BOOK TIDBITS REACTIONARY EDITION

Considerations on France. Translated by Richard A. Lebrun.

Joseph de Maistre is the most profound reactionary/conservative thinker I've read so far and his thoughts on the French Revolution show most of the concepts he would develop over the rest of his life. He differs from other reactionaries in his fanatic devotion to a cruel Catholic God. In describing some of the horrors of the revolution, he wrote:

It has been a long time since we have seen such frightful punishment inflicted on such a large number of guilty people. No doubt there are innocents among the unfortunate victims, but they are far fewer than is commonly imagined.

You say that some of the guiltiest would be chosen and all the rest would obtain pardon. This is precisely what Providence did not want. Able to do all, Providence disregards these pardons produced by impotence to punish. The great purification must be accomplished and eyes must be opened; the metal of France, freed from its sour and impure dross, must emerge cleaner and more malleable into the hands of a future king.

De Maistre treats Providence in the same manner that Mandeville treats vices: everything is for the best:

Now let us take a look at the extraordinary persecution stirred up against the national religion and its ministers; this is one of the Revolution’s most interesting faces.

No one would deny that the priesthood in France needed to be regenerated, and although I am far from adopting the popular declamations against the clergy, it appears to me that wealth, luxury, and a general inclination towards laxity had caused a decline of this great body, that the surplice often clothed a knight rather than an apostle, and that finally, in the period immediately preceding the Revolution, the clergy had gone down, nearly as much as the army, in the place it occupied in public opinion.

The first blow to the Church was the invasion of its properties,20 the second was the constitutional oath,21 and these two tyrannical measures began the regeneration. The oath sifted the clergy, if it may be put that way. All those who swore it, with some exceptions that may be disregarded, saw themselves led by degrees into an abyss of crime and disgrace; opinion is unanimous on these apostates.

The property of the clergy having disappeared, every­thing conspires to restore the priesthood, since for a long time to come, new members are unlikely to be attracted by base motives. Moreover, there is reason to believe that contemplation of the work to be done will produce the kind of exaltation that raises men above themselves and makes them capable of accomplishing great things.

 
De Maistre was not only dismissive of the new American republic ("I know of nothing so provoking as the praises bestowed on this babe-in-arms."), he also seems unaware of a key part of our Constitution - the separation of Church & State. Here he claims that the French Revolution is unique:

"Have not the legislators (I use their term) passed the historically unique rule that the nation will support no form of worship?"

He shows more ignorance of America when he claims that "No constitution is the result of deliberation."  Like a FAUX News pundit, de Maistre has FAILed as a predictor: "... and one could bet a thousand to one that the city [DC] will not be built, that it will not be called Washington, and that the Congress will not meet there."

De Maistre doesn't like written constitutions, so he is somewhat paradoxically opposed to what we today call Originalism:

Another very deadly error is to be attached too rigidly to old ways. No doubt they must be respected, but what jurists call the last state must always be considered. Every free constitution is by its nature flexible, and flexible in the proportion to which it is free; it would be foolish to try to restore it to its rudiments without sacrificing something.