Patriotism and Scoundrels

[Above: Karl Lueger, Mayor of Vienna, 1897-1910]

I will return to the fellow above shortly, but I will begin with a famous quotation, from Samuel Johnson: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." 

Johnson, one of the great literary critics of the modern age, authored many influential essays and books. He is best known for his highly successful Dictionary of the English Language (1755) and as the subject of the first modern biography, James Boswell's Life of Johnson (1791). He was a conservative, but an unusual one who criticized many of the evils of his time.

According to Boswell, Johnson made the remark about patriotism in the midst of a conversation with friends one night in April 1775. Boswell does not say who Johnson had in mind, but from the context of the discussion it was likely to have been the contemporary Whig politician Edmund Burke. 

The image below is a painting of the The Conversation Club, at which Johnson was a regular attendee. Johnson is the figure in brown at left. Boswell is at the far left behind him. The man with the ear trumpet to his right is the artist and organizer of the The Club, Sir Joshua Reynolds. 

The Club met at the Turk's Head Inn in Soho, in what is now London's China Town. It survives as a Chinese market. Burke is also pictured here, which means it probably wasn't the time when Johnson made his famous remark. In any case, Johnson later said some kind things about Burke.

On that particular evening, Johnson was not condemning patriotism. In his dictionary he had defined patriotism in a positive sense. He was attacking those who sought to exploit patriotic feelings for personal or political advantage. Burke was perhaps guilty of that, but less guilty of this than more modern practitioners of the art. 

Johnson's quotation has lasted because it exemplifies a major problem of our age of mass voting and mass communications. As democracy advanced, so did the number of scoundrels able to leverage patriotic and nationalist sentiments to gain power. 

The arrival of cheap daily newspapers and other inexpensive publications in the late 19th century provided a platform for demagogues appealing to the new voting public. The simultaneous spread of pseudo-scientific nationalist and racialist views provided them with a popular agenda. 

By the 1920s, radio and film became additional platforms for rousing patriotic outrage against the "enemies" of the nation, which fascists and others on the far right increasingly defined in narrow ethnic and racialist terms. 

From the 1950s, patriotic scoundrels could use television to spread their malign messages. In our time, social media has opened up another outlet. 

Obvious examples of patriotic scoundrels from the last century include Hitler and Mussolini. The USA produced Senator Joe McCarthy and more recently, Donald Trump. The UK had Oswald Mosley in the 1930s and in the past few years Boris Johnson has offered Trump Lite. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro is the recent Latin version. There have been others.

They have all to varying degrees exploited the same cliché-ridden formula. They promise to "make our country great again" and "protect it against its enemies within and without."  

These well-known demagogues are just the tip of the patriotic scoundrel iceberg. It includes a huge cast of less well-known historical and contemporary figures. I could list many of them, but who wants to read a laundry list?

Most of them from the past do not get much air time on the History (AKA Hitler) Channel, Yesterday and their imitators. Most of them from the present may not register much on the public consciousness, except perhaps among frequenters of social media or talk radio. 

That is a shame. The lesser known purveyors of patriotic rubbish enable the more visible ones by spreading and often creating their message. Focusing so much of our attention on a phenomenon like Hitler lulls too many of us into thinking that only leaders wearing swastikas and heiling are dangerous. 

The rabidly anti-Semitic Karl Lueger, pictured at the top of this post, was the mayor of Vienna in the early years of the 20th century. He looks innocent enough but he and others of his ilk inspired Adolf Hitler. Trump's acolytes included Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and many others others.

It is depressing to reflect that 250 years after Samuel Johnson's famous quip, charlatans and demagogues continue to deceive the public almost effortlessly with "patriotic" rhetoric. 

Perhaps, some would say, education is the answer. It wouldn't hurt. But we humans are exceedingly slow learners. Perhaps the fault lies not in the scoundrels but in people so easily and willingly deceived by the nonsense they spout. That is depressing.    

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

British Monarchs Who Ended Badly, Part 13: Parliamentary Monarchy

The long reign of George III (1760-1820) witnessed the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. It also solidified the evolution of the country into a constitutional monarchy dominated by Parliament. The monarch remained titular sovereign but effective sovereignty now resided in Parliament. 

Monarchs had lost most control over the public finances and taxation by the end of the 17th century. They retained their right to veto parliamentary acts, and still do, but the last monarch to use it was Queen Anne (1702-1714). Future monarchs no longer contested the will of Parliament, though they sometimes tried to influence it. 

Queen Anne also was the last monarch to use the royal touch to cure disease. A lot of ordinary people might continue to believe in royal magic, but Britain's elites were embracing the Enlightenment and all that.

During the reigns of the first two Georges (1714-1760), the everyday running of government became the job of prime ministers and their cabinets, who had to have the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons to stay in power. 

Monarchs could help build and maintain a favorable majority for ministers they liked, at least until the early 19th century. But a monarch could no longer keep ministers in power if they lost their majority. They were no longer solely the monarch's ministers. They were Parliament's as well. 

Various reform acts during the 19th century further eroded the monarchy's ability to influence elections. The monarchs also lost much of their ability to reward (bribe) MPs to to support governing ministries. 

The gradual broadening of the suffrage created a more democratic electorate, capped by votes for women [horrors!] in 1918. To win elections it became more important to appeal to the voters than the monarch. 

The role of monarchs became increasingly ceremonial and advisory. They kept their palaces and servants and remained the head of state, but only as a symbolic head, a figurehead. 

Monarchs could no longer interfere in day to day politics or criticize those who governed in their name. His or Her Majesty's Government had morphed into the Prime Minister's Government.* The French Revolution and the fate of Charles I taught them to be content with this situation. 

The sixty year reign of George III was followed by two brief reigns: those of his elderly sons George IV (1820-1830) and William IV (1830-1837). 

George IV had been Prince Regent for ten years prior to becoming king. He was a cultured but extravagant wastrel whose greatest battles were fought with his parents, his wife Caroline, and his waistline. He did leave us the marvelous, exotic Brighton Pavilion. 

George IV was also the first British monarch to visit Scotland since Queen Anne, and he even wore a kilt for the occasion. For good or ill, he made kilts popular again. 

[Images: George IV decked out in Highland garb, by David Wilkie, 1822, and a satirical view by James Gillray, 1792, when George was merely the Prince of "Whales"]

By the late 1820s, due to overeating and drinking, George had become seriously obese. He weighed in at 245 pounds and had a waistline of 50 inches. His health declined rapidly in the late 1820s. He was losing his eyesight, was in constant pain from gout and dropsy, and spent days in a fog from taking laudanum. 

The prestige of the monarchy sank to a new low during his years as regent and king. The great achievement of his reign was Catholic Emancipation, which he opposed. Parliament repealed all the penal laws against Catholics in the United Kingdom, and allowed them to vote and hold public office.  

George IV's ministers and advisors disliked him. They found him lazy, narcissistic and irresponsible. One of his close aides wrote: "A more contemptible, cowardly, selfish, unfeeling dog does not exist ... There have been good and wise kings but not many of them ... and this I believe to be one of the worst." On his death, The Times claimed that no one in the country shed a tear for him.  

George's only child, Princess Charlotte, died in 1817. He had no heir, and his younger brother succeeded him. William IV was a less scandalous figure, although he did live with a mistress, Mrs. Jordan, for many years. 

William IV was the last monarch to choose a prime minister against the will of Parliament: Sir Robert Peel, who had established the first professional police force in 1829. William failed to keep Peel in power, and in other ways acted as a responsible constitutional king. 

William's short reign produced some of the most significant legislation of the 19th century. The Reform Act of 1834 reduced electoral corruption and expanded representation of growing urban areas and the middle classes. It weakened the influence of the aristocracy and reinforced the ascendancy of the House of Commons over the Lords in Parliament. Another act of 1833 abolished slavery in the empire. A third act produced the first effective regulation of child labor in the expanding factories. 

The legislation wasn't all good. A fourth major act reformed the Poor Law. The "New Poor Law" with its dreaded workhouses proved to be the most hated piece of legislation of the 19th century, at least among the working classes. 

William IV had eight illegitimate children with Mrs. Jordan, but failed to produce a legitimate heir. When he died, his 19-year old niece ascended the throne. Victoria reigned for 64 years, the longest reign of any British monarch until that of the late Elizabeth II. [Image: The Young Queen Victoria, by Franz Winterthalter]

Victoria's reign became nearly synonymous with the 19th century: "The Victorian Age." This had less to do with anything Victoria did than her longevity during the period of Britain's greatest international influence. 

Victorian Britain had the largest navy, the largest merchant fleet, and the largest empire, spread across every part of the globe. Thanks to its early lead in industrialization, Britain was, for decades, the greatest economic power in the world as well. 

By the end of Victoria's reign, British power had begun to erode. Other countries industrialized, and some of them possessed far greater resources. The United States and Germany matched or exceeded British production in many manufacturing sectors by the late 19th century. Others were not far behind.

Much like Elizabeth II, Victoria was succeeded by her elderly son Albert, who became king as Edward VII. His reign was short (1901-1910). He was most remembered as a royal playboy. 

Edward's more straight-laced son George V (1910-1935) sought to return the monarchy to a higher level of respectability. Much of the pomp and royal "tradition" that surrounds the monarchy today dates from his reign. 

Unfortunately, George V's heir, Edward VIII proved a disappointment. He insisted on marrying "the woman I love," that American divorcee Mrs. Simpson. He abdicated in favor of his younger brother, who became George VI (1936-1952). That brings us back to Elizabeth II and Charles III. 

For all the pomp and ceremony of royal coronations, marriages, and funerals, the United Kingdom monarchs now reign over is a shadow of its former glory. The British Empire continued to grow into the early 20th century. Victory in World War I brought new colonies in Africa and the Middle East in the form of League of Nations Mandates. 

Yet, beneath the surface, British power was showing signs of weakness. The First World War was enormously costly, and it ended with the UK deeply in debt to the United States. Britain had lost and was losing global markets to the USA, Japan, and other countries.

The first crack in the edifice of empire came at war's end. Between 1918 and 1921 Irish Republicans fought for and won virtual independence from the UK -- for most of the island. 

Ulster, or Northern Ireland, which contained a large Unionist (Loyalist) population, was separated from the rest of Ireland. It remained part of the United Kingdom, bedevilling its politics to this day.

World War II accelerated the decline of Britain's wealth, power, and status in the world. India and Pakistan gained independence in 1947. By the 1960s, most the empire dissolved, to be replaced by a weak association of independent nations, the British Commonwealth. 

Much like the monarchy, the Commonwealth is a symbol of former power and glory. Both survive on image, and the belief or illusion that they provide valuable service. How long that will continue is difficult to predict, given the Royal Family's recent but hardly unprecedented tendency to feud with one another. 

The current infighting within the Windsor family, featuring William and Harry, does indicate one item of historical interest: "The Game of Thrones" is not quite over, even if it is now fought out in the tabloids. The tabloids, mass media, and the "people" would not want it any other way. 

Nowadays, British monarchs no longer end quite so badly. The question is, will the monarchy itself end in the near future? Prince Harry's attack on the "institution" has probably done more for the anti-monarchy cause than all the republicans in British history.   

*Government by prime ministers is not necessarily a big improvement over monarchical government, as the recent run of revolving-door Tory prime ministers has shown. To be sure, elected presidents have not been performing so well either. Democratic governments are only as good as the people who elect them. The main advantage is that they are easier to get rid of than hereditary monarchs.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

    

Coronation! British Monarchs Who Ended Badly, Part 12: George III

In 1760, the death of George II brought his grandson, an awkward nineteen year old, to the British throne. George III had the longest reign of any British monarch up to that time, sixty years. He was the last king of the colonies that became the United States. 

Every July 4th, Americans celebrate the overthrow of tyrant King George. He is also known as the Mad King, and in some minds, a mad tyrant.  [George III soon after he became king,  by Allan Ramsay, 1762]

He was the third Hanoverian monarch. Unlike the first two Georges,  however, he was born in Britain. He considered himself fully British and cared little for Hanover. At his coronation, he declared "I glory in the name of Britain." He never went to Hanover, or even left England, during his long reign.  

George III considered himself a constitutional or limited monarch. He took his job seriously, maybe too seriously. He venerated the (unwritten) British constitution. His father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, ensured he had a solid education in a wide array of subjects, including  politics and constitutional law. 

At the age of eight George could discuss current politics in speech and writing, in both English and German. He also learned French and Latin. He was also the first British monarch to be thoroughly educated in the science of the day. 

As king, he was a strong supporter of the sciences and arts. He gave a large portion of his income to charity. He amassed a library of more than 65,000 volumes, and opened the collection to renowned scholars such as Samuel Johnson and Joseph Priestley. The collection is now part of the British Library.

Frederick, who died before his father George II, prepared his son George to be a "Patriot King," ruling in the interests of his country and people. Frederick believed rightly that the Hanoverian dynasty needed to improve its image, and he passed that belief on to his son. [Image: George as Prince of Wales, by Jean Etienne Liotard, 1754]

At first, George III had little to do with the actions that angered the American colonists. Most of them were devised by his ministers to help pay the enormous costs of the recent war with France and Spain, the Seven Years War, or French and Indian War in North America. 

They were devised by his ministers and approved by Parliament. The king opposed some of them, notably the Stamp Act of 1765. Part of that was personal. He detested the architect of the Stamp Act, George Grenville. 

In 1766, George was able to push Grenville out. His successor, Lord Rockingham, repealed the Stamp Act with the help of the king and the popular William Pitt the Elder, now Lord Chatham. The king's efforts were applauded in the colonies. New York City erected a statue in his honor. 

In the following year, Parliament re-asserted its right to tax the American colonies. The new taxes, the Townshend Duties, aroused a furor in the colonies. In response, Parliament repealed all the taxes except a tiny tax on tea. Leaving the tea tax in place was intended to maintain the principle that Parliament could levy taxes on the colonies. [Image: George III by Johan Zoffany, 1771]

The king supported Parliament's right to tax the colonies. But it was Parliament's right, not his. After the Civil War of the 1640s, British monarchs could not levy taxes. That was Parliament's prerogative. 

The Declaration of Independence essentially blames George III rather than Parliament for the conflict that followed. It was simpler than explaining the intricacies of the British political system. 

The Declaration listed 27 grievances against the British government. Most of them began with "He has...", personalizing the conflict into one of the people versus a tyrannical king. 

George III was no warmonger. One of his first actions as king had been to bring an end to the Seven Years' War with France and Spain at a time when Britain was winning victories everywhere. He was concerned that if Britain seized too much, it would multiply its enemies. 

If we seek the true causes of the American Revolution, we must admit that it was in large part due to British success in the Seven Years War. One of its effects was to remove France as a threat to the colonies and their expansion west. 

Before the war, France had controlled Canada (Quebec) to the north and claimed the lands between the Appalachians and the Mississippi. In the peace treaty of 1763, the French ceded those territories to Britain. 

Prior to this, the colonists had relied on British soldiers to protect them against attacks by the French and their Indian allies. Now, they felt more secure. They looked forward to settling the trans- Appalachian country. 

They became furious when the British government tried to restrict colonists' movement into what they deemed Indian lands. The view in London was that settler expansion would lead to Indian wars and colonial demands for British protection. The government wanted to reduce expenditure, not increase it. 

It is true that once the American War for Independence began, King George was determined that it end in British victory. He obstinately continued to support the war even after the disastrous British defeat at Yorktown in October 1781, when most of his ministers urged him to give up. A few months later, he agreed and authorized the start of peace negotiations.

Once independence was conceded, he became resigned to the new relationship with the former colonies. In 1785 he told John Adams, the first American ambassador to Britain, "I was the last consent to the separation; but the separation having been made ... I have always said, as I say now, I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power." 

British rule in the colonies was often insensitive and infuriating. The frustrations were increased by the immense distance between Britain and America. But no colonies of the time were as loosely governed by an imperial country as the thirteen who declared independence in 1776. 

The true tranny in the American colonies was the enslavement of a large part of the population. British politicians had helped make that possible. But the power of Parliament over the colonies meant they could also end slavery. One reason many southern leaders supported the revolution was the fear that Parliament might do exactly that, especially after Chief Justice Mansfield ruled slavery in England illegal in 1772. 

George III is often referred to as “Mad King George.” But he did not show any clear signs of mental illness until 1788, 28 years into his reign. This is the event portrayed in Alan Bennett’s play The Madness of George III and the film based upon it, The Madness of King George. 

That episode lasted a few months and produced what historians call the Regency Crisis. It threatened to bring down the government, led by William Pitt the Younger. Many opposition MPs were demanding that the Prince of Wales be installed as regent to rule in his father’s name. 

The contemporary cartoon below shows Tory and Whig leaders "pulling for a King." George III is restrained in a chair in the rear, a pawn in the struggle for power.

Prince George favoured the opposition Whigs, who believed he would help them gain power. George III's recovery ended that prospect. [Image: George, Prince of Wales, later George IV, c. 1789, by Mather Byles Brown]

George suffered more attacks of his illness in 1800 and 1804, but recovered quickly. In 1810, the disease returned and on this occasion he agreed to a regency. by now the Prince of Wales had become disillusioned with the Whigs, some of whom had shown a tendency towards radicalism. The Tories remained in power until 1830.

The king's malady proceeded to dementia, blindness, deafness. He was in great pain from rheumatism. He had become Shelley’s “old, mad, blind, and dying king.” [Image: George III in his last years, sketched by Henry Meyer]

George III clung to life for another ten years, dying at age 82 in 1820. Upon his death, The Prince Regent became king as George IV (1820-1830). His twenty years as Regent and King are still referred to as the Regency Period. 

Biographers and Historians of Psychiatry have long debated the nature of George III’s illness. In the late 1960s, psychiatrists Ida Macalpine and Richard Hunter argued that George suffered from a genetic metabolic disorder called porphyria, which among other things, can cause one’s urine to turn dark red or purple. Bennet’s play and film highlights the king’s dark urine and the bumbling doctors who think it unimportant. 

Other researchers have questioned the porphyria diagnosis. They argue that the king showed symptoms of psychoses such as dementia, mania, and manic-depressive or bipolar disorder. A study of his hair in 2005 revealed that he had consumed large amounts of medicines or cosmetics containing arsenic, a poison that might have precipitated his disease.  

Interestingly, George III was attacked on several occasions by people later declared insane. In 1786, a woman named Margaret Nicholson tried to stab him with a small dessert knife. The king easily fended of the blow and told his attendants to treat her kindly. “The poor creature is mad. Do not hurt her. She has not hurt me.” (Image: Contemporary print showing Nicholson's attack on the king)

In 1790 he reacted with similar sympathy when John Frith, who believed he was St. Paul, threw a rock at the king’s coach. A third assailant, James Hadfield, tried and failed to shoot the king in 1800 at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. The king seems to have been unfazed by the incident. He fell asleep during the interval. 

All three assailants were sent to Bethlem Hospital for the Insane, Hadfield after being declared not guilty due to insanity during his precedent-setting trial for treason. [Image: Contemporary print showing the "Horrid" Hadfield's attempt to shoot the king].

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!