The UK and the US both seem to be losing the spirit of constitutionalism, the sense of a game-within-a-game. This is not a phenomenon limited to the political classes. It reflects a broader change in attitude within the body politic.
It is often suggested that the UK doesn’t have a constitution. That is incorrect. The UK has legislation, case law, conventions, traditions and precedents that cumulatively set out the framework by which it is constituted. That framework represents the boundaries within which the day-to-day game of politics is played.
The US also has legislation, case law, conventions, traditions and precedents that cumulatively set out the framework by which it is constituted. In addition, however, it has The Constitution, a written document that sets out the key principles and that, crucially, takes precedence over any other source of law. It is the basic, normative idea by means of which all other constitutional propositions gain their coherence and legitimacy. The UK equivalent is the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
Lacking the boundaries denoted by a written constitutional document of supreme legal status, Britain is acutely reliant on the self-restraint of those occupying positions of power. As nineteenth-century prime minister William Gladstone noted, the British constitution presumes “more boldly than any other the good sense and good faith of those who work it.”
It is not just countries without written constitutions that are reliant on good faith however, as is implicit within Gladstone’s remark. Those with written constitutions can succumb to a state in which their key players are contemptuous of or oblivious to the framework within which the game is being played. The UK is somewhat insulated from breaches of the boundaries of the game by its explicit and longstanding insistence upon what political historian Peter Hennessy has termed the “good chap theory of government.” The US is somewhat insulated from such breaches by the prominence and centrality of its written constitution. Both countries, however, are vulnerable to what the Chinese term the problem of the bad emperor, that is an emperor who fails to exercise self-restraint in the absence of effective checks and balances.
That vulnerability is not isolated to those exercising high political office. It is situated within the broader culture, for the rule of law is first and foremost a cultural idea. A culture that baulks at the idea of norms, precedent and the restraints of tradition is vulnerable to the erosion of the rule of law. When the sole focus is the short-term win, we undermine the broader framework within which the game can be iterative. We lose sight of the game-within-the-game. It is right to identify and address that kind of deterioration when it happens at the highest levels of political office. It is also important, however, to put it in the context of a broader social malaise and to note that, for example, norms of procedural justice are being forsaken in favor of trial by Twitter, and subjective experience favored over empiricism and objectivity. In such a climate, it is hard, without hypocrisy, to insist that others respect the norms and traditions we have inherited that enable us to co-exist as a peaceful and coherent political community.
A failure to recognize the game-within-the-game was arguably central to Boris Johnson’s recent historic loss in the UK Supreme Court. A prime minister undoubtedly has the power to advise the monarch to prorogue parliament. But he can’t do so in a way that undermines the broader framework in which subsequent rounds of the game can be played. The Supreme Court looked at written records of what was taken into consideration in advising the Queen and found that these considerations pertained solely to the immediate interests of the government: “Nowhere is there a hint that the Prime Minister, in giving advice to Her Majesty, is more than simply the leader of the Government seeking to promote its own policies.” In taking such a narrow and short term approach, Boris Johnson failed in his constitutional responsibility, “to have regard to all relevant interests, including the interests of Parliament.” A scorched earth approach to achieving Brexit, which damages the idea of parliamentary sovereignty and undermines the delicate but central role of the Crown, is a failure to respect the game-within-the-game.
Given the twists and turns of Donald Trump’s presidency, one might be forgiven for thinking that he is totally unaware of the framework of norms and tradition within which his presidency is being played out. That is not so, though—for he is quick to invoke that framework when it operates in his own favor. The recent letter from the White House to Nancy Pelosi on the impeachment inquiry notes (in italics) that “All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law and every past precedent.” As a New York Times article insists, “the Democrats need to honor basic fairness.” That is so not least because the approach taken will be relevant to all impeachment investigations to come. There are many rounds to this game.
Rules and tradition are iterative by necessity. Consider the voting procedure for confirmation hearings of judicial and executive branch nominees in the Senate. Traditionally, a 60-vote majority had been required, to ensure some level of bi-partisan support for nominees, but bi-partisan support for anything has long been in short supply in American politics, and so, in 2013, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid, invoked the so-called nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule for all but Supreme Court nominees. That meant that people could be confirmed by the Senate with only 51 votes. In 2017, Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, expanded that rule change to include nominees to the Supreme Court. That facilitated the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and was the applicable precedent two years later during the highly controversial appointment of Brett Kavanaugh.
Chuck Schumer has indicated that he regrets Harry Reid’s invocation of the nuclear option, but support for and opposition to the nuclear option has flip flopped back and forth between the parties over the years, depending on who would realize an immediate gain from it. Rules and procedure should not be set in stone. There must be room for development. But that development must not be undertaken purely with reference to the immediate round of the game. When it comes to norms and tradition, what goes around comes around. Every impeachment, every confirmation hearing, every prorogation of parliament, every withdrawal of troops supporting allies in a war zone, every deplatforming, every online mobbing, every curtailment of free speech— all these things have effects on subsequent rounds of the game. As you sow, so shall you reap.
The impulse to work for the short-term win is very strong—particularly, perhaps, in politics—but it is misguided. This is game theory — classic prisoner’s dilemma stuff. Counterintuitively, mutual cooperation, rather than pure self-interest, produces the best outcome for all of us. In politics, this is particularly true: the framework for cooperation should be bequeathed, intact, to generations to come.
A cavalier attitude to the preservation of that framework is nevertheless much in evidence in our broader culture. Some of the oldest norms that frame how we agree, disagree and agree to disagree are falling out of favor. One example I have highlighted before is the increasing reluctance of lawyers to represent causes they perceive to be unpopular. For instance, lawyers were reluctant to argue against same-sex marriage when the issue came before the US Supreme Court in 2015. Another example of this is the treatment meted out to Professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. of Harvard University, for representing Harvey Weinstein. My point here isn’t that same-sex marriage ought to be illegal, or that Harvey Weinstein is innocent—it’s that the principle that both sides of an argument must be heard before a court is foundational to the adversarial legal system. It will remain foundational long after same-sex marriage is completely uncontroversial and Harvey Weinstein is dead and gone. We erode this principle at our peril, because we don’t know what rounds of the game it will be needed for in the coming years and centuries.
This attitude among some lawyers is a worrying development. Fearless representation of an unpopular cause used to be intrinsic to the archetype of a noble lawyer. Think Atticus Finch’s defence of Tom Robinson, or John Adams’ defence of British soldiers facing murder charges after the Boston Massacre. What was once noble is now ignoble. This is the result of a widespread failure to look beyond the particular round of the game being played.
That failure seems to have been aggravated by a shift in law, politics, academia—and perhaps even science—towards a teleological approach. The point of these disciplines is increasingly understood to be to move society toward the short-term goals of particular political or even ideological viewpoints. Nowadays, one is often an activist first, a lawyer second; an activist first, a scholar second; an activist first, a scientist second. This leads to a Machiavellian attitude towards the broader framework of rules and norms that define these disciplines and render the game iterative.
We all have our visions of ways in which the world can be improved, and of the role that law, politics, academia and science can play in realizing those improvements. But we must always be mindful of the game-within-the-game. We must not endanger all our tomorrows for today’s win. To have any hope of holding a bad emperor to the spirit of constitutionalism, we must first hold ourselves to it.
37 comments
I don’t think the problem here is “teleology” as much as a shift towards short-term political strategy. The Rule of Law can be respected sans floaty duty-based constitutionalism
This reminds me of a phrase that has stayed with me ever since I read it 30-odd years ago:
“The ends never justify the means, because there are no ends”
Everything continues to the next round.
I’m pretty sure this is from an Ursula Le Guin novel, probably the Dispossessed.
Dear Elizabeth Finne!
My main problem with left-wing and progressive people is that since they think of themselves as those who are “on the right side of the history,” they are sure that they have the right to change the rules in case of they lose.
No one is on the right side of the history. None but self-confident stupid idiots.
I see them that way
“The basis on which democracy works is called “Loser Consent”, in that in any vote the loser concedes to accept the will of the majority. If this does not happen there are only two possible results. The majority can get their way by violence, or they can remove the politicians who lost but refuse to accept the vote”. I refer those who doubt we British have no formal ‘state’ founding document to the Magna Carta, and in this context specifically Article 61.
Hafta admit I’ve never read the MC right thru and never read article 61 before. Bad law I’d say. The barons give themselves carte blanche to ‘distress’ the king whenever they feel like it, basically. D of I is better.
The problem is that the Left fundamentally does not believe in the US Constitution. This is where all other problems arise.
You see, black people didn’t write it. So that means it’s invalid. Hey, the Left’s words, not mine.
Once you understand this, it becomes readily obvious why they don’t care about the Constitution. They hate the First Amendment and believe that censorship is the way forward. The Second Amendment which defends the First…well I don’t have to say anything here, do I? Once the First and Second have been brushed aside, the Fourth and the Fifth will fall, and then darkness will come.
The one that sticks out to me is was US Senator Joe Manchin saying “due process is what’s killing us right now.” https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-manchin-due-process-gun-control-2016-6 A fucking Senator said that.
You begin to understand the “living Constitution” argument that states the document doesn’t say what it says, but rather we can change it to say whatever we want it to say in order to satisfy our momentary political impulses. “Progressive” (i.e. far) leftists treat the Constitution like it’s the Wiki-Founding-Document of the Republic and can be validly updated by any leftist with a keyboard. We’ve changed our constitution as recently as the 1980s. If you have the votes, you can change it. If you don’t have the votes then all you can do is try to delegitimize the entire document.
If there’s anything you must pass on to future generations of Americans, it’s their constitutional rights. There’s nothing in this world more valuable, and no greater achievement in all of human history than the American Constitution. The right is where American constitutional values are being defended. The left is where they are being eroded.
More lies, more hypocrisy, more tribalist spin.
Go die in a fire, Heike.
I’d like to see evidence of Hieke’s lies, if you could provide it. It would do a lot better to sway me than telling him to die.
Isn’t it obvious? Have you seen Trump and his supporters? Heard their statements? They have no respect for the constitution, yet people like Heike pretend it’s all the left’s fault. You will never change your minds, but the truth is the truth.
“yet people like Heike pretend it’s all the left’s fault”
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was one utterly evil villain in this story? I myself find that there’s so much blame to go around that it’s really pointless to try to figure out who’s shit stinks more. I know people who voted for Trump in sorrow and in desperation. Ok, the right did what they did, and they’ll burn in hell for it no doubt. But had the left not gone batshit crazy with wokeness perhaps the right would not have been driven to quite such madness themselves. I’m not a Yank, but consider that if he’d not been stabbed in the back I’d have voted for Bernie, but I’d have taken Trump over Hilary. Yet I’m still a Bernie lover at heart. Figure that out.
I agree that the Constitution is dead. If the Left played a part in that, I’ve never heard about it. What I do know it that the Constitution doesn’t work if the President can be arbitrarily unconstitutional and everybody applauds him. The Right could have chosen to boo him out of the room. Or they could have responded with awkward silence. Or just stayed home. Instead, he got applause for his open attacks on the U.S. Constitution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPo6NsJJLzg
That is as unconstitutional as you can get, and of course we all know there are many more videos like this. Now I know areomagazine is a far-right extremist outlet. Your primary concern is to bash the Left, while the Right can do whatever it wants. But it still needs to be pointed out, the Constitution is dead because the Right wanted it to be dead.
“Now I know areomagazine is a far-right extremist outlet.”
Droll, Ash, extremely humorous.
Forgive me if you meant that seriously, in which case I can sincerely recommend that you further peruse the content on this site. You may find it comforting to observe a great deal of left-wing opinion published here, albeit virtually no ultra-leftist advocacy of violence. Hope that omission doesn’t disappoint.
Areo is predominately centrist, with a slight leftward tilt.
Thanks for missing the point, Ted, which was that the U.S. Constitution is dead because the U.S. Right has championed someone who explicitly wanted the U.S. Constitution to die. No more need for further subtleties after that point.
You’re welcome, Ash. Pleased to be of assistance.
It would be returning the favor to craft an argument explaining how your assertion about the U.S.Right makes Areo a “far-right extremist outlet.”
In a subsequent sentence, you state “Your primary concern is to bash the Left, while the Right can do whatever it wants.”
How is ” This bipartisan trend toward authoritarianism is troubling, especially on the part of the Republican party—it makes one wonder if they’ve abandoned their limited government principles entirely.” Quoted from
https://areomagazine.com/2019/10/15/the-american-electorate-seeks-its-messiah/
“the right can do whatever it wants?”
How can “The traditional leftist values are noble ones. Universalism, rationality, due process, free speech and respect for the needs and preferences of working people are values worth preserving.” Quoted from
https://areomagazine.com/2019/09/26/how-the-collectivist-right-won-the-battle-of-ideas/
possibly be defended as a “far-Right extremist” statement?
There are many more examples of liberal thought and left-wing advocacy to be found within the “pages” of this online magazine, and I encourage you to explore them. I cannot answer for how Mali, Pluckrose, Italia, Hopkins et al might define the primary concern of their publication, but “the right can do what it wants” is an entirely unsupported assertion.
I had initially thought you were joking, then reflected that perhaps you were serious in referring to this largely left-of-center publication as “far right,” and perhaps were unfamiliar with the material published here, hence the manner of my reply.
Your opinions are, obviously, your own to express, but if this publication exemplifies a “far-right extremist outlet” to you, I would consider you a fortunate person by dint of a wondrously enviable innocence, and strongly suggest you stay away from such disgusting extreme-right sites as can be found within the Dark Web. I’ve ventured into that realm, will not return and prefer to leave such researches to international law enforcement. Hopefully, they’ll find ways to deal with the violent extremism lurking there.
Have you spent any time at, say, Breitbart? Now THERE’S a right-wing website, with the comments section overflowing with extremist sentiment. Some of the actual content may arguably be seen as extremist, but a considerable amount of the reader comments are unmistakable so. The invective and ubiquitous trolling, ad hominem, appeals to authority, appeals to motive, silly credentialism and host of other remarkably puerile fallacious ideation that exists there requires a strong stomach to survey, but intellectual honesty militates that one “holds one’s nose” and briefly partake, purely in the interest of maintaining one’s perspective.
The only one of your unsupported assertions that I found worthy of comment was the one to which I made my reply. Admittedly, I am biased in favor of what I assert is a thoughtful, intelligent and well-intentioned collection of slightly-left, centrist publishers and authors, with whom I regularly disagree but consider thought-provoking and informative. The “collection” to which I refer is, of course, to be found publishing and contributing to areomagazine.com.
So still missing the point on purpose. Okay.
You err on the side of civility as always Ted, but I fear it’s pearls before swine. If Ash wants to believe that Areo is far right then I doubt that there is much that can be done for him.
I suspect that as you reviewed my counter-assertion, Ray, there may have been a fleeting “Vader-within” whispering “the impulse to diagram sentences is STRONG with this one.”
You will be relieved to know that, after a brief suppression of an involuntary transmogrification into Captain Obvious (must…….not……give…..in……to……pedantic……urge……toward…..delineation……of……multiple…….assertions…ARGHH,) I am now able to accept the wisdom you have so kindly imparted. Instead of surrendering to temptation, I will diminish, and go into the west and remain Ted.
Ha! A belly laugh cures so many ailments!
Ash, you provide the perfect example, I couldn’t have chosen a better one! And as expected, they completely ignored it. The only reason they can do that is because they never cared about the constitution. All completely predictable.
I’m not sure if I would call areomagazine completely extremist, but they certainly don’t give a fuck about the consittution. You were far more polite and specific that I was, and as predicted, it was a waste of time. I just respond with “go die in a fire” at this point; not that it wins the debate, but it makes no difference either way.
“I’m not sure if I would call areomagazine completely extremist, but they certainly don’t give a fuck about the consittution.”
Would you care to give a single quote from any member of Areo’s staff that supports that? Or even a quote from an article? Remembering of course that the opinions of authors are not necessarily the opinions of the staff? And the opinions of the staff are not necessarily Helen’s opinions?
What wins the debate, Sam Guine, is supporting assertions with reasonable arguments made in good faith to people who respond with civility and a willingness to engage. The incentive for engaging in a debate is to respond to counter-assertions with coherent and specific examples and/or anecdotes. It also helps to remember the venue, which in this case is a quite civil and thoughtful assortment of individuals, and proceed with discussion in a manner that abjures treating single persons as nothing more than a fungible component within a hostile group.
I was taught the above principles in 1973, when obtaining instruction on how to proselytize on behalf of the Young Socialist Alliance and sell copies of The Militant and The International Socialist Review. (Spoiler alert: those are far-left publications and a Trotskyite organization.)
If “it makes no difference either way,” why bother responding with violently-inspired invective? Why people resort to Trolling-style behavior is incomprehensible to me; there are so many other, more gainful ways of expressing hate, if that’s all that one desires.
Here’s an exercise in polemics; count the number of assertions in Ash’s original post. Then ask yourself why anyone might respond to any of those assertions or, alternately, find no reason to respond to any one or more of those assertions. Did it ever occur to you that absence of response, to one assertion of several, may indicate agreement with, or indifference to, the specific assertions to which no response was offered?
I’m not “debating” you, Ted. I already know your mental phenotype. When Ash pointed out that you missed his central point, you literally replied with “You’re welcome.” I’m not making Ash’s mistake to waste my time on you. Go die in a fire.
“I already know your mental phenotype.”
This is so stupid that it would embarrass your average troll. In the unlikely event that you want to learn to converse with adults you’ve come to the right place Sam, but it you’re just the troll you seem to be, I’m pretty sure you’ll be getting no further responses from anyone. Areo is not a good place for you.
It would appear, Sam Guine, that you’ve wasted your time here entirely. When called upon to respond to one single assertion, you respond with violent sentiment. When the common response to “thanks” (being “you’re welcome”) was made, you failed to acknowledge that by even dismissing its irrelevance, and refused to defend Ash’s assertion about Areo’s “far right extremism,” encouraging Ash to emulate your violent sentiment rather than continue with a civil discussion. Where you could contribute facts or well-supported opinion, you have chosen instead to embarrass yourself with invective and display a lack of reading comprehension that otherwise need not have interfered with an opportunity for you to teach and learn. With “allies” like you, Ash needs no adversaries.
Your inchoate responses and incoherent invective do you no credit, nor the causes you pretend to support. The majority of people, whose outlook always remains within the reasonable center, obtain no benefit from those that remain ideologically on the violently-inclined fringe within the tiny minority of moral bankrupts that you identify with your own words as including yourself.
Whatever gratification your trolling obtains, may it provide comfort to you during the long dark nights of the soul to which your outlook condemns you. May you find some balancing sweetness, as you reflect on the bitter taste of your wasted youth in fifty years’ time. The opportunities for growth that you now squander will not present themselves again. regardless of your self-delusionary pretense of studied apathy, you will remember these days. May you live long enough to regret the wasting of them, despite the impulse toward self-harm that your (exhibited) “mental phenotype” indicates that you harbor.
“when obtaining instruction on how to proselytize on behalf of the Young Socialist Alliance”
No foolin’? Fabulous. I was a blood red shop-steward in Canada’s most commie union for a few years. Its nice to have been on both sides of the fence eh?
It certainly assists in engaging with viewpoint diversity, Ray. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t seem to have assisted me in proactive discernment of verifiable viewpoints, making your incisive observations ever more helpful.
I would posit that learning to peacefully engage in face-to-face personal discourse with violence-prone individuals such as the blue-collar crowd you and I contended with, tends to incentivize civility. The recent studies of social retardation among schoolchildren lend verisimilitude to the otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative that online activity at an early age has inhibited acquisition of productive communication skills within certain populations.
In re: vilifying the left, I found most of the Comrades to be pretty warm-hearted and willingly self-sacrificing people, At one point, I was in serious difficulty and they protected me from real harm. I will always be grateful to them for that and the memory influences my outlook toward their tribe to this day. Of course, I don’t get around much, any more, and I’m quite possibly misguided in extending my hand in friendship to their successors, if recent events can be said to constitute any indication.
“I’m quite possibly misguided in extending my hand in friendship to their successors”
On Quillette you’ve noticed my pains making the distinction between the old left and the new left. Tho there is an unbroken continuity, they ain’t the same. Indeed the comrades of old, particularly socialists, who predate communism, were often very decent people. Our friends above typify the woke: arrogant, quick to label, narrative driven, angry and unreasonable.
Yes I have, Ray, and applaud your making that distinction because it’s a very important one. After I wrote the above, I recalled that i have a long-deferred lunch date with an aging Maoist of fond acquaintance. Now that he’s retired, we’ll finally have time to visit and reflect on our youth, both the triumphant portions and those misspent. To your point; My acquaintance is similar of vintage with the Comrades to which I referred, making him dissimilar to his ideological progeny. I fully expect him, being an honest man, to share his musings on where our generation failed the ones that have succeeded us.
The arrogance etc.you point out isn’t too dissimilar to a certain percentage of those with whom I formerly used to consort, it’s the lack of reading comprehension skill that I find most disappointing.
So a moderate Senator, who is known for bipartisanship, explaining that a seemingly sensible gun law would face
court challenges is evidence that “the Left” “does not believe in the US Constitution”? Maybe aim for a little perspective before you comment.
“The right is where American constitutional values are being defended. ”
Are you kidding? The right has never had any respect for the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th,
14th, or 15th just off the top of my head (and I’ve heard them disparage the 19th).
I’m not a fan of any fringe leftists who want to weaken speech protections, but the right has never stood for the actual rule of law and has repeatedly
shown its willingness to ignore the rules when it serves their purposes. There are no Democratic efforts to revise the 1st amendment, but Trump
is out there right now undermining Congressional oversight, making a mockery of military justice and attempting to convert the entire executive apparatus
into a cult of personality.
The fundamental mistake in this article is that we should co-exist peacefully.
What we really should do is nuke all of our enemies and competitors all around the world, and then finally have the bloody civil war we’ve all been secretly looking forward to this whole time.
«Both countries, however, are vulnerable to what the Chinese term the problem of the bad emperor, that is an emperor who fails to exercise self-restraint in the absence of effective checks and balances.»
After the case of Professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. which shocked me I would rename this problem as a problem of bad elites (universities, media, progressives etc.). Even Eichmann had a lawyer.
Fabulous. This is the best essay I’ve read in quite a while.
Fully agree, Ray, but I’m not familiar with the reference “the spirit of constitutionalism, the sense of a game-within-a-game.” Is this referencing the win/loss dichotomy of games in general, or is it a descriptor of some general reference toward constitutionalism that I’ve somehow never encountered?
My own conceptual association of the term “game” with the concept of “play” makes the reference a bit too obscure in its implication of frivolity for my taste, considering how deadly serious the issue of disdain for the rule of law has become.
On the other hand, “This leads to a Machiavellian attitude towards the broader framework of rules and norms” is a brilliantly stated observation.
Overall, very well-written, but if others see the use of the term “game” in the same way as I, the essay loses a lot in the translation.
Feel free to point out what I may be misinterpreting.
“a bit too obscure in its implication of frivolity for my taste”
I had the same uneasy feeling there too, but just powered past it. Basically I think the lady is one of those people who really gets democracy.
Thank you for reading and commenting on my article. I very much appreciate the feedback.
The “game within the game” phrase is mine, at least I have no recollection of having picked it up from anywhere. I definitely didn’t intend to imply anything frivolous about the ‘game’ of politics, quite the opposite. It hadn’t occurred to me that the metaphor of a game might imply frivolity, but now you say it, I can see that it does and that I should have had some kind of disclaimer sentence on that point in the article.
I think the metaphor of the game is still a valid one though. It is the idea of there being express boundaries but also a spirit to the endeavor which, in a way, supplements those boundaries. That ‘spirit’ is particularly important in Britain, there not being a written constitution, and I do wonder whether historically it would be possible to disentangle the sporting interactions of the ruling classes in Britain from their political interactions. Think of the role that the phrase, “It’s just not cricket” plays in denoting unsportsmanlike and otherwise illegitimate behavior. My point is that it is arguable that a game is more than just a metaphor in the context of politics, that there is some actual overlap, at least historically, just as there is an overlap between sport and war.
All things considered I think the ‘game’ metaphor is apt, tho of course Ted’s point can be taken. And as you say there are valid reasons to call politics an actual game notwithstanding that the consequences are not trivial. There are rules, and there is a goal, and one ‘plays’ against other people. Hope to read more from you my lady.
The clarification is very helpful, Ms. Finne. Thank you for taking the time to do so; such interaction between writer and reader is a rare gift bestowed by an author, and not at all unappreciated.
On further reflection, I think your metaphor a good one. I’ve long admired British sayings such as “it’s not on” and “it’s simply not done.” They indicate a cultural imperative toward personal integrity a la Kipling’s “If.” The American equivalents may be said to be found within Emerson’s essays, “Self-Reliance” being one of my personal favorites.
Looking forward to reading more of your work, with a great deal of pleasurable anticipation.
Again, thank you for broadening my horizons.