Monarchy vs Republic

[Elspeth]

I'm not sure about the position for life, though. It would have to be totally divorced from any executive powers if that were the case, and that's a major change from the current situation.

[wbenson]

Ooh, I didn't see the for life bit. I don't think that would go over all that well, either. I think it'll be a cold day in hell either way, though.

[Emperor of America]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I'm not sure about the position for life, though. It would have to be totally divorced from any executive powers if that were the case, and that's a major change from the current situation.

Well, if the position isn't for life, then it wouldn't really be a monarchy. For the most part, a life term is the only thing that separates a constitutional monarch from a ceremonial president.

And I also don't think that Americans are opposed to someone holding a position for life, as long as it's at least democratically appointed and not inherited. After all, we appoint Supreme Court justices for life terms and few are upset about that. I don't see how that is any different than a head of state for life, especially if the position which would hold continue to hold the real power, the U.S. President, is still elected directly by the people for fixed terms.

Originally Posted by wbenson

I think that overall setup would work well for the US, I just don't think that the specific titles of Duke and Emperor would go over well.

I appreciate the input, but I am curious about why you don't think those titles would sit too well with Americans, as well as what titles you think they would prefer for an elective monarchy.

[HRHofNothing]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Because the president, however s/he gets there, is usually representing a political party. Whether it's overt like in the USA or indirect when a government (which usually consists of the majority party) elects an elder statesman, who's often a retired politician, your head of state reflects the mood of the moment far more than a monarch does. And I for one wouldn't want to swear loyalty to a president who supported a political party I didn't support, because I think that forces a person's conscience. Once a country becomes a reflection of the political party that happens to be in power, you're in for some very divisive experiences.

But what do you mean by swearing loyalty to a country? There has to be a symbol that represents the country, whether it's a flag, a monarch, a supposed national characteristic, or something. Personally I'd prefer to swear loyalty to a monarch than to some superannuated politician posing as a statesman and pretending to represent people we all know he doesn't really represent. Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions, but you're in for deep trouble if you depend on having the system throw up the exceptions rather than the run-of-the-mill party hacks.

This sums up my own views on the topic. A President of the Republic may be good or bad, however at the end of the day one realizes that the person is a political animal. They belong and adhere to a set of principles and doctrines that you may not necessairly agree with. They are someone that YOU put into office (either directly or indirectly) and you have a right to remove them. Whereas in a monarchy the office of Head of State is non-political, non-arbirtrary and without term limits.

As far as pledging alliegence, it is always pledged to a country and not a person. A monarch symbolizes the country at any given time in his or her person; whereas an elected head of state symbolizes the views of only a majority of the population that put them in power.

Re: The United States becoming a Monarchy.

The US, IMO, has only one option if it choose to become a constitutional monarchy. It would have to ask someone from the House of Windsor to take the throne. This is because they were the rulers pre-independence. You just cannot go out and create a Royal Family in this day and age. There will be too many disagreements and discord over the chosen family; unless they are a family that can prove some right to the throne.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Whereas in a monarchy the office of Head of State is non-political, non-arbirtrary and without term limits.

That's precisely it. Anyone who thinks it's possible to elect a non-partisan person in the USA is woefully misguided as to how politics work there-indeed, how politics work in most places.

[COUNTESS]

Of course, you will never elect a non-partisan person. That is politics. But to me a whole lot better than a for life "King". We have had fools for presidents and we have had wise men, but their tenure is limited. Supreme Court Justices act in a goup of 9. The last thing we would ever need is a member of the House of Windsor as anything in this country. 1776 was a long time ago and well worth the effort.

[PrinceOfCanada]

I take it you're not aware that the USA very nearly was a monarchy after 1776? George Washington was offered the role of King.

And please, don't even get me started on the Supreme Court. A bunch of right-wing dinosaurs, they are.

The point about a hereditary monarchy is that they are the figurehead--they don't make the decisions themselves.

[Avicenna]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

I take it you're not aware that the USA very nearly was a monarchy after 1776? George Washington was offered the role of King.

Interesting - never heard about this. Do you know when & where it happened & the reasoning behind it?

[Elspeth]

I've heard quite a few people in Britain point to the current state of the US presidency as one of the best advertisements for a constitutional monarchy available at the moment. Which means I suppose that you and I should both be grateful for being citizens of countries whose systems are congenial to us.

IMO, as long as the people who actually do the governing are elected, that's the important thing. If a head of state is basically a national symbol and ceremonial figurehead, election doesn't make any difference to the democracy quotient and can, in unscrupulous hands, be counterproductive - as we've seen here with John Bolton's stunning statement that George Bush is the president of those who voted for him, as well as the whole "dissent is unpatriotic" atmosphere of the last few years. If Tony Blair had tried the "I am Britain and Britain is me, and if you don't support me you aren't a True Brit" act, he'd have been laughed at in much the same way Margaret Thatcher was when she forgot herself enough to try it.

[COUNTESS]

We laugh at Bush, too. He has been a terrible president. 8 years wasted. The majority of the country disapproves of him. Elections are coming. How they play out is up for grabs. And yes, the Constituional Monarch, is basically window dressing. Really nice for looks , but not much else. And, the Supreme Court just tipped to the right with the Bush appointees. Sandra Day O'Connor, was never what Reagan had hoped. Now, hopefully, we several coming to retirement age, a Democrat can moderate the right. Yes, a few wanted to call Washington "King". He was appalled. So, were most of the others. It is nice conversation, but has little substance.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I've heard quite a few people in Britain point to the current state of the US presidency as one of the best advertisements for a constitutional monarchy available at the moment. Which means I suppose that you and I should both be grateful for being citizens of countries whose systems are congenial to us.

IMO, as long as the people who actually do the governing are elected, that's the important thing. If a head of state is basically a national symbol and ceremonial figurehead, election doesn't make any difference to the democracy quotient and can, in unscrupulous hands, be counterproductive - as we've seen here with John Bolton's stunning statement that George Bush is the president of those who voted for him, as well as the whole "dissent is unpatriotic" atmosphere of the last few years. If Tony Blair had tried the "I am Britain and Britain is me, and if you don't support me you aren't a True Brit" act, he'd have been laughed at in much the same way Margaret Thatcher was when she forgot herself enough to try it.

Didn't she succeed with the Falklands though? I think that's what Blair tried with Iraq and it backfired. She really knew how to pull off the "Only Tories are British" thing and make it work.

[COUNTESS]

Some people are better politicians than others. She was tough ad smart.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Didn't she succeed with the Falklands though? I think that's what Blair tried with Iraq and it backfired. She really knew how to pull off the "Only Tories are British" thing and make it work.

Remember the ridicule she attracted with the "We are a Grandmother" comment? To say nothing of her assertion that she was an institution - sort of a permanent fixture? That gave a lot of people a "hang on a minute - I thought that was the Queen's job" moment.

[PrinceOfCanada]

And, the Supreme Court just tipped to the right with the Bush appointees

Well, yes. And that's kind of my point. Any sort of appointment or electoral process will become hopelessly politicized. There is no way around it. While it's true that with a genetic roll of the dice you could end up with a total douchebag, it's equally possible that you won't. (Whereas with politics, you're pretty much guaranteed to get an enormous douche, no matter what.) However, the scales are tipped somewhat anti-douche: those in monarchies who stand to inherit are brought up with the notion that they have to think for now and for the long future, while taking cues from the past. Politicians very, very rarely think past the next election. Some do, and they are noted by history: Abraham Lincoln, for example. Consider this thought experiment: slavery is still legal in the USA. Do you really think any of your politicians would come out against it? Of course not.

A monarch, by contrast, is brought up to think of the longevity of their country well beyond their reign. And while I think that a much stronger monarchy is needed in Royal countries (let's give them some real power) is a very good idea, I know it won't happen.

To bring it to much more prosaic terms.. I have read one argument in favour of (speficially UK) monarchy that really, really works for me. (Paraphrased) "Because Queen Elizabeth holds power as the Royal Preogative, nobody else can steal it for her. With her in [nominal] power, nobody else can stage a coup and be viewed legitimately." In other words, the Sovereign holds the (formal) power so that nobody else can take it. Having an elected sovereign would invalidate large portions of that--throw a rigged election (2000, 2004 USA?) and you get the legitimacy.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

Consider this thought experiment: slavery is still legal in the USA. Do you really think any of your politicians would come out against it? Of course not.

Any of them? Absolutely. There were abolitionist politicians in the US from the moment it was founded. It wasn't as if slavery was loved by all and then all of a sudden the civil war happened and the 13th Amendment was passed and people were like "oh, I guess it was wrong."

[COUNTESS]

I guess you never heard of the "Civil Rights Movement". Sorry, you missed that. Plenty of politicians stuck their necks out. Decency has nothing to do with politrics. Jack Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Teddy Kennedy even Lyndon Johnson. President Eisenhower sent Federal troops to open all white school houses in Arkansas. Emmanuel Celler, Mike Mansfield, Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen, just to name a few Senators and Congressmen who worked for the passage of that bill. Democracy works, sometimes slowly and not always perfectly, but it does work. Monarchy has nothing better.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

I guess you never heard of the "Civil Rights Movement". Sorry, you missed that. Plenty of politicians stuck their necks out.

Hey lady, you can make your point without being insulting about it. Of course I have heard of the Civil Rights Movement; there was absolutely no need for the condescending tone.

Especially since you completely missed the point of what I was saying. Assume for the moment that slavery was never abolished, and that many people--especially in the South, of course--continue to own slaves, and indeed get rich from doing so. Do you really think that politicians would look at an enormous voting bloc like that, and think to themselves, "Self, I think I'm going to alienate everyone who can get me elected! WOO!".

Of course not. The politicians who actually make principled stands are so few and far between as to be practically nonexistent.

Decency has nothing to do with politrics.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[Elspeth]

Couple of reminders.

This thread is beginning to get off the topic of Monarchy vs Republic and going into unnecessary detail about US politics. Please remember that politics is off-limits on this forum unless directly related to royalty-related topics.

Also, there's no need to be trading personal insults. Any more of this sort of thing and the mods will start some heavy-duty deleting.

And finally, the opposite of "monarchy" is "republic," not "democracy." By the generally accepted definitions of a democracy, constitutional monarchies are included. Absolute monarchies are not, but that isn't what we're discussing.

Thank you.

Elspeth

Royal forums admin