multimillionaire and admitted serial sexual harasser louis ck complaining in his “comedy” set about how much “they” have “taken” from him is the literal dictionary definition of an entitled snowflake whining about his feelings
“Because a war could not start until the herald had delivered his message, heralds were not always welcome. When the French herald carrying the colors of the duchy of Alençon arrived in Brussels in 1635 to present a declaration of war to the Spanish ruler Don Fernando, known as the Cardinal-Infante, he discovered that the Cardinal-Infante refused to grant him an audience. To fulfill his mission, the French herald tossed a copy of the declaration of war from his horse into the middle of an angry crowd. The Spanish herald, however, urged those gathered not to touch the paper lest doing so count as accepting the declaration and thus starting the war. The French herald then raced to the border where he nailed two additional copies to a post and notified the mayor of a nearby village about the postings.”
This is exactly the kind of munchkinning that often gets branded as unrealistic in contemporary (fan)fiction. So naturally I’m sooo here for this.
Sauce? This sounds like it’s from a larger work on Heralds and I really want to see the context.
Was there some kind of enforced norm that you couldn’t attack someone until they got your declaration of war?
Basically, yes, there was. This passage is from “The Internationalists: How A Radical Plan To Outlaw War Remade The World”, a lively book of popular legal history that I just finished reading and reviewed here. They were talking about the pre-20C norms governing the declaration of war, which had a number of traditional legal significances: most importantly for practical purposes, that soldiers couldn’t be tried or punished for murder, arson, robbery, etc. that they committed in the course of a declared war (the book provides an extended example, but long story short, a surprise invasion is a good way to get your guys executed in ways that would be much more provocative if they were done to “actual soldiers”).
Territorial gains and monetary plunder acquired in declared war were also unambiguously legal posessions, unlike stuff you might get by hiring pirates or whatever, which was a little suspect. So the incentives were the opposite of today: in favor of soldiers meeting on the battlefield in declared interstate wars over specified grievances, and against indefinite guerilla warfare that’s not associated with state entities.
(The book is basically all about how these international legal norms changed in the 20th century to the system that we know today. It’s a good read.)
I
think psychologically there’s a lot of, shall we say, neurosis. Again,
going back to this trauma of the Reagan victory, the Gingrich victory,
the Bush victories—it’s people who built their political identities
around a neurotic response to trauma. It’s, We gotta build a protective
shell around ourselves because, if we show our egos, our egos will be
destroyed, to put it in psychoanalytic terms.
To have this young person who hasn’t experienced this trauma . . and
one of the things that’s fascinating about this—I’ll call it an
often-used word—authenticity that she has is that you
see her, in very interesting ways, going back to modes of rhetoric and
modes of political communication that you associate with lots of
pre-Reagan figures. Although I’ll also say figures like Reagan. It’s like Harry Truman.
Interviewer: What are examples of that?
I
don’t know if she sits around and reads political history or looks at
old political videos. But I see, on the “60 Minutes” interview, Anderson
Cooper throws a question to her that for just about any traditional,
old-generation Democrat is a stumper—Oh, the other side says you’re
radical. And she had this ready-made answer in the hopper, which was to
deploy these very powerful symbols from the American civic religion, and
I’m going to quote: “Abraham Lincoln made the radical decision to sign
the Emancipation Proclamation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the
radical decision to embark on establishing programs like social
security… . If that’s what radical means, call me a radical.”
Now,
immediately, when I heard her say that, I heard a very famous quote
from J.F.K., who was asked if he was a liberal in the same kind of
accusatory tone, and he said, “If by a liberal they mean someone who
looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid
reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their
health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights,
and their civil liberties—someone who believes that we can break through
the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if
that is what they mean by a liberal, then I’m proud to say that I’m a
liberal.”
I see her Reagan-like brilliance when she comes up with a phrase, like I heard her do in an interview on the shutdown, which she immediately took to a much higher level. She said the people at the border trying to get in “are
acting more American than any person who seeks to keep them out will
ever be.” I mean, she mentions that the kids who died in custody—she
mentioned that it was Christmastime, which was just so Reagan, to use
this resonant emotional symbol. She mentions people coming to the
country just with the shirt on their back. She says that the people
trying to keep them out are “anti-American.” This is the American civil
religion. This is playing the game in a way that a pre-traumatized
generation of Democrats was able to play the game.
Interviewer: I think
people see her as in touch with this new generation but, in a way, it
seems like you’re saying that she recalls a New Deal or New Frontier
Democrat.
Well, there’s a real back-to-the-future thing
going on here, right? In a lot of ways, the Democratic Party is a
complicated, complex coalition, and always has been, with lots of
elements, both reactionary and progressive, in it. But, in a lot of
ways, she’s returning the Democratic Party to the roots—this idea that
the Democratic Party is always going to be fighting for you.…
Interviewer: I
was going to ask you about the rise of the right post-Goldwater and the
rise of the left now, and whether you see similarities, but you
excitedly e-mailed me before this conversation that I had to ask you
about a comparison between A.O.C. and Newt Gingrich in 1979.
Ultimately,
Newt Gingrich was about wrecking and destroying and not building, so
obviously there’s profound foundational differences. In 1978, when
Gingrich won his congressional seat after his third time trying,
Congressman Thomas Mann had this off-the-record briefing session in
which they explained to new members how the House worked. Mann tells
this story that this young congressman was basically talking back to
them and lecturing them about how Congress should work. And he explained
to them this plan he had, all the way back in January of 1979, of
how the Republicans could become the majority party and take back the
House. And no one was saying that in 1979. People were talking about
this statistic that only twenty-one per cent of people identified
themselves as Republicans. And, all the way through 1979, you see Newt
Gingrich showing up in stories as a spokesman for the Republican Party,
as the voice that people in the media are seeking out.
And, to go
back to another Republican example, in 1966, when Richard Nixon was
starting his comeback that obviously culminated in him winning the
Presidency, in 1968, his entire strategy, Pat Buchanan explains, was
built around getting mentioned in the same sentence as Lyndon Johnson.
Getting Lyndon Johnson to notice him, to mention him, to criticize him.
So, in the same sense, Newt Gingrich is suddenly finding himself being
quoted more in the newspaper than Bob Michel, the House Republican
leader, because he has sort of the audacity to talk about his party as
agenda-setting.
Interviewer: The giant difference—and this goes back to what we were talking about before—is that A.O.C. is coming in with a Democratic wave.
Right,
and that gets back to the trauma, right? The Democratic Party doesn’t
even know how to take yes for an answer. They can’t even accept the idea
that they are a majority party. There’s this great line, “He who seems
most kingly is the king.” Unless you act like a leader people aren’t
going to treat you like a leader.
Take Tlaib using a swear word.
Truman got in trouble for saying “If you vote for Nixon, you ought to go
to hell.” And that was a brassy sort of rhetoric people had come to
expect from Democrats. Not this pearl-clutching response that, every
time someone uses strong language, they have to apologize for it.