JoeKyleVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,163
- Likes
- 497
An interesting tidbit of history is the select few Founding Fathers who were more inclined to an American royalist constitutional monarchy of our own. The prospect was never seriously considered, but should George Washington have been made King? Or another prince procured from a royal line?
Our current American sensibilities recoil at the idea of a King, but that was not quite so during that time. In fact, most of our distaste from monarchs comes more from Jefferson's scapegoating of King George III, which was not exactly the most accurate of representations (and I say that as a huge fan of Jefferson).
I think an interesting facet of the constitutional monarchy is that the Executive is not beholden to outside interest groups for campaign funding, nor does he/she need to promise "gifts from the public treasury" to ensure re-election by the people, pandering as leaders like President Obama have.
Going off my other thread of the separation of the US---our political climate today is so polarized that whenever a new President is elected, half the country hails him as Messiah and the other half abhors him as the Antichrist. All that matters is if our political tribe wins and gets our man elected, dividing the country even further in the process.
Perhaps a leader, non-partisan and above the fray, who is an unelected and hereditary royal monarch who reigns out of love for the country and not out of partisan games and for special-interest groups would have been/would be better than squabbling groups always vying for the executive position while wasting billions of dollars.
Besides, the Presidents have more power than even a King in a constitutional monarchy. But, a King can stand as a sign for the country and be a symbol of unity for the people. Presidents seem only to divide and polarize.
I close with two quotes:
"I hate rebels, I hate traitors, I hate tyranny come from where it will. I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics. There is nothing but tyranny and oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty. He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster's grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects. A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt." -Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson
"The monarch must have proportional strength. He ought to be hereditary, and to have so much power, that it will not be his interest to risk much to acquire more. The advantage of a monarch is this---he is above corruption---he must always intend, in respect to foreign nations, the true interest and glory of the people." -Alexander Hamilton
What say you?
Our current American sensibilities recoil at the idea of a King, but that was not quite so during that time. In fact, most of our distaste from monarchs comes more from Jefferson's scapegoating of King George III, which was not exactly the most accurate of representations (and I say that as a huge fan of Jefferson).
I think an interesting facet of the constitutional monarchy is that the Executive is not beholden to outside interest groups for campaign funding, nor does he/she need to promise "gifts from the public treasury" to ensure re-election by the people, pandering as leaders like President Obama have.
Going off my other thread of the separation of the US---our political climate today is so polarized that whenever a new President is elected, half the country hails him as Messiah and the other half abhors him as the Antichrist. All that matters is if our political tribe wins and gets our man elected, dividing the country even further in the process.
Perhaps a leader, non-partisan and above the fray, who is an unelected and hereditary royal monarch who reigns out of love for the country and not out of partisan games and for special-interest groups would have been/would be better than squabbling groups always vying for the executive position while wasting billions of dollars.
Besides, the Presidents have more power than even a King in a constitutional monarchy. But, a King can stand as a sign for the country and be a symbol of unity for the people. Presidents seem only to divide and polarize.
I close with two quotes:
"I hate rebels, I hate traitors, I hate tyranny come from where it will. I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics. There is nothing but tyranny and oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty. He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster's grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects. A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt." -Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson
"The monarch must have proportional strength. He ought to be hereditary, and to have so much power, that it will not be his interest to risk much to acquire more. The advantage of a monarch is this---he is above corruption---he must always intend, in respect to foreign nations, the true interest and glory of the people." -Alexander Hamilton
What say you?