We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our site. Click here to find out more. Allow cookies
x
LOG IN HERE
Username
Password

arrow Register here

Forgotten password?

THE CHATTER BOX

 
  
  
  The Chatter Box : Blathering On
  
  
  
 
Republican vs. Monarchical Governement. Which Works Better? by tucsonmike on 26 August 2006 3:35am
 
I know who made you king? The lady of the lake etc...

Well, kings ruled for most of history. Constitutional monarchies seem to work. George Washington was offered the job of king but said no.

 
Re: Republican vs. Monarchical Governement. Which Works Better? by intrepid on 26 August 2006 4:57pm
 
I always thought constitutional monarchies were interesting- I mean, the idea of a monarchy can seem so anachronistic, and a monarch which doesn't have political power seems futile.

It took me a long time to get my head around the idea that there could be a "head of state" as different from a "head of government", but maybe that's an American thing. All over the world, people seem comfortable having a head of state (somebody with a kind of vague but overarching responsibility as a representative of the country), and then somebody else do the nitty gritty of politics. Maybe having somebody like a monarch who the people don't have any electoral control over lends an air of stability to the place.
 
Re: Republican vs. Monarchical Governement. Which Works Better? by montyfreak0234 on 26 August 2006 10:05pm
 
I am not much for Republicans OR Monarchs, I think the best kind of goverment is liberal and not conservative, but thats just me. I have grown up in a very liberal family in a conservative enviornment and I hate the close-mindedness of them all, afraid of change like the Republicans, and under a Monarchy it can be more corrupt than other forms of goverment and a lot of the time with a Monarchy you can not speak out against the King/Queen so you don't really have the same freedoms of Democracy. But thats just my veiws...
 
Re: Republican vs. Monarchical Governement. Which Works Better? by tucsonmike on 27 August 2006 6:51am
 
A well stated case. I was a Political Science major and remember my classes in American Politics. Some think the President should have one six year term. Four years is not enough to get his/her feet wet and really set things in motion.
Our system used to have much more collegiality between parties. Actually, if you read the Federalist Papers, James Madison decried the idea of parties, fearing they would just be divisive.

I would like to see a better system for choosing our Presidential candidates, as the job has become more complex. I understand the point of the ceremonial stuff. The problem with the way our constitution set up the role of the Vice President is that it is really up to the President to "define" that persons job. Good example. Harry Truman had only been Vice President for two months when FDR died. FDR barely spoke to him. Truman had to have an impromptu cabinet meeting with FDR's cabinet to find out what was going on.

The fact that some of the meanest regimes in history used names such as "democratic and the people" is a little spurious. Many monarchs were pretty bad too. (I am reading the biography of Peter the Great). You are dealing with people and the issues humanity has. Some monarchs are pretty good (I happen to like King Juan Carlos of Spain). An absolute anyone rules absolutely.

Winston Churchill said it best. Democracy is not that great, but it's the best system we've got.
 
Re: Republican vs. Monarchical Government. Which Works Better? by sighthound on 27 August 2006 8:37am
 
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, where to start???!! Mike, you devil you! <VBG> (The Tucson Mike, not the fake king.)

There is no way to really cover this issue here but, for starters, there is a biological imperative for DNA to protect and perpetuate itself - hence the aristocracy. From the slime of history, stronger organisms have always felt the need to dominate weaker organisms and deny them the assets that might allow them to compete on an equal footing - thereby perpetuating their "elevated" status with access to all the goodies. (This is currently, totally illustrated in my country by the educational "reforms" instituted by Reagan and the Shrub which makes sure that the "lower classes" will definitely remain lower classes.)

Monarchies and aristocracies have always been established by murder, torture and intimidation.

Well, flash forward!, (TOTALLY simplistic history here but time/space considerations don't allow for niceties or footnotes - so sorry.) The English aristocracy definitely didn't want to lose their heads like their French counterparts, so a "constitutional monarchy" came into being which let them keep their wealth and the ego-satisfying ceremonial pageantry.

Morse, I'll grant you that having a "head of state" totally separate from the political fray has very definite advantages. But who can ever be totally divorced from politics? And, if we want a head of state to embody our nations, why should we have someone who got there because he/she has DNA drenched in historic blood? Why shouldn't we chose someone to "embody" our nations who has actually done something that really advances us as a nation - like a teacher, writer, artist, humanitarian, doctor, scientist?

That being said, I must say that I have only sympathy for the current members of the House of Windsor. What a horrible life without alternatives they have to lead, especially Charles.

Geraldine
 
Re: Republican vs. Monarchical Government. Which Works Better? by tucsonmike on 27 August 2006 11:49pm
 
Many countries solve this by having the Prime Minister as head of government and the President as the one handling ceremonies. Ireland and Israel come to mind.

When Mao said "Politics comes out of the barrel of a gun," he was really proclaiming how most places worked through history. I am reading the Robert Massie biography of Peter the Great at the moment. Nuff said.
 
Re: Republican vs. Monarchical Governement. Which Works Better? by sighthound on 28 August 2006 1:29am
 
I'm a firm believer in the efficacy of evolution. So many people seem to think that human evolution stopped once we were no longer apes but humans are still evolving as we MUST do if we are to survive since we have developed so many ways to kill ourselves off. (Even the Shrub has finally come around to admitting that global warming is a threat to the Earth. When faced with survival issues, even organisms as dense as he is eventually get the point.)

Humans have evolved beyond hereditary aristocracy. Having superior brute force is no longer as important as having superior economic force. Democracy developed to counter brute force and I'm sure that we will evolve beyond democracy to a new system that will allow non-economically endowed individuals to thrive. Go Evolution!
 



  Reply to this post:
 
 
  Username 
 
 
  Password 
 
 
 
 
  Register here
 

INSTRUCTIONS

Select a discussion theme.
Register (or log in if you have not yet done so).

To start a new discussion topic:

Write the name of the topic in the 'Subject' box.
Type your message in the larger box to contribute.
Click 'Submit'.

To join a discussion topic:

Click on the discussion topic of your choice.
Type your message in the larger box to contribute.
Click 'Submit'.

To edit your message:

You can edit a message at any time after posting it as long as you're signed in.
Click on the 'Edit your message' link above the message.
Make your desired changes.
Click 'Submit'.

If you find you don't want to change the message after all, click on 'Return without changes'.

To set a chatmark:

Register (or log in if you have not yet done so).
Click on the "Set chatmark" link on the Chatter Box pages. This will set the time at which you have logged in.
Click on the "Go to chatmark" link to see all messages posted since you set your chatmark.

You can set your chatmark at any time and as often as you like.