In response to
my
post on the martial virtues,
Larry Solum quotes a description of the trial of Socrates, from
which he then poses the following excellent questions:
Are the
martial virtues true human excellences? How do the martial virtues relate to the
virtues of justice and beneficience? These are deep questions, but surely there
are no easy answers.
I certainly agree that there are no easy
answers, but in the spirit of continuing the discussion (always an enjoyable
task when Larry is in the mix), let me quote an apropos passage from
G.K. Chesterton's essay on Rudyard
Kipling (which a reader was kind enough to pass along):
Now, Mr.
Kipling is certainly wrong in his worship of militarism, but his opponents are,
generally speaking, quite as wrong as he. The evil of militarism is not that it
shows certain men to be fierce and haughty and excessively warlike. The evil of
militarism is that it shows most men to be tame and timid and excessively
peaceable. The professional soldier gains more and more power as the general
courage of a community declines. Thus the Pretorian guard became more and more
important in Rome as Rome became more and more luxurious and feeble. The
military man gains the civil power in proportion as the civilian loses the
military virtues. And as it was in ancient Rome so it is in contemporary Europe.
There never was a time when nations were more militarist. There never was a time
when men were less brave. All ages and all epics have sung of arms and the man;
but we have effected simultaneously the deterioration of the man and the
fantastic perfection of the arms. Militarism demonstrated the decadence of Rome,
and it demonstrates the decadence of Prussia.
I take it that
Chesterton's point is that the evils of militarism tend to arise when the
martial vitues cease to be
civic virtues. Alternatively, I suppose,
the disconnect between martial and civic virtues may put a society in the
position of, say, late Roman Gaul, powerless to resist the engulfing tide.
Either way, while not claiming there are easy answers, I would claim that the
growing disconnect between the martial and civic virtues is cause for grave
concern.
I would further claim that the legitimacy of such concern can be found in the
mores of the American Founding. Clayton Cramer has unearthed a very interesting
report sent by President George Washington to Congress on the necessity of
a militia:
An energetic national militia is to be regarded as the
capital security of a free republic, and not a standing army, forming a distinct
class in the community.
It is the introduction and
diffusion of vice, and corruption of manners, into the mass of the people, that
renders a standing army necessary. It is when public spirit is despised, and
avarice, indolence, and effeminacy of manners predominate, and prevent the
establishment of institutions which would elevate the minds of the youth in the
paths of virtue and honor, that a standing army is formed and riveted for
ever.
Is this not an appeal to ensuring a perpetual linkage between
the martial and civic virutes, grounded on much the same concerns as motivated
Chesterton? Is not the final sentence of Washington's report a call to action
for our own times, of which I fear he has given a precise account?