Why is Guy Fawkes and 'V for Vendetta' associated with a Republican candidate?

[kansasblue]

Why didn't a Democratic candidate capture that image of voter disenchantment?

From Ron Paul's campaign:

"Over $3,800,000 raised.

More than 35,000 total donations." (in one day, Nov 5th Guy Fawkes day)

Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 – 31 January 1606) was a member of a group of English Roman Catholics which planned to carry out the Gunpowder Plot, an attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament and kill King James I of England, to destroy Protestant rule by killing the Protestant aristocracy, on 5 November 1605.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes

[Mabus]

1. If the liberals/Democratic party did it

Then the GOP/media would use it as proof that we hate America and embrace terrorists.

[kansasblue]

4. yes...

he did attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament and kill King James. Maybe that isn't a theme you want associate with your campaign.

I guess I was thinking more about the harnessing voter anger.

[2 Much Tribulation]

2. Prob because anyone willing to uphold constitutional rights may see the association if applic., nt

[librechik]

3. ? Because the opposite of a monarchy is a Republic

and that's what the protest was about.

[unpossibles]

7. well, yes and no

I could be wrong, but I always interpreted Guy Fawkes (not V) as being about the Roman Catholics not wanting a Protestant ruler, not so much as them not wanting any king. The Catholics were attacked by the Protestants and discriminated against in general, so it was religious retribution more than anything.

Remember too that the Catholic population of England was not that high at the time, so it was not even necessarily a populist movement, although it was definitely against a king who abused his power over a minority.

V for Vendetta, on the other hand, was written about Thatcher and her cronies, was definitely more about a populist movement fighting an unjust government and against fascism.

Ron Paul probably used it because of the idea that "government should be afraid of the people" - which I agree with, even though I don't like a lot of Paul's platforms.

[librechik]

10. it's squirrelly, because there was reason to believe Fawkes was just

a convenient patsy with no particular political bent. And at that time the politics of Republicanism were all tied up with the church on both sides.

I'm guessing you're right about what Paul meant. That would be a libertarian perspective on it.

[iverglas]

11. I'm still not getting it

Where are you getting the idea that Guy Fawkes had anything at all to do with republicanism?

There was nothing republican about the theocratic Roman Catholic powers backing him up, and while he was indeed a rather insignificant cog in the wheel, he was not working for any republican cause.

There was indeed a form of republican government in England some time after Fawkes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

After the execution of the King <in January 1649>, a republic was declared, known as the Commonwealth of England. The Rump Parliament exercised both executive and legislative powers, with a smaller Council of State also having some executive functions.

The framework was nonetheless religious; although the republican combattants were different again from the ones Fawkes was trying to bring down, they shared Fawkes's targets' opposition to a Roman Catholic theocracy:

Cromwell's hostility to the Irish was religious as well as political. He was passionately opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, which he saw as denying the primacy of the Bible in favour of papal and clerical authority, and which he blamed for tyranny and persecution of Protestants in Europe.

-- not some philosophical republican opposition to monarchy.

And it was all a raging success in Ireland, say:

In the wake of the Commonwealth's conquest, the public practice of Catholicism was banned and Catholic priests were executed when captured. In addition, roughly 12,000 Irish people were sold into slavery under the Commonwealth. All Catholic-owned land was confiscated in the Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1652 and given to Scottish and English settlers, the Parliament's financial creditors and Parliamentary soldiers. The remaining Catholic landowners were allocated poorer land in the province of Connacht. Under the Commonwealth, Catholic landownership dropped from 60% of the total to just 8%.

On the other hand:

As Lord Protector, Cromwell was aware of the contribution the Jewish community made to the economic success of Holland, now England's leading commercial rival. It was this—allied to Cromwell’s toleration of the right to private worship of those who fell outside evangelical puritanism—that led to his encouraging Jews to return to England in 1657, over 350 years after their banishment by Edward I, in the hope that they would help speed up the recovery of the country after the disruption of the Civil Wars.

Jews were not parties to the politico-religious struggle going on for control of Europe and Britain.

So really, there just was no "politics of republicanism" in issue in Guy Fawkes' case. There were people with grievances, their grievances being the result of the politico-religious power struggle more than the cause of it.

Guy Fawkes's plan had more in common with the attack on the world trade towers, in the modern context, than anything else.

[iverglas]

5. Guy Fawkes had no connection with republicanism

He and his co-conspirators were working with agents of foreign powers seeking to overthrow the Protestant monarchy and aristocracy and install a Roman Catholic monarchy and aristocracy in their place.

Nothing whatsoever to do with democracy or anti-monarchism and any such thing.

This was in an historical context in which domestic and international power struggles were played out within the framework of religious differences. They were still just power struggles between élites, who all behaved as badly as each other. If Fawkes had succeeded and power been transferred to his side, it would have been just as viciously repressive toward recalcitrant practitioners of the other religion / supporters of the other side in the power struggle as the Protestant élite then was toward the RC side.

The same is true of the Puritans who started the whole ball rolling on the other side of the Atlantic, of course. They had no interest in religious freedom. They just wanted to run their own show, and were as intolerant of dissent as any other sect. Even the later Quakers tended in that direction. Their societies were theocracies as much as any European society.

Ron Paul comparing himself to Guy Fawkes actually makes Paul look more like a member of the Michigan Militia than anything else.

[SteelPenguin]

6. He probably just sees him as anti-government

I'm sure he stopped watching after that part of the movie. I doubt he's even read the wikipedia article on Guy Fawkes. He just sees a guy who tried to literally blow up the government as an idol for himself because he metaphorically (and in some cases literally) also wants to blow up our government. The why's and the wherefores aren't really important to Ron Paul as long as he doesn't have to pay taxes to help poor kids get health care, a decent education, or a free lunch.

Ron Paul! He's for hungry sick dumb kids!

[IndianaGreen]

8. According to Keith Olbermann last night, Fawkes "confession" was extracted through torture

and the entire "Gunpowder plot" may have been a fabrication to get rid of some troublesome enemies of the king.

The character "V" is an anarchist in the graphic novel, and he is succeeded by Ivey after he is killed by the detective. The movie changes the plot somewhat, and it underplays V's anarchism.

[iverglas]

12. I found the movie vaguely disturbing

I think it was because of what this comment notes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film)

However, David Walsh from the World Socialist Web Site criticizes V's actions as "antidemocratic" and cites the film as an example of "the bankruptcy of anarcho-terrorist ideology" stating that because the people have not played any part in the revolution, they will be unable to produce a "new, liberated society."

I'm not surprised that Ron Paul would feel affinity for what it was saying. The persecuted individualist, single-handedly overthrowing the bad collectivists, with not much of a thought for what happens to real people after that ...

[unpossibles]

14. I guess I disagree with David Walsh then

I felt that in the movie, the revolt was very democratic - V encouraged people to stand up and to not be afraid, but he also wore a mask so as not to become their Idol, and in fact encouraged them all to wear masks. While this works to disguise the real V, it also shows them that they are the power of revolution, and keeps him from becoming the new Personality which leads the revolt.

Did that make sense? In other words, I feel the people played every part in the revolution, even if if was initiated as a personal vendetta by one person.

[iverglas]

15. different lenses!

I got a very strongly anti-democratic feeling from it. I only watched it recently, but the details of what made me feel that way are eluding me, unfortunately! I think it was largely the idea of Mr. Individualist essentially telling everybody else how to think and what to do, as if this were a good thing.

It has been said that the movie Americanized the story, and that could be the source of our different reactions. ;)

[nealmhughes]

18. Fawkes could barely sign his confession his hands were so mutilated.

The executioner tried to help him up onto the ladder at the scaffold, but the did not let him and very slowly managed to climb up, then jumped down himself. He died before they got to draw and quarter him still alive, depriving the crowd of the full spectacle.

[Devlzown]

9. In V for Vendetta, the main character is associated

with anarchism and the government is a tyrannical police state. While Ron Paul is not an anarchist, he does believe that America is a police state and I think he just might dismantle the government if he got the chance. While it is unfortunate that Guy Fawkes was associated with anarchism in the movie, the truth is often skewed in the movies.

[Apollo11]

13. Guy Fawkes was attempting to blow up Parliament and kill the Head of State.

It looks like Ron Paul's campaign is "reaching out" to militia members and admirers of Timothy McVeigh and everyone who thinks "wouldn't it be cool if someone bombed Congress and killed the entire Federal Government".

Sick.

[riqster]

16. The movie was tailored to fit the current American situation

I recommend the original graphic novel if you really want to get the story.

Closer to the Guy Fawkes story than the movie, although still adapted.

*sigh* Missed Bonfire Night this year, stuck here in the states. Massive bummer.:cry:

[kineneb]

17. Guy Fawkes was a jerk and a recusant

nice idea, no cigar.

Blowing up Parliament would not have changed the government or religion; it would have simply been replaced with different people who had the same policies. Protestantism was by then firmly entrenched in the English mind. One must remember this is following the reign of QE-I, who was willing to leave Catholics alone, as long as they made no trouble. If they failed to at least have nominal connections with the Church of England, then they were pursued as recusants, and could be jailed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recusancy
In the history of England, recusancy was a term used to describe the statutory offence of not complying with the established Church of England.
From the 16th to the 19th century recusants were subject to civil penalties and sometimes, especially in the earlier part of that period, to criminal penalties. Roman Catholics formed a large proportion of recusants, and were those to whom the term initially was applied, but other non-Catholic groups who dissented from the Church of England were, later, also labeled recusants. The recusancy laws were in force from the reign of Elizabeth I to that of George III, though not always enforced with equal intensity.