Political orientation (II)
I said my political orientation is as a crossbencher—the hermaphroditic position, a position often occupied by aristocrats (though aristocrats never say they are aristocrats—that would be vulgar). I am just loyal to my view and my experiences—I say what I think and feel without reference to what other people think and feel about me. Yet I agree with the right more than the left; and I think the right is better in government—and what they say is almost always closer to reality than the left, though not as close as me. How can this be so?
It’s because “the right”—the real right, real virtue—can only be esoteric. It’s individuated, integral: if you are self-conscious about something it means that something within you is not integrated—just as when if your toe hurts you are self-conscious about it, but a healthy toe works without any conscious thought on your part.
It’s the same with politics: the right as we understand it—as in conservatives (Republicans, Conservatives)—exists only in reaction to the left; it springs to consciousness, becomes self-conscious, to defend what amounts to the total organism, the nation, getting on with its business—it has no real policy, it is just a shield to allow people to do what they were doing (which if allowed will create inequality). Hence the right is reductive—it’s a mystery because all it does is remove (the cull).
The political right has to become self-conscious because, in a sense, the left is the hammer that has been dropped on your toe. The left’s obsessions with “consciousness raising” and “raising awareness” really amount to an attempt to interrupt processes that are working themselves out by themselves. It is as if they wanted you to always be conscious when you move your toes—that might be a useful meditation exercise, but it is a terrible way to live (to think about every toe movement).
Since the political right is self-conscious it is itself in deviation from reality; it has to conceive of itself in a self-conscious way as “the right” that opposes “the left”—and any self-consciousness means that the system lacks integrity. The system should be seamless; and the left really represents an intrusion of the feminine into the masculine sphere, like a cancer that has displaced an organ—it is the intrusion of the domestic into the public; and, as with a nagging wife, it has many criticisms and ideas as to how the public realm should be improved.
A political system is in health when the domestic (feminine) is pushed back into its proper sphere (the home) and the masculine is left to govern in an unselfconscious way—and that amounts to a situation where everyone in government is a “crossbencher”, an aristocrat with his own brief, and where the only way policy is agreed is not manifestos and position papers but an emergent order that comes about due to antagonism between independent members.
If the feminine is to have an input into the political, it should be through a queen or priestess whose own realm (the royal household) is a macrocosm for all the households in the nation and so can act as their mouthpiece in the political arena.
The Founding Fathers in America wanted that in the first place, hence even today Americans have this empty shibboleth about “non-partisan” politics and the British call the opposition His Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition (“most loyal” because we suspect they might be the least loyal). Yet it’s all just a sham today—the idea that America is a “non-factional” political system, or has escaped the “scourge of factionalism”, as feared by the Founding Fathers, is laughable; and that’s because both Britain and America, the Little Satan and the Big Satan, are liberal systems that attack aristocracy.