Traditional Conservatism: Altar and Throne

I firmly believe that Altar and Throne governments are better than any other forms. The Cult of Liberty stands in direct defiance of this, and is always self-destructive. I hear people quote Ben Franklin imploring us to never give up liberty for safety. The ideas of liberty were new then. Perhaps early American liberty actually worked for a while, but French liberty degraded to bloodshed and hatred.
We must not give up liberty for protection and safety, but we shouldn't give up the Altar and Throne for liberty.
American liberty died during Lincoln's presidency, and quite possibly before then. Soon, protecting it became the reason the government should expand. One can't have liberty if they're poor, uninsured, jobless, etc. The very thing that was supposed to limit government made it expand.
Altar and Throne politics never did this. The state never expanded to a monsterous size to protect it.
I think it's the best position since the Church exists for two reasons. First and most important, the spiritual. The Church is in charge of the Salvation of Souls. Second, the secular. The Church has a power to limit government. I don't think it's a coincidence that France became dictatorial and violent after the French Revolution. It's certainly not a coincidence that dictators rose after the Papal States were destroyed. The 20th century was the Church's weakest period since She was persecuted in Rome. Communism and Fascism rose because the Church was not in place to keep a check on government powers.
Kings are rulers of their state, but they are all part of the "Kingdom of Christiandom" ruled by Christ the King.
There are three other forms Altar and Throne politics can morph into: Throne and Altar, Throne, and Altar.
Although I admire him quite a lot, Louis XIV tried to make France a Throne and Altar state. The king was above the Church. He led France out of the realm of Christiandom by allying with the Ottoman Turks. Modern day protestants try to make America into a similar state, although their government will be astronomically larger than the "absolute monarch." What this form ultimately does is divinize the state and/or the ruler.
America and most other Republics are Throne states. The Altar is completely out of the picture. As I've mentioned, America did fairly well but fell into tyranny. Without the Church, the State can grow into a parasite. It sucks away life and freedom from the host (the people). Like Throne and Altar, the state becomes divinized. Unlike it, though, it's a secular church with no checks and balance from an outside faith. They'll petition religioud leaders to support their endeavors but know that patriotism runs deeper than faith in most people.
Altar governments are the most dangerous. The ruler, state, policies, and laws are divine. People turn a blind eye to corruption because the rulers are either gods or prophets of a god.
And yet I upport Ron Paul who talks about liberty and the constitution. Why is this? Well, in the 18th century we would be opposed to eachother (I am an economic anarchist though). Like I said in my last blog post though, we are allied against the enemy-the Neocons. We both believe in limiting the power of the state. We both believe in peace. We just disagree on the way to keep it.
Nonetheless, he is the best candidate I've seen. I am proud that I voted for him and would do it again and again. I consider the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party my allies and would vote for one if I like them.