“A tyrant
must always be provoking war… But all this lays him open to unpopularity… So
won’t some of the bolder characters among those who helped him to power, and
now hold positions of influence, begin to speak freely to him and to each
other, and blame him for what is happening?...Then, if he is to retain power,
he must root them out, all of them, till there’s not a man of any consequence
left, whether friend or foe…So he must keep a sharp eye out for men of courage
or vision or intelligence or wealth; for, whether he likes it or not, it is his
happy fate to be their constant enemy and to intrigue until he has purged them
from the state… Then… people will find out soon enough what sort of a beast
they’ve bred and groomed for greatness. He’ll be too strong for them to turn
out” (Plato, Republic, Book VIII,
567a – 569a)
“The tyrant
is also very ready to make war; for this keeps his subjects occupied and in continued
need of a leader…[It is] characteristic of a tyrant’s policy…[that] the flatterer
too is held in honor…those who keep him company in an obsequious spirit, which
is the function of flattery. This makes tyranny favor the baser sort, in the
sense that a tyrant loves to be flattered, and no man of free spirit will oblige
him. Respectable men…refrain from flattery, and base men are useful for base
deeds…Anyone who shows a rival pride and a spirit of freedom destroys the
master-like character of the tyranny. Thus the tyrant hates such people as
destroyers of his rule…All these and their like are marks of tyranny and ways
of maintaining it; and they are utterly depraved” (Aristotle, The Politics, Book V, Chapter XI)
“Justice
being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are
robberies themselves, but little kingdoms?...Indeed, that was an apt and true
reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized.
For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile
possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, ‘What you mean by seizing
the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber,
while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor’” (St. Augustine, The City of God, Book IV, Chapter 4)
“Since the
power granted to a king is so great, it easily degenerates into tyranny, unless
he to whom this power is given be a very virtuous man… [A king] should not
accumulate chariots and horses, nor wives, nor immense wealth: because through
craving for such things princes become tyrants and forsake justice” (St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II.105.1)
“God permits tyrants to get into power to punish the sins of the subjects… But the name of wicked kings straightway vanishes or, if they have been excessive in their wickedness, they are remembered with execration. Thus Solomon says (Prov 10:7): ‘The memory of the just is with praises, and the name of the wicked shall rot,’ either because it vanishes or it remains with stench…Such men rarely repent; but puffed up by the wind of pride, deservedly abandoned by God for their sins, and besmirched by the flattery of men, they can rarely make worthy satisfaction… The malice of their impenitence is increased by the fact that they consider everything licit which they can do unresisted and with impunity. Hence they not only make no effort to repair the evil they have done but, taking their customary way of acting as their authority, they hand on their boldness in sinning to posterity. Consequently they are held guilty before God, not only for their own sins, but also for the crimes of those to whom they gave the occasion of sin. Their sin is made greater also from the dignity of the office they have assumed” (St. Thomas Aquinas, De Regno, Book I, Chapters 11-12)
So. Happy No Kings Day?
ReplyDeleteNot all kings are tyrants, bmiller.
DeleteDebatable. It kinda depends on your definitions, doesn't it? For instance, if someone thinks monarchy is inherently unjust, does that mean that they have to think kings are automatically *tyrants*? Or is there a conceptual space for rulers whose power is not legitimate, but are not tyrannical?
DeleteAnd perhaps more importantly, not all tyrants are kings.
DeleteProfessor Feser, what do you make of Carl Schmitt as a political theorist ? Are his views compatible with those of the scholastics ?
ReplyDeleteConsidering his explicitly Hobbesian political philosophy? Probably not.
DeleteI would suggest that his insistence that the "friend - enemy" distinction lies at the root of political order is essentially unChristian. In the Christian order, the proper distinction between those of my polity and those of another polity is not that "they are my enemy" but that "they have a numerically distinct common good to pursue than I have". These common goods can be numerically distinct without being in definitive opposition. All humans belong to the same human family, and have the same ultimate common good, God, and in heaven they will share that common good explicitly in friendship. But even here in this life we can have friends who belong to other polities, and polities themselves can have "friends" so to speak, whose goals are mutually compatible.
DeleteWilliam got to this one before me.
DeleteSchmitt is bound up to a Hobbesian Realpolitik-however hie notion of "political theology," that many aspect of modern political thought as just secularised theological concepts, is well worth studying (if anything Thomas is more modern and potentially remiss in the way he treats the state as an immanent entity to be completed/complimented by religion--most of the earlier scholastics did not do such and neither have many after).
Great post.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of Suarez’s theory of just resistance?
ReplyDeleteOne also thinks of the Parable of the Trees and the Thorn-Bush in the Hebrew Scriptures as a warning against heeding to blowhard demagogues. It's as valid across the Atlantic as it is in its land of origin.
ReplyDeleteKind of ahistorical to try and spin these thinkers as if they were "anti-tyranny", isn't it? All of them favored aristocratic government, just informed by their own philosophies.
ReplyDeleteRather, all of them favored government. As all governments can become tyrannies, it is necessary to be on guard against that. St. Thomas, though he wrote "On Kingship" explaining that a monarchy is the best form of government when the monarch is virtuous, in his Summa he indicated that as a general matter it is better to have a "mixed" government that effectively holds checks and balances between different power sectors. This isn't the best of all possible governments, and will even at the best of times be relatively inefficient, but it best allows for the vigilance and possibility of derailing a tyranny from developing.
DeleteAristocratic government isn't inherently tyrannical, as you seem to imply. Boomer neocon by chance?
Delete@Exe, no because "tyrant" means something specific and by definition an "aristocratic" government is not a tyrannical one--it might be bad or heavily prone to abuse, but it's a different thing.
DeleteRule by aristocrats isn't tyrannical if the aristocrats are wise, just, virtuous and good.
DeleteIt isn't ahistorical at all. Tyranny is the corrupted or illegitimate rule by one. That is how these different thinkers understand the term. Saint Thomas explicitly refers to it as a corruption of monarchy in 'De Regno'. Corrupted polyarchies are not tyrannies, in the proper sense that Greeks and Saint Thomas use.
DeleteAlso worth noting that while Saint Thomas teaches both monarchs and republics are corruptible, he explicitly argues that tyrannies are still superior to corrupted republics. See De Regno, Book 1, Chapter 6.
At least for Aquinas I don't think it's ahistorical, but it gets one to reflect on our own government structures through a different lens. Aquinas (ST I-II, 105, Art. 1) gives a system that's a combination of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and is basically what we now call representative democracy. The people are ruled by a select group with a singular head, and 'the people have the right to choose their rulers.' The rulers are chosen by the people from the people. It's just that due to historical reasons we avoid calling the top figure 'king' and the select group 'aristocrats'. But it's functionally the same thing.
DeleteAnd why do you assume aristocratic government is the same as tyranny?
DeleteLook at what Aristotle has to say about "tyranny", for example.
Oktavian:
DeleteOf course Aristotle supported aristocracy, he believed that some people were natural rulers and others natural followers (not to mention natural slaves...). That's a natural conclusion from his premises, which I reject.
I assume that aristocracy is tyrannical because I have looked at history. Even a brief survey of the history of the world will show you that aristocratic systems take from the poor and downtrodden and redistribute wealth either to those who set themselves up as lords by force, or those who inherit their titles from such. They have done little besides deprive the people of justice and wage pointless wars. Why ought a man to rule by the luck of being born to the right parents? It is absurd.
As for everyone "um, actually"-ing me about the definition of tyranny, I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, a bad government ruled by corrupt oligarchs oppresses the people just as much as a bad king does, and it doesn't matter if you want to insist on restricting the usage of the word "tyranny" to the sense Aristotle used it in. Everyone understands what I mean when I call such regimes tyrannical. Hang them all, I say.
"I assume that aristocracy is tyrannical because I have looked at history."
DeleteWell, that settles it then.
What, do you want an itemized list of the crimes of aristocracy? Not possessing unlimited free time, I will have to leave you with the words of Mark Twain on the subject:
Delete"“There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.” "
But let me ask you, then - why do you think aristocracy is good? I have seen plenty of reasons to justify my belief that it is bad, but why on god's green earth do you think that inserting an unneeded hereditary hierarchy into things is good?
I don't remember claiming the inherent goodness or badness of any particular form of government. That's your department. Aristocracy bad. Got it. I'm more interested in what form of government you believe is inherently good.
DeleteBut agreed, No Kings!
ReplyDelete"The malice of their impenitence is increased by the fact that they consider everything licit which they can do unresisted and with impunity. Hence, they not only make no effort to repair the evil they have done but, taking their customary way of acting as their authority, they hand on their boldness in sinning to posterity."
ReplyDeleteI see a pretty clear definition of the Brazilian Supreme Court in here. Aquinas being Aquinas...still right even though centuries apart from us.
King Trump is now signing his name to paper currency, the first president to do so in our 250 year history.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnn.com/2026/03/26/politics/trump-signature-paper-currency-treasury
Two other good ones:
ReplyDeleteXenophon's "Heiro" and Plutarch's Life of Dion
See also St. Thomas' Commentary on the Sentences Book II, Distinction 44, Question 2, "Whether Christians are bound to obey the secular powers, and tyrants in particular?":
ReplyDelete"It must be noted that obedience consists in the observance of a command which it is our duty to observe. Now the cause of such duty is an order of authority having the power to coerce not only temporally but also spiritually, in conscience, as the Apostle says at Romans 13: 1ff, because
the order of authority descends from God, as the Apostle intimates in the same place. And so the Christian is bound to obey it insofar as it is 'of
God', and not insofar as it is not. But authority can be said to be not of God for two reasons: either because of the way in which the authority was
acquired, or because of the use to which the authority is put. As to the first, there are two ways in which this can be so: either because of a defect
of the person, because he is unworthy, or because of a defect in the means by which power was acquired; that is, by violence or simony or some other unlawful mode of acquisition. The first defect is not an impediment to the acquisition of rightful authority; and because authority is always of God according to its form, which is the cause of our duty to obey it, their subjects are always bound to obey such rulers, however unworthy. But
the second defect is an impediment to rightful authority, for he who seizes power by violence does not become a ruler or lord truly; and so anyone can reject such authority when the opportunity arises, unless perhaps the
ruler is subsequently made a true lord either by the consent of his subjects or by the authority of a superior.
Now the abuse of authority can be of two kinds. First, when what is commanded by the ruler is contrary to the purpose for which the ruler as appointed: for example, if some sinful act is commanded contrary to the virtue which the ruler is ordained to foster and preserve. In this case, not only is one not bound to obey the ruler, but one is bound not to obey him, as in the case of the holy martyrs who suffered death rather than obey the ungodly commands of tyrants. Second, when what is demanded goes beyond what the order of authority can require: if, for example, a master were to exact apayment which a servant is not bound to give, or something of the kind. In this case case the subject is not bound to obey; nor,
however, is he bound not to obey...
Objection 5: M oreover, no one is bound to obey someone whom it is lawful, or even praiseworthy, to slay. But Cicero, in the book De officiis, defends hose who slew Julius Caesar even though he was their friend and relative, because he usurped the rights of empire as a tyrant. We are therefore
not bound to obey such persons.
Reply 5: Cicero was speaking of a case where someone had seized dominion for himself by violence, either against the wishes of his subjects or by coercing them into consenting, and where they had no recourse to a superior by whom judgment might be passed on the invader. In such a case he who delivers his country by slaying a tyrant is to be praised and rewarded."
Pope Leo said "God does not listen to prayers of those who wage wars."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-leo-xiv-says-god-does-not-listen-to-prayers-of-those-who-wage-war
Sec of War Pete Hegseth prayed for "wicked souls to be delivered to damnation."
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5803295-hegseth-christianity-military-pentagon/
Hyperbole. Flat and simple. There's plenty of proof in the Bible that God rewards those who wage war because God told them to.
DeleteWhat he means is that God doesn't award people who wage wars unjustly, and this is an unjust war.
Ah, a classic. "Jesus/The Pope/The Bible might have said X, but here's what he really meant".
DeleteYes, Anonymous, I don't think God told our Sec of War to wage war, but he probably thinks He did.
DeleteI agree with Anonymous about the hyperbole of Pope Leo's statement. He quotes Isaiah 1:15- what was the context? An admonition against Judah not because they engaged in wars simply, but injustices
DeleteI don't think Pope Leo engages in hyperbole. That is not his style. He is fluent in five languages. I think he knows exactly what he is saying.
DeleteAh, a classic. "Jesus/The Pope/The Bible might have said X, but here's what he really meant".
DeleteEXE might have a shred of a worthwhile comment here if it were a matter of the Bible not showing God directly saying "go to war", but implying it, and perhaps only loosely and remotely implying it.
8 And the Lord said to Josue: Fear not, nor be thou dismayed: take with thee all the multitude of fighting men, arise and go up to the town of Hai. Behold I have delivered into thy hand the king thereof, and the people, and the city, and the land.
To Joshua: And thou shalt do to the city of Hai, and to the king thereof, as thou hast done to Jericho, and to the king thereof
To Moses: The Lord said to Moses: Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites, and then you will be gathered to your people.
To David: David inquired of the Lord, “Shall I attack the Philistines, and will you deliver them into my power?” The Lord answered David: Attack, for I will surely deliver the Philistines into your power. So David went to Baal-perazim, and he defeated them there.
It's the people who claim that "God could not REALLY have told them to make war, so here's what he really meant" that are trying to get the Bible to mean something else. Sorry.
Here's an alternative: Pope Leo really meant "God never has and never will approve a war", but he was just flat wrong.
The quotes are great. The implicature that Trump is a tyrant is, um, not great. Not great at all.
ReplyDeleteAnd I suspect you kinda get an idea that it is not great, because it was left an implicature rather than stated explicitly.
Why do I think it is not great? Let's take the most obvious reason. If you cite Aristotle, presumably you are going to use the word "tyrant" as he did. Thus a tyrant is someone who heads a government which is a tyranny. Aristotle's definition of "tyranny" is: "For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only;". And the definition of the monarchy is implied by "Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty;".
So, if you want to show that Trump is a tyrant, you have to show (among other things) that he rules alone (not "he wants to rule alone", or "he has lots of influence") at least approximately. And, well, it is clear that such a claim is manifestly false. Someone whose designs are so often interrupted by a random judge is clearly not ruling alone, not even approximately.
If one would want to choose a word from Aristotle's "Politics" to criticise Trump, wouldn't "demagogue" be a more fitting word?
That's kinda the point: Trump has made actual clearly bad decisions (like the tries to threaten Denmark) and has actual clear flaws, so why choose to criticise something fake instead?
Especially when it is done in the way that seems to support the Left with its "No Kings" protests (at the very least, some comments imply their authors thought that it did this). After all, whatever the flaws of Trump, the Left is more of a threat at the moment.
I get an impression that anger might have played more part in this decision than it should have... Can I still hope this impression is false?
I'm more concerned about that Dr. Feser is feeding in to the idea that Trump attacked Iran, which he has supported doing since the 80s, as a distraction.
DeleteCurrently this is a popular view among conspiracy theorists. They are saying things like "The Epstein files must make Trump look really really bad for Trump if he's willing to go to war to distract from them."
Nevermind that this war also makes Trump look really really bad.
Seeing Trump as at least a wannabe-tyrant isn't concerning. Trump gives many reasons to consider that. But feeding in to the narratives of conspiracy nutters would be concerning.
@MP:
DeleteThe point is that Trump would rule as a tyrant if he could.
No anger, MP. I just stated the facts.
DeleteI'd say selective quoting is still more concerning.
DeleteFor example, quote the part of Aristotle's "Politics" about tyrants and war, and Trump looks a bit like a tyrant. Quote the part about tyrants relying on foreigners (the same Book V), and Trump will look less like a tyrant (and then the Democrats will look a bit more like tyrants instead).
Quote St. Thomas Aquinas about the dangers of king becoming a tyrant, and it will look as if one must avoid a king at any cost. Look at, let's say, "De regno" book I chapter 6 with "Now, lesser evil follows from the corruption of a monarchy (which is tyranny) than from the corruption of an aristocracy.", and it will look like we must establish a monarchy at any cost instead.
The Catholic position is far more nuanced.
Then there is a practical problem: we already have historical examples where the efforts to save malfunctioning constitutional arrangements backfired.
That happened with Targowica Confederation, trying to save the old constitution of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Yes, they did avoid the king getting more power, which, however, only lead to partitions. And the noblemen under the Tsar (or rulers of Prussia and Austria) were definitely less free than they would have been under the Constitution of 3 May 1791.
Or the German Social Democrats, who in 1932 had an electoral poster "Gegen Papen, Hitler, Thälmann" ("Against Papen, Hitler, Thälmann"). So, "two out of three isn't bad"? Unfortunately, it seems that dictatorship of von Papen (which they successfully prevented) would have been a much better option than the dictatorship of Hitler.
To "Anonymous I": The truth of the claim "The point is that Trump would rule as a tyrant if he could." is not very certain, and this claim does not seem to be very useful even if it was certain. He is not going to rule alone no matter what happens, if only because he is rather old.
To "Anonymous II": I'm afraid that "No anger, MP. I just stated the facts." would be more useful if we would be able to see which other comments were made by you. If you wish to indicate that, it might be convenient to use the option "Comment as: Name/URL" or to sign your comments in some way (for example, as "Anonymous II"). As far, as I can tell, that should not cause any significant problems with privacy.
@MP:
Delete"He is not going to rule alone no matter what happens, if only because he is rather old."
Old age hasn't stopped tyrants before. Hastings Banda and Robert Mugabe both ruled as tyrants into their 90s.
In all fairness Trump is not the one who is starting wars partly to remain in office and avoid potential arrest on corruption charges. This and the administrative legerdemain used to remain in government for decades beyond what was intended.
ReplyDeleteThe war abroad to stop dissent at home tactic is recognised as such across the political spectrum in his own country.
I assume you're talking about Netanyahu.
DeleteThe problem is that Trump does whatever Netanyahu tells him to do. It's a case of the elephant taking its marching orders from the mouse.
Indeed. I agree with what you say. Netanyahu is buried even deeper in the tyrant trap than Trump as he's been doing it far longer. It would be instructive for a lot of people to look at how he is perceived in Israel.
DeleteAnon, do you actually believe that Netanyahu made Trump make Israel leave Gaza and leave Hamas in power?
DeleteAre you saying that Netanyahu made Trump make Netanyahu make a groveling apology to the Qataris?
This is one of the dumbest claims. Trump has wanted to attack Iran since the 80s. Yet people are now deluding themselves in to thinking Bibi made him do it.
A Rorschach blot of texts on tyranny.
ReplyDelete(With depressingly pedantic predictable results.)
I thought I should share this text from Dr Budziszewski's latest interview. It really hits. Sometimes there's a limit to what we can accomplish in this life. Sometimes it's possible to lose it all in this life. Sometimes it can seem hopeless and that's why this quote matters
ReplyDeleteThe quote
"I am a Christian. Now, it would be possible to reject all of the delusions and fallacies in the book without being a Christian. But on the other hand, could I reject them and remain sane in a society where everybody believes them? I don’t know if I would be able to remain sane very easily. Or maybe I’d remain sane, but despair. If I didn’t believe in God, if I didn’t believe that ultimately he wins, even if I don’t see his victory in the course of my own life or in the lifespan of my society, if I didn’t see that there is something more important than the culture, like the survival of the souls within it — if my only alternatives were naive optimism and pessimism — then I’d be a pessimist, or worse."
What's the book that Dr. Bud was referring to?
DeleteGoogle the quotation, Anon . and you will find the origin of that quotation from Norm, who should have included the source himself.
DeleteAnon
DeleteIt's from a recent interview.
https://scienceandculture.com/2026/03/the-flocking-of-crowds-the-secular-university-and-unstable-mass-conformism/
Sorry for not mentioning it originally.
The book is his latest book Pandemic of Lunacy
DeleteEd, I commend your obvious internal principles while wildly disagreeing with your ultimate religious beliefs and politics. All of this, even your circumspect critiques, that go against what your in-group believes are great examples of how corrosive ideologies can be. Even as this man makes threat that would imperil 90 million people in an unjust war, people you agree with more than I, and who share your network and culture STILL find ways to rationalize this ongoing evil, but moreover screech platitudes that you all agree with “The left is most dangerous.” The baseline, shared ideology that results in beliefs like this is the problem that none of you can see. You have voted in (80%!) the worst possible American to wield world destructive power, a man and govt, that will likely cost Americans more military lives in decades.
ReplyDeleteA corrupt person, getting rich of the presidency, building his own personal army to terrorize citizens and immigrants alike, callously escalating conditions that will harm American society here and abroad for a very long time.
You see all this and say “The left is more dangerous” and *mean it.*
You watch all this and don’t think you’ve made a mistake. Instead, caveats must be made and fanciful, grand master strategies imagined so you remain right in your ideology, even as it is leading you to support terror for the world.
https://www.newsweek.com/us-commander-said-trump-anointed-by-jesus-to-attack-iran-report-11615046
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of people think the Executive branch has too much power on both sides of the aisle and it seems that it really has been increasing over time. The problem is that they only complain when their side is out of power.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the odds that we'll see Congress start passing laws to restrict the Executive?
At the same time, Congress also increases its power, at the expense of the states. And the states have increased their intrusion into life, at the expense of smaller communities and individuals. I think the extent of federal rule making in general is too vast, and Congress is as bad as the President. They seem to go hand in hand: Congress makes ever more laws and hands them off to the Executive to carry out, and the Executive then runs away with the power given.
DeleteGood thing we have the Judiciary to rule them all then isn't it?
DeleteTony,
DeletePart of the issue is that Congress are NOT making laws or using it's authority. Over decades, they handed over more and more authority to the Executive. Chevron Deference, which is now gone thankfully, even handed over the interpretation of laws to the 3-letter agencies, which are also under the Executive.
It allowed Congress to avoid doing anything but grandstanding.
"[...] But to deserve to secure this benefit from God, the people must desist from sin, for it is by divine permission that wicked men receive power to rule as a punishment for sin, as the Lord says by the Prophet Hosea [13:11]: 'I will give you a king in my wrath' and it is said in Job (34:30) that he 'makes a man that is a hypocrite to reign for the sins of the people.' Sin must therefore be done away with in order that the scourge of tyrants may cease."
ReplyDeleteI would be glad, Prof. Feser, to see you "paying attention" to such things too.
Explain, Anonymous. Your comment about Prof Feser makes no sense.
Delete"I would be glad, Prof. Feser, to see you "paying attention" to such things too."
Obviously it's done deliberately in Daredevil born again, but it's troublesome when there actually seems to be parallels between Trump and Fisk, even up to the point where Buck parallels Stephen Miller and it's not even preposterous because they are actually acting like that.
ReplyDeleteAsking for a friend.
ReplyDeleteIf he goes to Japan and steals a wallet is he then Japanese?
The head representative of the ‘less dangerous side’ after threatening war crimes on social media, made it official in another unhinged address now telling the world he will put a country back to the stone ages. And you got the head War guy, a former Foxnews pundit, framing this as a religious war and PRAYING publicly to God to bless his sadistic lust for unimaginable violence. These are the representatives of the better, supposedly least dangerous options. A tyranny of violent, nominally Christian fools.
ReplyDelete