King Quinlan

My door in St. Edward's as decorated by Kyle
and Patrick after my 2nd LSAT

William Shakespeare, a writer that I greatly admire, once said, “Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them."

My ‘greatness’ was thrust upon me.

It is not with pride that I publish this account because it does not seem entirely appropriate that I have been given this title. Rather, I write on this topic to “let everyone in” on the inside joke that is my undeserved nickname and the namesake for half of the title of my blog.

Kyle, Herald of the King and Servant of the Kingdom, and Dan, Knight of the Kingdom, (if I have a title, it's only fair that they have ones too) in the year 2011 gave me the title of “King Quinlan” on the event of our yearly pilgrimage to Washington DC, to bear witness to the life of unborn children and the atrocities committed against these innocents (aka, the March for Life). The night before the march, men and women mingled in the men’s sleeping quarters until well after time permitted in our school’s student rulebook. Some men were attempting to retire to be ready for the early morning ahead; however their attempts were in vain as the incessant giggles and cries from the nearby women made sleep impossibly elusive.

At this injustice, I rose to action. Finding the nearest chair, I mounted it with arms outstretched, to be seen by all the transgressors.

“Everyone, it is now 12:15 AM, fifteen minutes past our school’s parietal policy for weekdays. Since this is a school sponsored field trip, the rules of Du Lac still apply. We have guys trying to sleep here, so the women in the area will need to either go back to their own sleeping quarters or find somewhere else to socialize.”

A young woman with an exasperated expression replied, “But we have nowhere else to go.”

I paused, attempting to determine what bearing this had on what I had just said. Giving up trying to reconcile nonsense with reason, I replied.

“Well, you will just have to find somewhere else to go.”

And with that, the crowd dispersed and the men were allowed peace. It was deemed by Kyle and Dan that I had handled the conflict with such a firm conviction and regal presence that thenceforth, I was given the title of King Quinlan.

However, like Prince “Harry” of Shakespeare’s plays before he became King Henry V, I was not always as kindly and virtuous.

I was a brash, hot-tempered youth. Following a traumatizing sophomore year, I had learned to despise a group of individuals known collectively as the “bros”. They were deplorable individuals who gave themselves to drinking and lewd activities every weekend, and it was such a weekend as these when they incurred my wrath.

I had retired for the evening, as had my roommate Patrick, the King’s Court Fool. It was about 4 AM when there was a loud commotion in the hallway outside our door. The bros had returned from their night of debauchery and were looking to make more trouble.

They sought to disturb a senior who lived across the hall from me and Patrick by finding a nearby vacuum cleaner and turning it on outside his door. They pounded thunderously upon his door and jeered at him. This went on for nearly 10 minutes without any sign of the arrival of hall authorities to put an end to this madness. Fully awake and angry now, I leapt from my 8 foot high loft, flung open the door, and entered the guilty hallway in naught but a pair of shorts.

Consumed by unfathomable rage, I cannot recall exactly what I said upon my appearance. I do remember that whatever it was, I had used such profuse profanity that the transgressors immediately ceased their depravities and met my fury with surprise and uncertainty. I could feel every muscle in my body strained, resisting the urge to enter the throng of at least a dozen miscreants and commit violence to each of them. With vulgar bellowing, I advanced upon them and forced most of them to retreat.

Scott, alone, defied me.

Of all those previously present, Scott despised me the most. I had never injured him, so it always puzzled me as to why he hated me. It actually was he that had stolen my Xbox the previous semester and used it for his own purposes in his room. Of course, the established social understanding among this group was that whatever belonged to one, by default, was accessible to all. I never agreed with this policy and Scott had frequently taken advantage of my belongings. Thus, I deprived his sense of entitlement to whatever he desired and invited his derision.

Now, three yards separated Scott and me in the deserted hallway.

“Go on! Get out of here!” I shouted at him.

With eyes glassed over, he slurred a reply, “It’s a free hallway.”

With deft agility, I closed the distance between us in a moment and was now close enough to smell the repulsive combination of Kamchatka vodka and Keystone beer on his brutish breath.

“No, it’s not,” I trembled with rage, “It’s MY [expletive] hallway! Now get the [expletive] out!”

With each word, he cringed as I involuntarily spewed him with venomous spittle. Thankfully, this had the desired effect because he drunkenly turned and stumbled in the same general direction as his friends. Had he not moved, I dread to think of what might have happened next.

Upon my return to the room, Patrick had remained silent. We had only known one another for a few weeks, and I imagine this event had cast some doubt on my general mental health. Kyle, who lived in a room next door to the commotion, also later bore witness to these events, but it was only well into our friendship that the topic of that night arose. He had not realized that it was I who had walked out into the hallway, surging with wrathful madness. We shared a good laugh over the incident and it became only greater cause for the royal title. Though I am certainly not proud of my intemperate behavior, I have endeavored since then to become more level-headed, and I am largely succeeding in this task.

All such incidents aside, though, I regret to admit that the title of King is primarily due to my manner of speech. As is the habit of the Quinlan family, I have a tone that exudes confidence and the force of truth. I rarely begin my thoughts with the words, “I think that” or “I feel like”. To me, this seems repetitive and unnecessary because anything that I say is, of course, my own statement.

This linguistic style and confidence, I have been told, creates an air of authority to my statements. My self-assuredness and lack of soft language projects each word as one of ironclad truth, unassailable by any argument. Even on topics which I have no practical experience on, I make an estimation as to a reasonable position and defend it.

However, this strength of tone often appears as arrogance to many. I will be the first to admit that truthfully, at times, my words carry at least a tinge of haughtiness. However, I do not apologize for my self-confidence, the root of this character of speech. It is sad to see many unwilling to engage in open debate with others for fear of conflict. I carry myself in a way that I hope others will follow.

Every man must be ruler and king of himself. If a man is apprehensive of the slight breezes that barely change the course of his ship, how will he weather the torrential gales and roaring maelstroms of life? A king can have no subjects under his governance until he learns to govern himself properly in the sight of God. As I have not yet learned to rule myself completely with justice, I claim no subjects as my own, but with all eagerness, I welcome into my court those willing to receive my love and affection.

Political Philosophy Pt. 3 "The City-State"

Part 3 in a three-part series.

In my previous poli-philo post, I specified that because each human being is capable of a measure of rational activity, they should participate in the political process of an ideal nation. However, a citizen's participation can easily be nullified by a badly established structure of governance. Sure, we claim to strive for a democracy, but is that what the political establishment facilitating?

Aristotle, in his Politics, describes his political establishment in terms of the polis, or rather, "city-state". The polis is comprised of a "downtown" area and the surrounding countryside. The size of the polis is large enough that the people that live in it are self-sufficient, but small enough that every citizen has a reasonable opportunity to know every other citizen. They are capable of feeding, housing, blacksmithing, clothing, and other necessities. They also may have some finer crafts and arts that they could use to trade with other poleis. Each polis would be governed independently from the other poleis, in accordance with that particular peoples' traditions and culture.

Currently, this is not how our political system in the United States appears to work today. The Founding Fathers granted all rights to the States, while giving the federal government only the power to regulate interstate commerce, provide for the national defense, and handle foreign policy. However, even today, that right is stretched to the limits in nationwide decrees on divorce, abortion, business, and in the most recent debate, healthcare. These are all decisions and laws handed down by the federal government and they apply to all states. As a result, most of the power in today's legal and judicial system is wielded by the federal government.

A possible advantage of having a strong central government is that it would make standardization laws among states easier. There is a universality among the states and their governance comes down to a singularity, the federal government. All decisions are made from D.C. and wherever you go, the laws will be uniform.

However, this returns us to my first blog post on the topic of political philosophy, concerning the viability of the philosopher-king. A singularity of power is not what a nation should be governed upon, especially in the vastly dissonant moral atmosphere of modernity. The moral health and character of this singularity will affect the governed body as a whole. If the leadership is sick, then the whole nation is sick.

In more recent times, our democracy has appeared more as an aristocracy (the term "career politicians" springs to mind). As the size of the federal government increases, the power of the federal legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) grows in terms of making federal laws. Political parties have been narrowed down to two groups, Republican and Democrat, and in order to receive any support from your party to win elected office, you must buy into the party's platform. Also, within the judicial system, the term "legislating from the bench" has become a popular phrase in light of many Supreme Court justices handing down decisions that essentially write laws for the whole nation.

But in recent years with the deadlock between entirely contrasting viewpoints, the President has gained legislative power. Nothing is accomplished in Congress's stalemate, so the President passes laws and declares wars without congressional approval. With the legislative branch rendered impotent, our political establishment appears more as a monarchy (or tyranny). Once more, the singularity narrows from the aristocracy (rule of the few) into an monarchy (rule of the one).

This is indeed troubling and worthy of much alarm, especially when 535 members of Congress legislate for over 311 million citizens and even worse when the President gets involved in the legislation process without Congress. So what is the solution?

The answer is to return power to smaller governing entities. Each area is aware of their governing needs, based upon their real-world experience in that area. Being at the "ground level" of a particular territory, whether it be the state or city level, will always be a more advantageous position to gauge the particular challenges of a population than a singular position in Washington DC.

In addition, the elected officials that wield the most power will be those that are of the same background and culture of the population. And a political system that establishes personal acquaintance and knowledge of the elected official is always to be encouraged in order that a citizen might be more informed when selecting those for governing duty.

In essence, this returns our nation from the folly of national political parties and encourages local groups with real concerns for their own community. Aristotle used the polis as a model for governance because it would prove large enough for self-sufficiency, the minimum for a decent living, but also small enough that it might not be encumbered by such extreme vanities and legislative singularities that currently plague our modern nation. Such global governing institutions cannot effectively and properly rule such a vast population. As a result, injustices occur and government is rendered incapable of completing the task it was designed to do: create and enforce laws, designed for the good of the people.