APRIL 2012 ISSUE

Vol. 1, No. 4: April 2012

APRIL FOOLS ISSUE

Epistolary Foreword: April Fools! – Paul Odradek

CRITICISM

Francis Bacon’s Inside-Out Philosophy – Holgrave

Macaulay, Whig Historian – Bede Adulescens

Check Your Humanity at the Gate of Walden Two – Holgrave

Michael O’Brien, the Catholic Tim LaHaye – N. W. Smith

When Is a Book Review Not a Book Review? When It’s a Review of Dave Eggers’s Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius – Paul Odradek

Starving on Nihilism: The Moral Vacuum of The Hunger Games – Sordello

DESULTORY RAVINGS

The Unthinking Christian’s Whig History – Bede Adulescens

LAST THOUGHTS

Burckhardt on the Weapon of Ridicule

Macaulay, Whig Historian

All hated Whiggery; but what is Whiggery?
A levelling, rancorous, rational sort of mind
That never looked out of the eye of a saint
Or out of drunkard’s eye. All’s Whiggery now,
But we old men are massed against the world.
—W. B. Yeats

Outside Thomas Bramwell Welch’s “unfermented wine,” surely Whig History remains the foulest invention of the 19th century. What is this treacherous human construction? According to historiographer and hipster conservative sensei Herbert Butterfield, Whig History is a historical narrative that paints the past as march toward inevitable enlightenment and inexorable progress. The present is the standard and justifies the past. Those parties, men, and (much over-estimated) “forces” in history that champion or prelude the Whiggish ideal of democratic government, liberalized personal freedoms, and scientific accomplishment stand as undeniable heroes; those which oppose this movement towards progress must be understood as authoritarian villains intent on accumulation of power, superstition, and widespread ignorance.

Although the case against this approach has already been made with incisive scholarship, I will try to make a quick if insufficiently thorough rebuttal before moving on. Whig history ignores the multiple failures and uncertainties of science and technology in particular and the potentialities inherent in human choices in general. This progressive historiography also suffers from a chronological snobbery: what is new and present is invariably better than what was past. The present is the political, moral, and even spiritual gold standard from which we “objectively” judge other men, women, and their institutions. Continue reading Macaulay, Whig Historian