilable in their aims, values, and methods, The outcome dominated by the former, guaranteeing its extinction – the end of the British Empire and its authoritarian rule by force. The outcome also influenced by the latter but by no means guaranteed: the survival of the Commonwealth and its affirmation among subjects of the crown.
We owe much to both. But can they both be right for our times, for what lies ahead in our shared world? My father and his father made their choice and their contribution: full-throated objectivists. Unapologetic realists. Sociability-kindness in group relationships, dominating authoritarians in politics and individual relationships. They were, in their own psyches, children of the British Empire. Churchillian “defenders of the realm.”
We honor our ethnic English ancestors and their contribution from the past. Which strain from our English heritage shall we represent going forward? Which strain should we choose to honor and defend? To be children of the British Empire that expired? Or children of the Commonwealth that survives? Objectivists or subjectivists? Realists or idealists? Advocates of authoritarian rule from the top down? Or advocates of democratic governance from the bottom up?
The fate that awaits "supremacy"
Supporters of the Democratic Party or supporters of the opposition party? The party that the Republican Party has become in the image of its leader. Whose “policy” is to be against whatever his opponent is for. To be what his base demands of him: to be the opposition because that is the “policy” that gives them the most satisfaction. Neither ruling nor governing but eliminating the competition. Even if the competition is trying to save our shared habitat from runaway climate change.
Under such a regime, there is no longer any “for” in the Republican Party, just “against.” The only party that’s for something in our democracy is the Democratic Party. To be “for” eliminating the competition in a democracy is to be against democracy and for authoritarian one-party rule. Is to be against country. This is the “logic” of a political party that has forsaken democracy, country, and logic, too. Guaranteed to take our country to the same fate as the British Empire if they take power.
Being the opposition party may thrill a base rabid for power without opposition, but it’s delusional. A fantasy. Just as imposing a policy of forced birth on women is guaranteed to fail as it failed where it’s been tried before, spectacularly, in Ireland. Churchill and the other defenders of their realm, a fantasy of supremacy, lost. The same fate that awaits the Republican Party, its dark leader, and his delusional base. Fantasies of supremacy.