The United States and Monarchy

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

The issue is our head of state is also our head of government. Compare the role of the British monarch to that of the American President. I wonder what the people of Britain would think of the Queen if she nominated court justices and ambassadors, issued executive orders (some of them carrying the nation into war), negotiated treaties, vetoed legislation... they are such completely different roles you can't expect one to be treated like the other.

Exactly. The Queen is (almost) universally respected and admired because she doesn't make any government decisions and, therefore, is above political controversy. The prime minister, on the other hand, is praised by those who side with his/her policies and loathed by those who oppose them, just like a US president.

The good thing about separating the roles of head of government and head of state is precisely that the ceremonial representation of the state is not tainted by partisan politics. Furthermore, you don't need a monarchy to enable that separation. Germany does it for example within a republican system of government.

[HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G]

Good to hear some people are open to the idea! But one isn't really 'importing' the monarch if we have a shared history. If the US remained loyal, and was a commonwealth country today like Canada. The Queen would be Queen of the USA!

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G

Because of the absolutely mad 2016 election cycle. I wonder if Americans may warm to the idea of bringing back the British Monarchy like the cousins up north? Then America could become more united than divided. I've always believed the head of state is too much of an important position to be elected! That is why America is so polarised!

What can the UK monarchy offer to the former colony besides the ephemeral unity? I mean tangible benefits of returning to the Commonwealth. The unity within the United Kingdom has cracks as it was proved by the 2014 Scottish referendum and the 2016 Brexit.

I do not think that the 2016 election cycle is more vicious than the previous ones.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

What can the UK monarchy offer to the former colony besides the ephemeral unity? I mean tangible benefits of returning to the Commonwealth. The unity within the United Kingdom has cracks as it was proved by the 2014 Scottish referendum and the 2016 Brexit.

I do not think that the 2016 election cycle is more vicious than the previous ones.

Being a member of the Commonwealth is no longer tied to having the Queen as Head of State. In fact, there are, I believe, 53 countries in the Commonwealth, of which only 16 are realms that have Elizabeth II as HoS.

In other words, technically speaking, nothing prevents the US from applying for Commonwealth membership if it wishes to do so. It would be just another international organization of which the US is a member, like NATO, the OAS, or the UN.

[Al_bina]

The Commonwealth is the former territories of the British Empire. Still the question "What can the UK monarchy offer to the former colony besides the ephemeral unity?" stands.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

The Commonwealth is the former territories of the British Empire. Still the question "What can the UK monarchy offer to the former colony besides the ephemeral unity?" stands.

The Commonwealth is NOT just the former members of the British Empire (and the USA does met that criteria anyway - or at least the original 13 colonies thereof) anymore. It is an organisation with shared goals and a number of countries are now members who were never part of the British Empire e.g. Rwanda and Mozambique.

[HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G]

The point stands that having a head of state above politics has many benefits!

Yes but it was originally intended to be a club of ex colonies! It did used to be called the British Commonwealth, and it still should!

[Iluvbertie]

If it still had 'British' in the title it wouldn't exist.

It was changed because many of the former colonies resented the word in the title and argued that it made them feel second class members due to having been colonies and some having had very bad experiences either as colonies or to gain independence.

[RoyalHighness 2002]

I'm sorry but the thought of a monarch in the U.S. seems impossible and outlandish to me. But I mean just 20 years ago know one thought a woman could be a major party nominee for the presidency so "anything" could happen I guess.

[Pranter]

There has been women who ran for president way before this. Somewhere along the way I think people forgot.


LaRae

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G

The point stands that having a head of state above politics has many benefits!

This works in Japan because of the special religious status of Emperors. Rich barons in 1200s tried to make it work and the post-Cromwell elites made it work in the UK.

Those, who finance the politicians in the USA to protect their interests, do not believe in such figurehead. The USA has an arrangement that resembles the Malaysian model of monarchy. Power brokers convene every four years to agree on a President to be a situational figurehead. This was reinforced by the 22nd Amendment in 1947.

It is rather puzzling to see people paying attention to US election theatrics and main players' histrionics.

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Originally Posted by Pranter

There has been women who ran for president way before this. Somewhere along the way I think people forgot.


LaRae

Actually there has never been a woman to be the nominee for a major party for the office of president. There have been women, the most famous Victoria Woodhull, who have run to be a major party's nominee but never succeeded until Hillary.

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

This works in Japan because of the special religious status of Emperors. Rich barons in 1200s tried to make it work and the post-Cromwell elites made it work in the UK.

Those, who finance the politicians in the USA to protect their interests, do not believe in such figurehead. The USA has an arrangement that resembles the Malaysian model of monarchy. Power brokers convene every four years to agree on a President to be a situational figurehead. This was reinforced by the 22nd Amendment in 1947.

It is rather puzzling to see people paying attention to US election theatrics and main players' histrionics.

Have you ever heard of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders?

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

This works in Japan because of the special religious status of Emperors. Rich barons in 1200s tried to make it work and the post-Cromwell elites made it work in the UK.

Those, who finance the politicians in the USA to protect their interests, do not believe in such figurehead. The USA has an arrangement that resembles the Malaysian model of monarchy. Power brokers convene every four years to agree on a President to be a situational figurehead. This was reinforced by the 22nd Amendment in 1947.

It is rather puzzling to see people paying attention to US election theatrics and main players' histrionics.

Not quite true, but sometimes it looks like it. Bill Clinton came from very humble beginnings, as did Richard Nixon, Harry Truman. There is a lot of money spent, but the people, right or wrong pick the President. Mitt Romney was very heavily supported by the power brokers last election and he lost. The power brokers supported John Mc Cain, 2008. He lost, too. And the president is not a figurehead, otherwise he would not garner the criticism he gets. Actually, you have little understanding of the system and how the people work. Nothing in our system resembles the Malaysian Monarchy.

[CSENYC]

So now the US has picked its fourth deeply-polarizing president in a row.

I don't see any Constitutional changes, which would be necessary to have a non-partisan head of state, but I wonder if any significant number of people will start thinking about having one?

[wyevale]

now the US has picked its fourth deeply-polarising president in a row.

No sane personage would touch such a precarious, fragile role with a [VERY LONG] Barge Pole... The US seems an evenly balanced Powder Keg.

[COUNTESS]

We have picked some bad presidents and many good. Some bad ones turned out to be good and some good ones not so great. So be it. To have a separate head of state is ridiculous. Having a queen and her trail of family sucking up funds and doing da da, is nonsense. Having a foreign entity as head of state (Canada, Australia) seems counterproductive and will probably end with this queen. That outsiders don't understand this system is fine. We still have the strongest and healthiest economy ion the world. The strongest military and we get along, fighting each other quite well. And if someone attacks us, we gather together. No one understands this. We are large, rowdy and difficult. Benjamin Franklin said that's because we are Americans.

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

We have picked some bad presidents and many good. Some bad ones turned out to be good and some good ones not so great. So be it. To have a separate head of state is ridiculous. Having a queen and her trail of family sucking up funds and doing da da, is nonsense. Having a foreign entity as head of state (Canada, Australia) seems counterproductive and will probably end with this queen. That outsiders don't understand this system is fine. We still have the strongest and healthiest economy ion the world. The strongest military and we get along, fighting each other quite well. And if someone attacks us, we gather together. No one understands this. We are large, rowdy and difficult. Benjamin Franklin said that's because we are Americans.

If having a separate head of state is ridiculous, why do so many countries have that structure? I believe that far more countries have structures with separate heads of state than have a Presidential system like the US has.

I'm an "insider" and I don't think that the US system is fine.

The US doesn't have the strongest or healthiest economy in the world. Australia, Canada, etc. have experienced more growth, and more per-capita income growth, than the US has for quite some time; middle-class Canadians are now wealthier than middle-class Americans, for the first time in history.

We get along? That's news to me.

[MARG]

I am a firm believer that what is right for one country may be totally wrong for another and, I would never dare to say "we have the best" anything, because who knows where we stand on health, education, welfare, etc. against other countries in the world.

A country may be the best in the world for one thing and severely lagging behind on another.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

We have picked some bad presidents and many good. Some bad ones turned out to be good and some good ones not so great. So be it. To have a separate head of state is ridiculous. Having a queen and her trail of family sucking up funds and doing da da, is nonsense. Having a foreign entity as head of state (Canada, Australia) seems counterproductive and will probably end with this queen. That outsiders don't understand this system is fine. We still have the strongest and healthiest economy ion the world. The strongest military and we get along, fighting each other quite well. And if someone attacks us, we gather together. No one understands this. We are large, rowdy and difficult. Benjamin Franklin said that's because we are Americans.

Really he said that? Good ole Ben. I get what you're saying and understand your need to defend our country especially on this board. I feel we have the best system for us... Not every country will find such a system beneficial. We are a nation based on the idea of equality and everyone can thrive; true there have been fights that over true equality for all that has lasted centuries but the foundation is inherent in the ideals of the country. Inherited titles, inherited head of state isn't something this country wants. If we want ties to the past we build a monument; other countries prefer a living breathing monument and that's ok.
One thing the US still needs to understand is that our kind of democracy isn't best for all countries and cultures.