Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits

[Osipi]

Surely the disastrous US presidential election cycle this time is making constitutional monarchy seem like a wise choice. Who needs all of this trashiness to pick a Head of State? (Head of government does, of course, need to be chosen by the voters.)

I am in total agreement with you CSENYC that this current presidential election in the US has turned totally into a three ring circus with the public as spectators sitting back munching on popcorn and peanuts watching the insults, the innuendos and the mud flying back and forth and wondering what the next bit bit of "nasty" to come out will be.

It does make a constitutional monarchy look so much better as then you have the government bodies that have their own parties and their own platforms and agendas while the public has a spectacular family (this is referring to the UK of course) that has a much beloved elderly monarch and her family that represents all things that are British and no one does traditions and pageantry quite like the British do. Rather than a circus, Britain has something special that instills a strong sense of national pride and leaves the politics totally out of it.

I still remember how I smiled and chuckled when the article was posted here about the man in the US somewhere wrote a letter to HM, The Queen and begged her to take the US back again. HM responded to that letter also in the very kind and diplomatic manner that she has perfected over the years.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I love reading about European monarchies, but I don't necessarily want to live under one.

However, I agree with everyone who has posted that the U.S. presidential election of 2016 has turned into a nightmare worthy of Kafka. It's not even funny how embarrassing and depressing this thing has become.

I think of my parents and grandparents and the caliber of candidates available for them to choose from during their presidential election cycles...men like Adlai Stevenson, FDR, Harry Truman and Eisenhower and JFK and Rockefeller and...heck even Richard Nixon. No matter what you thought of him there is no doubt that he was a brilliant politician and a true statesman.

How I envy past generations of the American electorate!.

 

[Osipi]

And little did I know that one presidential election cycle would be billed as peanuts and popcorn which was Ronald Reagan (Hollywood star and popcorn) vs. Jimmy Carter (peanut farmer from Georgia).

Little did I ever know or imagine.

 

[Mbruno]

Surely the disastrous US presidential election cycle this time is making constitutional monarchy seem like a wise choice. Who needs all of this trashiness to pick a Head of State? (Head of government does, of course, need to be chosen by the voters.)

To go one step further, after all the mutual trashing of the candidates (inherent to a partisan political campaign), how can they keep the untarnished image that would be desirable to perform the ceremonial duties of the Head of State ?

 

[Andy T]

If anything, the benefits of a monarchy are becoming more evident as this century goes on. The farcical US Presidential campaign illustrates how sick the system there is and in France, where the pre-campaign is going on at the moment, with ancient rivalries and feuds simmering just below the surface and the faint whiff of corruption in the air, the same is true. Election campaigns divide people into them and us, right and left, for and against to the point that whoever wins also loses (by which I mean "loses" those who were opposed to his/her victory).

Having a Head of State who is not Head of Government and/or who is also not indebted to those who helped him/her get elected as Head of State means that even in the most conflictual times in the life of a country, there is a figure who is above the fray, a point of reference for all, a symbolic reminder that beyond the debates and the disputes, the country/society/nation - with its past, its present and its future - remains.

This links closely with Wyevale's excellent point about a monarch preventing the "top job" from being up for grabs by self-serving politicians. It's not hard to argue how much more difficult it would have been for Hitler to Nazify Germany if the Wittelsbachs were still on a Bavarian throne, for example.

 

[cepe]

And little did I know that one presidential election cycle would be billed as peanuts and popcorn which was Ronald Reagan (Hollywood star and popcorn) vs. Jimmy Carter (peanut farmer from Georgia).

Little did I ever know or imagine.

IN the UK it was billed as choosing between a peanut farmer and an out of work actor.

 

[Osipi]

You know, until I joined TRF and starting talking to all the people here, I never realized that the US presidential elections even were of a tad bit of interest around the world. Then again, I didn't know even a little tad bit about a constitutional monarchy either.

No wonder I never leave here.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Yes!

In my desperate fantasies Europe and the rest of the world are paying no attention at all to this truly awful farce of an election. But of course they are!

I have friends who have been chatted up by visiting tourists who wonder how it all came to this. Lord knows how the U.S. will recover, and how future generations will look back on it.

Appalling.

 

[Curryong]

I certainly think this Presidential election is one out of the box. I've been following it with great interest with members of my family, but then, I love politics! It seems to be rolling towards a foregone conclusion at the moment, thank God, but in the future I can imagine several books, by both journalists, political pundits and constitutional historians about what's transpired in the last twelve months.

 

[Jacknch]

It's all just very unseemly and simply shows politics and politician-wannabes in an extremely bad and undignified light. The role of any head of state is a serious and grave matter and, without a doubt, the conduct of all heads of state or proposed head of state should always be without reproach.

I do wish the role of president was not a political one!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

In 1992 when the Democratic presidential candidate appeared on late night TV and expounded on the benefits of boxers vs. briefs underwear and what his personal preferences were, I was horrified. But I consoled myself with the thought that surely that was as low as discourse in American politics was likely to go...ever.

Fast forward to 2016 with a candidate for the office of President of the United States reassuring the electorate, nay a global audience, about the size of his genitalia during a televised debate .

It's simply not possible to overstate how disgusted and ashamed I am with the quality and caliber of candidates for president that we have to choose from in 2016.

 

[COUNTESS]

Who needs a Head of State that does nothing of importance. Who needs a Head of State that is a foreigner, as in the case of Canada and Australia, among other. Elections may be difficult, this one is bizarre, but no more bizarre than Brexit. We will get through it. And who needs a head of state that is just born to the position, good or bad. We have had good presidents and some bad ones, but at least they had the tough job. They didn't linger in office for 50 years or so. And you could touch them. And remember Charles spoke of being a tampon, he will be a head of state one day.

 

[Roslyn]

Who needs a Head of State that does nothing of importance. Who needs a Head of State that is a foreigner, as in the case of Canada and Australia, among other. Elections may be difficult, this one is bizarre, but no more bizarre than Brexit. We will get through it. And who needs a head of state that is just born to the position, good or bad. We have had good presidents and some bad ones, but at least they had the tough job. They didn't linger in office for 50 years or so. And you could touch them. And remember Charles spoke of being a tampon, he will be a head of state one day.

I was with you till the tampon thing. I don't think the tampon thing will stop Charles being a good head of state. As I understand it, Bill Clinton is still generally regarded as having been a good president, despite his somewhat odd views as to what constitutes sexual relations, and he's not the only president who had an affair/affairs. I don't think that sort of stuff is relevant to a person's ability to be a good politician/head of state, but we here in Australia tend not to care much about what our politicians do in their private lives.

There are heads of state that have a big role in the running of a country, and heads of state that have a limited role that is largely ceremonial. I favour for us a republican model based on the Westminster system, which is what we have already, with a largely ceremonial head of state like they have in Ireland, and that is a very different model from the US one. I think the ceremonial role carried out by the 'minimalist' heads of state is still important, but I don't think it should be given to someone for life just because they were born to it.

 

[CSENYC]

Who needs a Head of State that does nothing of importance. Who needs a Head of State that is a foreigner, as in the case of Canada and Australia, among other. Elections may be difficult, this one is bizarre, but no more bizarre than Brexit. We will get through it. And who needs a head of state that is just born to the position, good or bad. We have had good presidents and some bad ones, but at least they had the tough job. They didn't linger in office for 50 years or so. And you could touch them. And remember Charles spoke of being a tampon, he will be a head of state one day.

"Nothing of importance" might not be earth-shattering activities, but head of state duties have to be done by someone: greeting ambassadors, hosting state dinners and visits, and being a general cheerleader for the country.

There is no inherent reason why the US method (combining head of state and head of government into one elected partisan political job) has to be used, and there are plenty of reasons why the head of state job should be separate from the head of government job, and at least nonpartisan.

Does over $1 billion need to be spent every 4 years to pick someone to host state dinners? No. Should a head of state be attacking and insulting the large portion of the population that did not vote for him or her? No. That's how we do it in the US, however.

I vote for the British or Canadian, or even the German, head of state model, not the US's.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

No thank you. I like having the option of voting out an Administration every four years if I choose to.

The idea of my tax dollars being used to support the incredibly lavish lifestyle of people I neither like nor respect-not to mention their occasionally very unsatisfactory spouses- for the entirety of their lives and mine simply because of an accident of birth is not my idea of a good time.

As I posted before, as a history lover I am fascinated by the idea of monarchy and I love reading about aristocratic and Royal Europe.

But I feel incredibly blessed that I am American born and that so were my parents and grandparents. I love our country (triumphant, glorious but often ugly history) and I love our system of Government as imperfect as it is.

 

[Rudolph]

Anyone who fears that by becoming a republic we would condemn ourselves to a presidency held by a perpetual succession of superannuated politicians - at the moment presumably a choice between Heath, Kinnock, Thatcher and Major - is an optimist.

The alternative nightmare scenario looks not to the European model but to the American, where the essentials for election to the presidency appear to be ruthless ambition, access to vast wealth, reckless promises of patronage and preferment, effective control of a big slice of the media and a plausible TV manner.

We don’t know when we are well off.

Gordon Medcalf, The Independent, 10th September 1997.

 

[Osipi]

"Nothing of importance" might not be earth-shattering activities, but head of state duties have to be done by someone: greeting ambassadors, hosting state dinners and visits, and being a general cheerleader for the country.

There is no inherent reason why the US method (combining head of state and head of government into one elected partisan political job) has to be used, and there are plenty of reasons why the head of state job should be separate from the head of government job, and at least nonpartisan.

Does over $1 billion need to be spent every 4 years to pick someone to host state dinners? No. Should a head of state be attacking and insulting the large portion of the population that did not vote for him or her? No. That's how we do it in the US, however.

I vote for the British or Canadian, or even the German, head of state model, not the US's.

What I've bolded actually made me go back to my newsfeed here and find something that I hadn't realized before because, frankly, neither candidates are addressing it at all and the focus has been on sexual innuendos and supposed abuses and locker room talk that's happened years and years ago. Its been said that now its even going to be fired up even more with the Trump campaign quoted as saying they're going to make Bill Clinton look like a Bill Cosby even.

The issue that these candidates should be focusing on is something that actually should concern each and every American. The neediest Americans will be short $100 billion in delayed tax refunds at a time when they're really counting on it. Chaos may ensue, an issue neither presidential candidate is addressing.

Impending Y2K-like chaos neither candidate is addressing - AOL Finance

To be absolutely honest and its my own opinion is that I would much prefer a head of state that represents all of the American people outside of politics and party platforms and lobbyist groups and special interest groups that our present head of state has the ability to listen to, heed and act on if he so chooses. The only thing that the USA has that represents all Americans is our flag. A quote from Abraham Lincoln says it best. "Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the face of the earth".

I'd much prefer a living, human being that represents that.

 

[Mbruno]

No thank you. I like having the option of voting out an Administration every four years if I choose to.

The idea of my tax dollars being used to support the incredibly lavish lifestyle of people I neither like nor respect-not to mention their occasionally very unsatisfactory spouses- for the entirety of their lives and mine simply because of an accident of birth is not my idea of a good time.

As I posted before, as a history lover I am fascinated by the idea of Monarchy and I love reading about aristocratic and Royal Europe.

But I feel incredibly blessed that I am American born and that so were my parents and grandparents. I love our country (triumphant, glorious but often ugly history) and I love our system of Government as imperfect as it is.

In all modern European kingdoms, voters have the opportunity to vote out a government periodically if they choose to do so. The monarch doesn't run the government or the administration as you put it, so I don't understand your point.

On your second point, the amount of money European taxpayers pay to support the "lavish lifestyle" of royal families is about the same or less than we pay in republics to support the president and former presidents. Most of the money is actually used to pay the staff of the Head of State and to pay for security and maintenance of official residences.

Furthermore, I am pretty convinced there are proportionally far more people who dislike their "presidents and their despicable wives" than people who dislike their kings and queens. The reason for that is quite simple actually: the president is a partisan politician and, naturally, anyone who supports another party or disagrees with his policies will dislike him; the monarch, on the other hand, doesn't belong to any party and doesn't set any public policy, so he/she is above political controversy and, therefore, tends to be far more popular.

 

[Rudolph]

Thatcher knew

Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians.

Baroness Thatcher, November 1995.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Point taken mbruno, but I still fail to see how having an American figurehead monarch/dynasty who lives large on the taxpayer dime for life while doing little more than wearing ancient crown jewels well and cutting ribbons would be superior to the electoral process that has served us more than well for over 200 years, as imperfect as it us.

Even more curious is that if our system of government and it's leaders are so "despicable" why have millions upon millions literally risked their lives to cross our borders (legally and illegally) and live here from the beginning?

Why are they still doing so as we speak?

One of the many brilliant things about being an American is that no one who prefers to live under a constitutional monarch is ever forced to remain here.

Anyone who prefers another system of government over our own is free to leave and do so.

[The only thing that the USA has that represents all Americans is our flag. A quote from Abraham Lincoln says it best. "Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the face of the earth".

I'd much prefer a living, human being that represents that.]

No one has ever stated it more perfectly than the great Abraham Lincoln Osipi...thank you.

 

[CSENYC]

Mbruno, I agree with your post.

Also, for Moonmaiden's post, my tax dollars are spent to support a President who lives lavishly--in some respects much more lavishly than European royalty (i.e., the President has his or her own plane, goes on lavish vacations, etc.).

I could deal a lot better with a jerk as a head of state if the head of state was born into the position, rather than a jerk who was elected by "the other side". If the jerk is born into the position, then all of us are stuck with it. With an elected jerk, half the country loves the person and the person taunts the other half of the country, and only "my side" is afflicted with the situation.

Then again, I'm not a member of either of the two major parties, so the taunts and insults by recent heads of state haven't been targeted at me; they're still offensive, though.

Moonmaiden23, our form of government hasn't necessarily served us as well as other forms of government could have. Just because it hasn't completely broken down--yet--doesn't mean that it's immune from improvement.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

And since you are so dissatisfied with the way your tax dollars are spent on the "jerks" elected by the people, what is preventing you from emigrating? A Cold War type barbed wire wall?

Of course not.

 

[Andy T]

Who needs a Head of State that does nothing of importance. Who needs a Head of State that is a foreigner, as in the case of Canada and Australia, among other. Elections may be difficult, this one is bizarre, but no more bizarre than Brexit. We will get through it. And who needs a head of state that is just born to the position, good or bad. We have had good presidents and some bad ones, but at least they had the tough job. They didn't linger in office for 50 years or so. And you could touch them. And remember Charles spoke of being a tampon, he will be a head of state one day.

Are gestures that represent a nation's remembrance of events and tragedies past, its acknowledgement of the forgotten, its respect for the services, its recognition of achievements & successes, its gratitude and its honouring of the meritorious of no importance?

When an elected politician pins on a medal, cuts a ribbon, lays a wreath, attends a funeral, or visits a disaster scene, factory, charitable organisation or a children's hospital, s/he has his/her sights on the opinion polls and re-election.

When a Monarch - or his/her representative - does it, s/he does it as a living symbol on behalf of the nation. Simultaneously, s/he is freeing up the elected politician to do the job s/he was elected to do, i.e. fix the economy, unemployment, healthcare....

We're talking about two totally different "jobs". Each has value.

 

[Osipi]

Point taken mbruno, but I still fail to see how having an American figurehead monarch/dynasty who lives large on the taxpayer dime for life while doing little more than wearing ancient crown jewels well and cutting ribbons would be superior to the electoral process that has served us more than well for over 200 years, as imperfect as it us.

Even more curious is that if our system of government and it's leaders are so "despicable" why have millions upon millions literally risked their lives to cross our borders (legally and illegally) and live here from the beginning?

Why are they still doing so as we speak?

One of the many brilliant things about being an American is that no one who prefers to live under a constitutional monarch is ever forced to remain here.

Anyone who prefers another system of government over our own is free to leave and do so.

[The only thing that the USA has that represents all Americans is our flag. A quote from Abraham Lincoln says it best. "Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the face of the earth".

I'd much prefer a living, human being that represents that.]

No one has ever stated it more perfectly than the great Abraham Lincoln Osipi...thank you.

I just feel I need to clarify that when I wrote the bolded part that were my words quoted by Moonmaiden23, I was speaking in favor of having an apolitical head of state for the USA.

 

[CSENYC]

And since you are so dissatisfied with the way your tax dollars are spent on the "jerks" elected by the people, what is preventing you from emigrating? A Cold War type barbed wire wall?

Of course not.

What a nasty attitude: "accept the US as-is or leave".

That's a recipe for disaster for the US. I hope that you didn't tell people who fought for civil rights and progress what you just told me.

Countries should be open to change.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

In fact CSENYC, I think the men, women and children who faced police dogs and fire hoses in the Deep South during the Civil Rights movement are as much American heroes as soldiers who lost their lives in 1776 to make the American colonies a free and democratic Republic. I think they are as heroic as the men and women who fought and died the Civil War to guarantee that the Bill of Rights declaration that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL was not contradicted by the monstrous system of chattel slavery.

Meanwhile the monarchists of Europe during that conflict were rooting for America to implode in order to confirm their conviction that government of the people and by the people could not work.

I wonder what the people who fought and died in those wars would have to say about your apparent belief that all their blood was spilled in vain, and that kings and queens are best after all?

I don't think are system is perfect, very far from it. I do think there is always room for change.

Just not the kind you and yours are advocating.

 

[Mbruno]

In fact CSENYC, I think the men, women and children who faced police dogs and fire hoses in the Deep South during the Civil Rights movement are as much American heroes as soldiers who lost their lives in 1776 to make the American colonies a free and democratic Republic. I think they are as heroic as the men and women who fought and died the Civil War to guarantee that the Bill of Rights declaration that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL was not contradicted by the monstrous system of chattel slavery.

Meanwhile the monarchists of Europe during that conflict were rooting for America to implode in order to confirm their conviction that government of the people and by the people could not work.

Sorry to disagree again, but France, which was an absolute monarchy contrary to England, actually aided and supported the American revolution, and so did Spain (another absolute monarchy at the time). In fact, if it were not for French intervention, the American colonists would never have forced Britain to accept US independence.

Also, I find it hard to reconcile the myth that the American Revolution was about "men being created equal" with the reality of African slavery and native American genocide. In fact, blacks and native Americans probably fared much better in neighboring Canada under the protection of the British crown than in the American republic.

 

[Osipi]

I think they are as heroic as the men and women who fought and died the Civil War to guarantee that the Bill of Rights declaration that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL was not contradicted by the monstrous system of chattel slavery.

With this in mind, right now it seems that there is another war going on between the red and the blue and that, in and of itself, shows a very divisive state where a decision has to be made between one or the other and one side wins and the other side doesn't. All Americans are created equal so to me, it should figure that the head of state for the US should reflect all of the people and not the red people or the blue people and declare victory over them.

Right now, if we really look at it, our presidential race is 95% a popularity contest and the winner with the least skeletons in their closet will win for the red people or the blue people. The losing candidate denotes that they and their backers are the "losers" in the game and the color of the winner's party gives victory in how the executive branch of the government will be run for the next four years.

The same could be done for a presidential campaign with leaving out the red and the blue parties and the other other colored parties in between and just have people vote for whom they like the best to represent all of them for a 4 year period as an apolitical head of state that would function much as the Queen does in the UK. There really wouldn't be that much different except that there'd be no big party PACs that draw in millions upon millions of campaign funds, no electoral college of delegates from the different parties and the vote would be returned to where it solely belongs. To the people.

The executive branch of the US government is something that really needs looked into and changed or abolished. Power definitely does corrupt and its my opinion that our head of state needs to be above that and represent all Americans regardless of political leanings or governmental opinions.

Edit: In short, lets eliminate the donkeys and the elephants and their delegates and their conventions and machinations in campaigns and just let the American people decide who they want to represent them as an apolitical head of state.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Sorry to disagree again, but France, which was an absolute monarchy contrary to England, actually aided and supported the American revolution, and so did Spain (another absolute monarchy at the time). In fact, if it were not for French intervention, the American colonists would never have forced Britain to accept US independence.

Also, I find it hard to reconcile the myth that the American Revolution was about "men being created equal" with the reality of African slavery and native American genocide. In fact, blacks and native Americans probably fared much better in neighboring Canada under the protection of the British crown than in the American republic.

You misunderstand me. I never denied that France aided and abetted the American colonists. My point was that American blood was shed to free America from being a British colony under a king(George III). Period.

I have gone over my post with a fine tooth comb and can't understand why you think I even implied that the American Revolution had anything to do with slavery? I was referring to the Civil War, the war that was fought(in part) to preserve the integrity of this country as ONE nation governed by the people and for the people, and toward the end to abolish the system of chattel slavery in a country that was supposed to have been founded on egalitarian ideology.

I have not denied that slaves fleeing from the US sought protection in Canada and were probably treated much better than in their homeland. God Bless Canada for that.

During that same Civil War, Napoleon III of France gave his tacit support to emissaries of the Confederacy and so did a grand majority of monarchists(including the ultra reactionary Pope Pius IX) and aristocrats in the rest of Europe, who were hoping to see the end of democracy in America. That is exactly would have been the result of the breakup of this country via secession and it's exactly why Lincoln and Seward were determined to prosecute that war to the end.

Completely baffled by your post.

 

[CSENYC]

In fact CSENYC, I think the men, women and children who faced police dogs and fire hoses in the Deep South during the Civil Rights movement are as much American heroes as soldiers who lost their lives in 1776 to make the American colonies a free and democratic Republic. I think they are as heroic as the men and women who fought and died the Civil War to guarantee that the Bill of Rights declaration that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL was not contradicted by the monstrous system of chattel slavery.

Meanwhile the monarchists of Europe during that conflict were rooting for America to implode in order to confirm their conviction that government of the people and by the people could not work.

I wonder what the people who fought and died in those wars would have to say about your apparent belief that all their blood was spilled in vain, and that kings and queens are best after all?

I don't think are system is perfect, very far from it. I do think there is always room for change.

Just not the kind you and yours are advocating.

Again, what a nasty, nasty viewpoint.

People you like should be allowed to stay in the US.

People who you don't agree with should shut up or leave.

That's your clear viewpoint. It's extremely nasty.