Perhaps along with monarchy, you could acquire a sense of irony as well. Lighten up and smell the Crown Jewels, castles, gorgeous princesses and tourist dollars. What matters is character rather than the assigned roles. Stop with the exceptional; truly great countries don't need constantly to tell everyone how great they are.
40
I don't know if you noticed this, Mr. Tolstoy, but we Americans aren't a very deferential lot. In fact, we're famously insolent. However, if I can squeeze an extra paid day off or two from it, I'll give it a try.
37
Because it's working so well for the UK? Sorry, no.
92
Nonsense. The author dabbles in counterfactuals and rank speculation, so the whole piece is poorly reasoned.
That the European states with monarchs have been more stable obviously doesn't mean the monarchy is the cause of the stability. There is no reason to think so.
The monarchies in Europe are mostly in smaller countries, with the exception of the UK. France and Germany are huge, and much more diverse and dynamic than their non-Republican neighbors. They are also the most important and powerful states on the continent, btw.
Plus, English history is not exactly the embodiment of stability, and in many ways the UK is a far messier place than many continental European nations. Witness the Brexit vote, for example. So I am not sure how the monarchy is supposed to have made it a content and sane place.
To say that the monarchy is part of why Canada is contended is silly. The key difference with the US is how Parliament operates: coalition rule, where the Prime Minister (the head of government) is automatically on the same side as the ruling majority. The Westminster System, as most parliamentarian systems, doesn't result in an executive who is constantly obstructed by the legislative branch. That's why it is much easier to pass laws and get things done. If the PM is obstructed, this results in the fall of the government. And none of this obviously doesn't require a monarchy.
That the European states with monarchs have been more stable obviously doesn't mean the monarchy is the cause of the stability. There is no reason to think so.
The monarchies in Europe are mostly in smaller countries, with the exception of the UK. France and Germany are huge, and much more diverse and dynamic than their non-Republican neighbors. They are also the most important and powerful states on the continent, btw.
Plus, English history is not exactly the embodiment of stability, and in many ways the UK is a far messier place than many continental European nations. Witness the Brexit vote, for example. So I am not sure how the monarchy is supposed to have made it a content and sane place.
To say that the monarchy is part of why Canada is contended is silly. The key difference with the US is how Parliament operates: coalition rule, where the Prime Minister (the head of government) is automatically on the same side as the ruling majority. The Westminster System, as most parliamentarian systems, doesn't result in an executive who is constantly obstructed by the legislative branch. That's why it is much easier to pass laws and get things done. If the PM is obstructed, this results in the fall of the government. And none of this obviously doesn't require a monarchy.
136
Seriously?! At first I thought this was a joke. I think you've confused correlation with causation. The "monarchy" countries are largely socially, culturally, racially, religiously and historically homogenous. By and large the people of these monarchies have a shared history and value system. The United States is arguably the most heterogenous country in history. This diversity can be a strength and weakness ("us vs. them"). Britain, the country you hold as example, has been and is much more divided than you suggest. I doubt the Irish felt well-represented by the British Monarchy. It's clear that many Scots are having similar doubts about the monarchy and being governed by London. So, no thanks; I'd get cash out of our political system, reclaim democracy from, oligarchy and heal the wounds that have separated us as a nation (some, like race, since its inception).
293
In democracies, heads-of-state who act like monarchs are called dictators, not kings or queens. Adolph Hitler became a dictator in 1933 by persuading the German Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act, which granted him and his cabinet power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag. Of late, U.S. presidents have begun to use executive orders, decrees issued by cabinet officials and Supreme Court nominations to seize dictatorial powers. During her campaign, Hillary Clinton promise use executive orders, the regulatory power of federal agencies, and Supreme Court nominations to override Congress if Congress fails to do her bidding. For example, she promised to expand President Obama’s executive action on immigration, shielding more illegal immigrants from deportation, even though federal courts have issued an injunction against the policy. She promise to rewrite gun control regulations and appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule the rewrites constitutional. On corporate tax law, she declared, “If Congress won’t act, then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority, if that’s what it takes.”
3
"Conservation" is NOT modern, bar-no-holds "conservatism" in this country. That is a movement which has totally debauched the term "conservative" into its very antonym (I'd suggest radical-right), "religious liberty" into "freedom to impose hate on others," and so forth.
That said, I'd suggest to the nation of the House of Windsor the very American notion of "follow the money" to the Brexit people, who obviously managed to hoodwink the nation. I hear of nothing about seeing who actually funded Nigel Farrage or his minority party.
That said, I'd suggest to the nation of the House of Windsor the very American notion of "follow the money" to the Brexit people, who obviously managed to hoodwink the nation. I hear of nothing about seeing who actually funded Nigel Farrage or his minority party.
10
The problem with monarchies is no quality control. Thailand had a wonderful king, who reigned for 70 years. Now he's gone, and his successor will steer right on to the reff. And there's nothing to be done about it.
15
Cute argument but such 'stability' is neither free nor guaranteed. Lots of Brits seem eager to pare their country's expenses by dumping their monarchy, come what tempests may. The Spanish, too, seem considerably less in love with their scandal-tainted royals these days. The Thais are not jumping for joy over their new playboy monarch. And every Monegasque knows the Grimaldis are simply overpaid bank launderers. But seriously, between the Bush dynasty (distantly related to Elizabeth II) and our growing crop of egotistical, know-it-all billionaires, who would end up residing for generations in our new palace? The civil war to determine that outcome would be worse than just mucking along as we are. Get thee behind us, Mr. Tolstoy.
12
This article is so appalling I'm surprised I'm not reading this more in a place like Saudi Arabia. A champion of the right to rule of the 'aristocrats,' would he also like to bring back slavery and God's divine law, which justifies monarchs?
21
With all due respect, your monarchy in Britain has no political authority. You are ruled by two houses of Parliament and a Prime Minister, more similar to our form of government in the States that you might want to admit.
In fact, very few monarchies in the Western world have any real power at all--evidence that political evolution has demonstrated that citizens prefer to choose their leaders and thus provide the direction of their government. If King George III had respected that idea among the American colonists, we might indeed have a very different form of government today, but he--as with so many monarchs throughout history--proved the axiom that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No system is perfect, and each system adopted will undoubtedly have its bumps. America is no different in that regard. But since you quoted Churchill, I think this quote from him sums it up best: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
In fact, very few monarchies in the Western world have any real power at all--evidence that political evolution has demonstrated that citizens prefer to choose their leaders and thus provide the direction of their government. If King George III had respected that idea among the American colonists, we might indeed have a very different form of government today, but he--as with so many monarchs throughout history--proved the axiom that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No system is perfect, and each system adopted will undoubtedly have its bumps. America is no different in that regard. But since you quoted Churchill, I think this quote from him sums it up best: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
45
Monarchies are viewed by many as nostalgic self-granted and cunning-god-given power of a given individual, irrespective of its worth, the exclusive reins of a nation; it gave stability in some cases, witness Spain's post-Franco monarchy...until recently, when no secular government seemed feasible; and instability when declaring war on another country to rape and conquer the 'goods' of those folks, again when Spain assaulted the Americas for self-enrichment...and untold misery for the conquered. A constitutional monarchy may be acceptable to some, even desirable if pomp and circumstance are of the essence, but a democratic system, with all its flaws, remains our choice, given thee freedom it gives for innovation and free reign of our imagination, and advancing science and technology away from superstition (i.e. religion). That democracies face the real danger of demagogues and charlatans trying to subvert an established order, and rob legitimate choices of government from it people, true. That's why we the people must remain vigilant and become actively involved in telling the administration we elect what we need and want. If a potential dictator or crook and liar tries to cheat the electorate, he must be unmasked and sent packing; otherwise we may have to look at ourselves, and our prejudices, that allowed this to happen. Case in point, we have now a know-nothing hypocrite, a professional liar and proven thief, a sexual predator and discriminator-in-chief, seeking office.
4
As Denis Diderot taught us: Man will not be free until the last king has been strangled with the intestines of the last priest.
95
Even with a monarch, elections for prime minister have been known to be as acrimonious as the current presidential election. Americans would just ignore a monarch and still squabble over everyone else. Americans are at their best when set against each other. We're like a big family at Thanksgiving--pretending that we want to get along, but secretly harboring a wish that our bossy sister will choke on a turkey bone.
15
It is not the first time when a great presidency creates a political vacuum. If given the choice, on November 8, 2016 Americans would reelect Obama. Perhaps a more digestible solution would be to amend the Constitution and allow meritorious Presidents to finish their good work. This could also give time to an ill prepared electorate to figure out the next steps.
22
Let's assume we are limiting the debate to a constitutional monarch (i.e England) or figure head monarch (i.e Japan as mentioned in the article) as the down side to absolute monarchy has already been debated and resolved by countries such as England, Japan and even the author's Czarist Russia.
You will find that the countries that continue to have a hereditary monarch are quite homogeneous. This is because today's monarchs act as the person who by his / her very existence exemplifies what it is to be that nationality.
America has no single national identity. We are urban and agrarian, we are naturalized and natural born, we are conservative and liberal, we are light skinned and dark skinned, we are religious and non-religious.
This plurality is why America can have no single person who defines what it means to be an American. This plurality is why our Founding fathers rejected the idea of a monarch.
And nations evolving into a plurality is why one of the author's homelands eliminated the monarchy, and the other so limited the monarch's political power as to make the argument for a monarch as the panacea to electoral strife quite worthless.
You will find that the countries that continue to have a hereditary monarch are quite homogeneous. This is because today's monarchs act as the person who by his / her very existence exemplifies what it is to be that nationality.
America has no single national identity. We are urban and agrarian, we are naturalized and natural born, we are conservative and liberal, we are light skinned and dark skinned, we are religious and non-religious.
This plurality is why America can have no single person who defines what it means to be an American. This plurality is why our Founding fathers rejected the idea of a monarch.
And nations evolving into a plurality is why one of the author's homelands eliminated the monarchy, and the other so limited the monarch's political power as to make the argument for a monarch as the panacea to electoral strife quite worthless.
28
Blame the Treaty of Versailles on the Americans! Churchill got it wrong. It was not "American" pressure that brought the US into World War 1. It was British propaganda that turned the "Lusitania" into a German war crime rather than a joint British/German war crime. I agree that the Wilson administration was complicit in this mass deception, but going along does not constitute "pressure." As to the Treaty of Versailles that dreadful document, promoted by our vengeful British and French allies, rejected every one of Wilson's 14 points, giving the Germans a legitimate basis for complaining later that they'd been swindled.
36
The real question here is whether the current order of checks and balances is working as originally envisioned. Clearly it is not, when a fully partisanized congress can blockade the legislative and judicial agenda of a properly elected executive. As an alternative to paying billions of dollars for a plump, aristocratic elite, we should introduce a mechanism that would allow for the Congress to be disbanded and for new elections to be held. A unanimous vote by the Supreme Court, with the President signing the order, for example. That's essentially the role a modern-day monarch plays. No Queen required.
18
I grew up in a Scottish home environment, ruled by my Granny, Mary Helen Gunn! We were in awe of King George VI, who brought our ancestral home through the Hitlerian War. When he died, we mourned, and we equally celebrated the rise of his daugher Elizabeth to Queen. I am of the Clan Gunn, and my wife from the equally celebrated Clan Sinclair,
My reading of the Treaty of Ghent which ended the 1812 war, makes it clear that we are the first experiment in commonweath rule. You are as aware of the "special relationship" we share with Mother England; you are, no doubt as unaware of how the War of 1812 ended.
For my Houesehold there is only Elizabeth II and we are proudly her Loyal Subjects. But, we live in one of the original 13 colonies. The Hartford Convention of 1815 should prove that New England had already repledged their loyalties to George III.
My reading of the Treaty of Ghent which ended the 1812 war, makes it clear that we are the first experiment in commonweath rule. You are as aware of the "special relationship" we share with Mother England; you are, no doubt as unaware of how the War of 1812 ended.
For my Houesehold there is only Elizabeth II and we are proudly her Loyal Subjects. But, we live in one of the original 13 colonies. The Hartford Convention of 1815 should prove that New England had already repledged their loyalties to George III.
11
Really? The NY Times decided to publish this drivel? Even if there was a case to be made for a constitutional monarchy, this isn't it.
164
As a Brit let me say that adding a monarch would just introduce another State position to be haggled over and add nothing of much use. In the UK there are many people that love the monarchy, but also there are many who hate it. It just becomes another divisive issue.
In my own family when I was a kid, my mother loved the monarchy and my father hated it.
In my own family when I was a kid, my mother loved the monarchy and my father hated it.
31
LOL
74
No doubt we need more unifying symbols and sources of continuity.
But a monarchy? Start by asking this: who would it be, and how would the new monarch be made legitimate? Chose the richest few, and live under the reign of the House of Walton? A famous and popular celebrity -- for a while it might have been Brangelina as the new-model William and Mary; or, for a long time, when I asked my American Politics students whom they'd choose, the hands-down favorite was Tiger Woods. But we now know how those options would have turned out.
I know -- let the people vote on the new Monarch! Oh yeah... back to square zero...
Against much current evidence, maybe we really need to hope that free citizens of an established democracy can choose their leaders and can live with the choices they make. It has happened many times in the past -- George W. Bush, for all the strangeness of how he became President, was accepted as legitimate by the public -- and maybe we will surprise ourselves after next Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Mr. Tolstoy needs to go back and read Walter Bagehot, who did show how the British monarchy was a powerful unifying symbol, but also knew that it worked that way precisely because its origins were ancient, and shrouded in myth and mystery...
But a monarchy? Start by asking this: who would it be, and how would the new monarch be made legitimate? Chose the richest few, and live under the reign of the House of Walton? A famous and popular celebrity -- for a while it might have been Brangelina as the new-model William and Mary; or, for a long time, when I asked my American Politics students whom they'd choose, the hands-down favorite was Tiger Woods. But we now know how those options would have turned out.
I know -- let the people vote on the new Monarch! Oh yeah... back to square zero...
Against much current evidence, maybe we really need to hope that free citizens of an established democracy can choose their leaders and can live with the choices they make. It has happened many times in the past -- George W. Bush, for all the strangeness of how he became President, was accepted as legitimate by the public -- and maybe we will surprise ourselves after next Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Mr. Tolstoy needs to go back and read Walter Bagehot, who did show how the British monarchy was a powerful unifying symbol, but also knew that it worked that way precisely because its origins were ancient, and shrouded in myth and mystery...
29
Winston Churchill wrote: “This war would never have come unless, ... we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany....By making these vacuums...we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones.”
I completely agree - but do not think this is necessarily a call for a monarchy. I see it as a call not to interfere with a country's governance from the outside - as flawed as it may seem. You cannot 'throw' democracy at a country without a structure in place that makes it work.
As Churchill wrote, it created a vacuum - and that invites chaos and a fight between many more 'would be' autocrats. And we still have not learned that lesson.
Oh how do I wish, George Bush had read Churchill in college instead of binging.
I completely agree - but do not think this is necessarily a call for a monarchy. I see it as a call not to interfere with a country's governance from the outside - as flawed as it may seem. You cannot 'throw' democracy at a country without a structure in place that makes it work.
As Churchill wrote, it created a vacuum - and that invites chaos and a fight between many more 'would be' autocrats. And we still have not learned that lesson.
Oh how do I wish, George Bush had read Churchill in college instead of binging.
109
As someone who grew up under a monarch, I politely say NO. My people live their lives with the same illusion and complacency that the king just like God are the landlords of their destiny and keys to their future. American voters have also fallen victims to the idea that the election of a president is enough. So many others from city council to state legislature to consumer behaviors help shape the policies and the level of power retained by the public. Plus, the royal protocol is just quiet silly.
53
There is no question that when viewed from a particular and limited historical perspective, monarchies tend to create: defined social orders that contribute to stability, defined rules of political succession, and defined groups of ruling hierarchies. On the other hand, by creating a privileged class of nobles based ONLY on parentage, monarchies tend to solidify class structures (not in a good way), limit economic mobility and opportunities, stifle creativity, limit individual expression, and are always just one step away (or one crazy successor son or daughter away) from declining into crushing absolutism and despotism. Why are there so few genuine monarchies today (figurehead monarchs in constitutional republics really don’t count)? Because they don’t work – people tire of the excesses of hereditary nobles as well as having society support them. People tire of not having ANY choices in who they are and what they can expect from life. People tire of not having freedom and liberty. As a historian Tolstoy ought to be very familiar with the internal rot that was inherent in the European monarchical system – a system that gave rise to the First World War and was ultimately consumed by that war.
9
And by the way, if Trump wins, I'm sure he'll be amenable to my
suggestion that we annex the U.K. and turn it into our largest
national historical park.
suggestion that we annex the U.K. and turn it into our largest
national historical park.
14
So one of the most progressive forms of government has a hiccup, so we go back to something that confers rights to people based on the family of birth? No thanks. It is like going back to horse drawn carriages because cars break down occasionally. How about suggesting dictatorship as well?
20
Yes, I wonder if George III will take us back. I'm sure we can work it out.
5
Republics, most it seems, at least aspire to democracy. Monarchies generally become mired in political nostalgia. Not my idea of an alternative.
8
It is time to reflect on extreme escapist fantasies about the roads not taken. This is a good one. I have another what-if.......what if the Confederacy did as Longstreet suggested and freed all the slaves before seceding? England and France would have recognized the Confederacy and there never would have been a war. We would be two countries. The smaller USA would look a lot more like Denmark today and the Confederacy would look a lot more like places that boast of cheap labor. Is it too late to have another go at it?
8
What a ridiculous piece! The states Tolstoy claims have been the most stable in Europe are also those that happened to have created the bloated colonial and imperial presence all over the world. Their stability, as Mr. Tolstoy surely knows as a historian, was directly connected to their ability to deny people basic rights, to develop capitalist wealth out of slavery, and to their militaristic power against any who dared oppose them. So please, spare us your fantasies of 'stability.'
30
>>>
We did. It was violently rejected.
We did. It was violently rejected.
24
Mr. Tolstoy is, I believe, a descendant of the much greater novelist Tolstoy. Perhaps this makes him prejudiced in favor of dynasties. He ignores the fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal. That does not permit assigning hereditary rights to high office to one family (though if the people are fool enough to elect dynasties, that is their privilege).
He doesn't note the difference between a monarch who has real power and one who is only symbolic, nor to differentiate between the actual leader of government and the symbolic head of state (the monarch in a constitutional monarchy). Some of his historic examples (George III) occurred before that transition was made.
However, Churchill was right in pointing out the stabilizing influence of an institution that is immune to demagoguery. An alternative means of achieving this is to have a head of state elected separately from the head of government and for a very long term (life?). For example, the head of state could be the past president, or someone chosen by consensus of living past presidents. That would also relieve the head of government (the current president), who is very busy with real work, from the burden of attending state dinners, receptions for visiting heads of state, and foreign funerals.
He doesn't note the difference between a monarch who has real power and one who is only symbolic, nor to differentiate between the actual leader of government and the symbolic head of state (the monarch in a constitutional monarchy). Some of his historic examples (George III) occurred before that transition was made.
However, Churchill was right in pointing out the stabilizing influence of an institution that is immune to demagoguery. An alternative means of achieving this is to have a head of state elected separately from the head of government and for a very long term (life?). For example, the head of state could be the past president, or someone chosen by consensus of living past presidents. That would also relieve the head of government (the current president), who is very busy with real work, from the burden of attending state dinners, receptions for visiting heads of state, and foreign funerals.
12
Are there however aspects of a Parliamentary system that might hold promise for this fractured, ill-informed society of ours?
1
What a spectacular simplification of past, present, and future. While I don't expect a Russian to "get" America . . . or Canada, for that matter, I do expect an effort. Having been born in the U.S. and lived and worked in Canada for more than a decade, I can assure readers that Canada is not "contented." Its electoral politics are prone to the same demagoguery and swings in public opinion that have beset every other representative democracy, and the Queen does little more than provide her visage for the country's coinage. When the grandkids were here two months ago, most Canadians were anything but atwitter. That's because they have big problems. Canadians face significant structural problems with digging out from an economic malaise. The monetary unit has lost a quarter of its value since 2014; the national economy is still utterly dependent on commodity exports; the major parties cannot find consensus on a path forward; the prime minister looks more and more like the ex-snowboarder that his critics portrayed in the last election; the great white north has massive pollution and racial problems. Yeah, Canada has a nominal monarchy, but its problems seem awfully familiar. Maybe this might indeed have more to do with globalism and its discontents than a Russian with dual citizenship can grasp, or maybe admit. Try again, Tolstoy.
13
Even if this were a good idea in practice, how would we choose? Monarchies have their origins in conquest, by force, not through popular referendum. Besides, half the country disagrees with the other half. There's no way we could reach a consensus on something like this.
On the other hand, if we were so inclined to make a fundamental change, we might want to consider a parliamentary system instead. The biggest problem with what we have now (aside, perhaps, from the influence of money) is the stranglehold of the two-party duopoly, with both parties essentially representing "the establishment". The winner-take-all model provides no incentive for cooperation, and as the partisanship becomes more and more extreme, we end up with the dysfunctional gridlocked government we have now. Not to mention the disenfranchisement felt on the losing side of the electorate. A parliamentary system would allow other parties to participate, and force the forming of coalitions, which would be much more effective in getting things done. It would also free us of the need to go through the exhaustive and ever more farcical process of electing a president every four years.
On the other hand, if we were so inclined to make a fundamental change, we might want to consider a parliamentary system instead. The biggest problem with what we have now (aside, perhaps, from the influence of money) is the stranglehold of the two-party duopoly, with both parties essentially representing "the establishment". The winner-take-all model provides no incentive for cooperation, and as the partisanship becomes more and more extreme, we end up with the dysfunctional gridlocked government we have now. Not to mention the disenfranchisement felt on the losing side of the electorate. A parliamentary system would allow other parties to participate, and force the forming of coalitions, which would be much more effective in getting things done. It would also free us of the need to go through the exhaustive and ever more farcical process of electing a president every four years.
1
If Hillary wins, we will have installed a Queen. Oh, dread! There are so many extremely qualified women and the country chooses her to be the first woman. I have received a number of apologies from people I know that wouldn't listen to me and experienced painful remorse at having voted for Obama. How much more remorse will they have for voting in Hillary as a Monarch.
1
If Mr. trump wins, we will have a monarchy.
7
Of course one can only speculate - but in these troubled times I can say I would rather spend my time in the company of "contented" Canadians, or for that matter Australians or Brits, than many of my fellow Americans.
2
Wild Capitalism left unchecked errodes Democracy. That's where the problem is. Having a monarch did not prevent the Brexit vote. Having a Kaiser or an Emperor or a Czar did not prevent the first World War or the Russian Revolution.
17
Um, no. We really don't need a hereditary monarchy. In the US, we wouldn't get Queen Elizabeth, we'd be going for Kim Kardashian. No thanks.
By all means, we could use a unifying central ideal, and monarchs can represent it. But our problem is that we don't have a unifying central ideal - and haven't since we started the whole experiment. Occasionally a war or something will come along and unify us, but mostly we have squabbled. What central unifying purpose would our putative monarch represent?
We have been playing tug of war between states power and federal, between rural interests and urban, between legislative, administrative and judicial power for centuries. We push and pull over the role of religion in lawmaking, and the role of personal freedom versus social support. Big government versus small. National foreign prowess versus focusing on home. All arguments stemming from the days of the founding fathers.
We can put a figurehead in front looking like Lady Liberty or something, but what would she be fronting, exactly? We are big, diverse and messy, and we are likely to stay that way. No monarch could alter that.
By all means, we could use a unifying central ideal, and monarchs can represent it. But our problem is that we don't have a unifying central ideal - and haven't since we started the whole experiment. Occasionally a war or something will come along and unify us, but mostly we have squabbled. What central unifying purpose would our putative monarch represent?
We have been playing tug of war between states power and federal, between rural interests and urban, between legislative, administrative and judicial power for centuries. We push and pull over the role of religion in lawmaking, and the role of personal freedom versus social support. Big government versus small. National foreign prowess versus focusing on home. All arguments stemming from the days of the founding fathers.
We can put a figurehead in front looking like Lady Liberty or something, but what would she be fronting, exactly? We are big, diverse and messy, and we are likely to stay that way. No monarch could alter that.
4
Although the position of Monarch of America will come with enormous privileges, it will be a tough, demanding job requiring dedication and sacrifice. Not for personal gain, but purely out of a wish to serve the country I love, I humbly volunteer to take it on. No, no, don't thank me. The palace, the servants, and the private plane will be thanks enough.
6
Monarchy just means rule by one man, no? You could have an elective monarchy just as well as a hereditary one. And you could also argue that the US of 2016 is closer to a "monarchy" as defined than Britain was in the 1770s. The executive branch is definitely more powerful than King George, who didn't even have the authority, in practice, to veto laws (the last "veto" of an act of Parliament, i.e. withholding Royal Assent, occurring in 1708).
3
When George III met the United States' first ambassador, who was John Adams, he told him something to the effect that "it is our most fervent wish that your new nation not suffer unduly for want of a monarch". This may be that moment when our suffering begins. When a nation has no higher standard than the "will of the people", with no corrective mechanism for mass insanity stoked by rhetoric and fear mongering. But a monarch requires legitimacy; and we have no such royal family. We would need to invite the Queen back.
5
Misery wants company.
5
When my daughter was about 11 or 12 years old, she and I came to the conclusion that America needed a monarchy. A return to a limited, constitutional monarchy would be good for all the reasons Mr. Tolstoy gives in his op-ed.
Our view was that the throne should be offered to Prince Harry. In my opinion Harry's military background and time in combat would sit well with many Americans. He's more than just a poster boy for royalty. His playboy image (and reality) would only disturb the puritan fringe. My daughter was in favor of Harry because at the time she had a crush on him. Now she couldn't care less about him as a man, but still sees him as the best candidate for the throne.
Harry should marry an American woman and found an American dynasty. Who that woman should be is fun to speculate about.
Imagine, instead of Trump or Hillary, Harry on the throne with Barack Obama or John Kasich as his prime minister. Wouldn't that be better than what we're about to get?
Unfortunately, my daughter and I are probably the only two Americans in favor of returning to a monarchical form of government.
Our view was that the throne should be offered to Prince Harry. In my opinion Harry's military background and time in combat would sit well with many Americans. He's more than just a poster boy for royalty. His playboy image (and reality) would only disturb the puritan fringe. My daughter was in favor of Harry because at the time she had a crush on him. Now she couldn't care less about him as a man, but still sees him as the best candidate for the throne.
Harry should marry an American woman and found an American dynasty. Who that woman should be is fun to speculate about.
Imagine, instead of Trump or Hillary, Harry on the throne with Barack Obama or John Kasich as his prime minister. Wouldn't that be better than what we're about to get?
Unfortunately, my daughter and I are probably the only two Americans in favor of returning to a monarchical form of government.
2
Appeals to monarchy invariably are weak on the nuts-and-bolts
issues. And so it is with this one. How would the U.S. establish
its hereditary line? Besides, in the monarchies named herein, the
sovereign doesn't actually do anything -- just symbolize the
continuity of state. So why would we need a person to do that
anyway? For the king and queen of the United States, I nominate
the Washington Monument and the Tidal Basin.
issues. And so it is with this one. How would the U.S. establish
its hereditary line? Besides, in the monarchies named herein, the
sovereign doesn't actually do anything -- just symbolize the
continuity of state. So why would we need a person to do that
anyway? For the king and queen of the United States, I nominate
the Washington Monument and the Tidal Basin.
4
No no thank you. We like our system of governenvce just fine.
7
Americans used to have a king, so it is not as though the concept has never occurred to us. In the 240 years since 1776, who has fared better: Britain with its monarch or the United States, after ridding itself of that same monarch?
Mr. Tolstoy's essay never gets around to discussing the ideal of human equality, which is the single best argument in favor of a democracy. Though imperfectly implemented in practice, setting equality as a national standard gives hope and legal leverage to those whose rights have been denied.
Only a Trumped-up version of events can be used to show that humankind is better off with a single person (or a small group) sitting atop the social pyramid. History proves exactly the opposite -- not only in politics, but in science, business and every other area of human endeavor.
Mr. Tolstoy's essay never gets around to discussing the ideal of human equality, which is the single best argument in favor of a democracy. Though imperfectly implemented in practice, setting equality as a national standard gives hope and legal leverage to those whose rights have been denied.
Only a Trumped-up version of events can be used to show that humankind is better off with a single person (or a small group) sitting atop the social pyramid. History proves exactly the opposite -- not only in politics, but in science, business and every other area of human endeavor.
8
it is true that republicanism, as in a modern, bottoms up, elected democracy, was strange, alien and repugnant to many Germans, paving the way for a messianic dictator, but also true that the severe economic shocks of the interwar period also contributed greatly to the malaise. Hitler himself understood that a government on some level has to rise organically out of the zeitgeist of the people: republicanism is so engrained in the American psyche, it seems so "natural" to us, that it is difficult to imagine imposed a monarch, no matter how benign. I don't believe people in this country could take such an institution seriously: it would be Disney World, a spectacle, which of course monarchy always is, but spectacle here in a debased way. Nevertheless I take the point, and it is a good one, that we need to reestablish a center of authority in this country, which used to be that our governmental was respectable and good: maybe the most conservative and traditional path would be to re-embrace that quaint idea.
4
This this is joke. I hope.
9
A blindingly nonsensical article lying the groundwork for a trump family monarchy? I have to drive today and you have blinded me with this madness. Please stay in a monarchy if you like it and leave us alone. Our party's stink but turning leadership over to pharaohs and czars would be the end nation - period. Yes, that means the trump travelling monarchy is also not acceptable.
7
No thanks. We already have a bunch of do nothings that parade around at parties and show their wealth--its called Congress.
13
This is the humor column, yes?
16
Our "republic" has transitioned into a democracy. Rule (dictatorship) by the whims of one person or a majority is all the same. A constitutional republic based on individual rights is the only proper form of government.
A few weeks ago the New Yorker ran a satirical piece about an offer from Queen Elizabeth to take back the Colonies. Now we have this, offering proof that in this election season the line between farce and reality has been erased.
If we're going to consider changing our form of government, let's instead just change who gets to vote. The press dances around with terms like "low information voters", masking the fact that some of our fellow citizens are idiots. Maybe what we need is an entrance exam for voter registration.
The idea isn't new; literacy tests were once common. They were banned because they became a tool for racists to deny the vote to African Americans, but with appropriate oversight we could go to a system in which my vote and yours trump (see what I did there?) that of someone who thinks the planet is 5000 years old or who cannot name his two senators.
If we're going to consider changing our form of government, let's instead just change who gets to vote. The press dances around with terms like "low information voters", masking the fact that some of our fellow citizens are idiots. Maybe what we need is an entrance exam for voter registration.
The idea isn't new; literacy tests were once common. They were banned because they became a tool for racists to deny the vote to African Americans, but with appropriate oversight we could go to a system in which my vote and yours trump (see what I did there?) that of someone who thinks the planet is 5000 years old or who cannot name his two senators.
14
What monarchies may do, but not necessarily (cf. your own Russia, Mr. Tolstoy), is to provide enough authoritarian control over a society to ameliorate the destructive effects of over-population. In Medieval society, the aristocracy wielded strong control over who was permitted to reproduce and have children: a couple had to gain permission from the feudal lord to have a child. This was the way, in general, that pre-modern (or "open") societies controlled their population: the community had to agree that having a child was possible (economically or otherwise).
The stable countries you mention, Mr. Tolstoy, are stable not because of a monarchy but because they are democracies that exert a strong control over population growth by practicing rational and controlled immigration. Countries like Canada, Australia, Sweden, etc, etc, have vibrantly stable democracies because they have grown only moderately since WWII; the US on the other hand, has doubled in size and is therefore suffering the same biological stresses as Third World countries (who have grown exponentially since the war). What we are witnessing with Trump is a secular Enlightenment democracy tilting toward a banana republic. With Trump Venezuela becomes a model, not Canada.
This has little to do with the presence of a monarchy, my friend, but rather something much more simple, and fundamental.
The stable countries you mention, Mr. Tolstoy, are stable not because of a monarchy but because they are democracies that exert a strong control over population growth by practicing rational and controlled immigration. Countries like Canada, Australia, Sweden, etc, etc, have vibrantly stable democracies because they have grown only moderately since WWII; the US on the other hand, has doubled in size and is therefore suffering the same biological stresses as Third World countries (who have grown exponentially since the war). What we are witnessing with Trump is a secular Enlightenment democracy tilting toward a banana republic. With Trump Venezuela becomes a model, not Canada.
This has little to do with the presence of a monarchy, my friend, but rather something much more simple, and fundamental.
2
Richard the Third from Shakespeare seems to be running with another name right now. No friends, cruel and vindictive. But the curtain may never open.
5
We considered it. We elected not to participate further. George Washington was offered, and was perhaps even tempted by, a kingship. Instead, we quite rightly asked him to Preside.
34
If a monarchy were to be instituted in the United States who would fill it? Since dynasties seem to be the trend in the American presidency, first the Bushes and now the Clintons, maybe one of them would be the most likely candidate. Why not the Obamas? Now Barack, then Michelle, then perhaps Sasha and/or Malia. Would the common descendants of Eisenhower and Nixon make a good monarchy? Maybe the warring Houses of Obama and Trump can make their peace and through an arranged marriage guarantee a line of succession. Who knows?
6
Some very salient points.Don't forget that the United Kingdom led the way as far as Constitutional Monarchy and was the blue-print for all of the monarchies in Europe and Japan.Also most of these countries have welfare states that the U.S can only dream of,as well as the ease in which both conservative and socialst govts are elected with ease and no ideological conflicts!
So next time someone from the U.S opines "..didn't we fight a war to rid ourselves of kings and queens..." think of how much stability it has bought those countries with con. monarchies...!!
So next time someone from the U.S opines "..didn't we fight a war to rid ourselves of kings and queens..." think of how much stability it has bought those countries with con. monarchies...!!
4
Have to agree that after going through this year's election cycle that I agree with the author on some level. Even though it's been 200 years is there any chance that Queen Elizabeth would consider taking back these wayward colonies? Our experiment in self government has hit a rough patch.
4
Amen to these points, succinctly put. The main argument for a constitutional monarchy, however, is that by having we the people symbolically represented by the monarch, politicians and bureaucrats are symbolically seen to be what they are, public servants temporarily and on sufferance entrusted with the business of running the state, and thus subservient to us and subject to dismissal at any time. The monarch, symbolically, persists and cannot be dismissed any more than we, as citizens, can be dismissed.
3
The monarchy does not seem to be helping Great Britain with the Brexit debacle.
15
No thanks.
14
I hate to break it to Comrade Tolstoy, but monarchy did not work in Russia. It survived in Great Britain because actual political power was transferred to Parliament. The embarrassing Royal Family are mere figureheads who represent an inglorious past. They supply nothing for the common good beyond fodder for the tabloids. To revere them is futile. Monarchy failed centuries ago and should have been buried with the rest of the rubbish of the Dark Ages.
57
Isn't this, essentially, the Trump campaign's entire premise ?
14
All well and good as far as Great Britain is concerned, unless Scotland secedes.
But once the line of succession is broken how do you start up again? Will you have King Vladimir in Russia? Would we vote for a king or queen? How else would they be chosen? The first kings chose themselves by killing off their rivals. Maybe Mr. Putin will show us how it is done. Then we can see whether we would like to try. Electing Mr. Trump would be a good first step, and he has that lovely daughter and those handsome, manly sons.
But once the line of succession is broken how do you start up again? Will you have King Vladimir in Russia? Would we vote for a king or queen? How else would they be chosen? The first kings chose themselves by killing off their rivals. Maybe Mr. Putin will show us how it is done. Then we can see whether we would like to try. Electing Mr. Trump would be a good first step, and he has that lovely daughter and those handsome, manly sons.
4
The author cites Japan and Canada as examples. Isn't it more accurately a parliamentary form of government that lends the monarchies highlighted in this article their strength?
8
Monarchies "more stable and better governed than most of the Continent’s republican states"? Really? Are you kidding? Spain, and its almost permanent monarchic crisis, both political and moral? UK, and its populist polarization, fueling prejudice and bigotry, while the only goal of the queen seems to be set a new record on the throne? Belgium, with one (rather weak) king and two nations? Luxembourg, that has never faced its WW2 tainted monarchy? Of course there are the Scandinavian states, but they are also the states where the monarch is not king in any usual sense of the term, where Obamacare would seem a major retreat, where inequality is under control... The European powerhouse is Germany, not a monarchy, but a country where the elected president has no great power and no other purpose than to guarantee the constitutional order, along with the Supreme Court. What the U.S. and the broken political systems of Europe need are democratic fixes as efficient as those of Germany and Scandinavia, not gimmicks based on biased assumptions and rosy "Sissy-like" perspective on what monarchy is. Constitutional monarchy is an oxymora that stands only as long as the democratic forces prevail, a trick of complex and brutal history, not a model to follow or implement from scratch. And if you want to know what monarchy really is, look at Thailand, Saudi Arabia or north Korea, and keep dreaming.
20
I am assuming that this article is a subtle form of irony, but it is just not very funny. The elite in Great Britain in the 1930s , for example, was shot through with Nazi sympathies (the Churchill quote notwithstanding), including prominent members of the Royal Family as well as the newspaper most identified with the Cult of the Royals, the Daily Mail. The idea that British resistance to Nazism was inevitable is silly, that this resistance was somehow due to the Monarchy is the crudest form of hammering history onto a template of one's own devising.
As to the present, the debate about Brexit has shown that a Royal Family is no guarantee of national unity or even some sense of decency in public discourse. The Right-Wing press (very pro-Royals) stoked an already toxic political debate to a fever pitch in the run-up to June, resulting in an assassinated Labour MP (because she supported Remain) and a massive spike in hate crimes, topics that the Queen has been mostly silent on. The current court case that the government just lost, hinges on the legal reach of "Royal prerogative" as opposed to the sovereignty of Parliament, one of the vaguer aspects of the always-vague "British Constitution". In the wake of this verdict, the Royalist Right-Wing Press all led with headlines declaring an independent judiciary "Enemies of the People".
Thanks no, both American and British political discourses are suitably dysfunctional in the absence of borrowing each others terrible ideas.
As to the present, the debate about Brexit has shown that a Royal Family is no guarantee of national unity or even some sense of decency in public discourse. The Right-Wing press (very pro-Royals) stoked an already toxic political debate to a fever pitch in the run-up to June, resulting in an assassinated Labour MP (because she supported Remain) and a massive spike in hate crimes, topics that the Queen has been mostly silent on. The current court case that the government just lost, hinges on the legal reach of "Royal prerogative" as opposed to the sovereignty of Parliament, one of the vaguer aspects of the always-vague "British Constitution". In the wake of this verdict, the Royalist Right-Wing Press all led with headlines declaring an independent judiciary "Enemies of the People".
Thanks no, both American and British political discourses are suitably dysfunctional in the absence of borrowing each others terrible ideas.
15
What you say is true but you are forgetting Japan, Norway, The Netherlands etc etc. I am a republican but there is no simple link between dysfunctional political discourse and a monarchy. The fault lies somewhere within us, not a figurehead.
1
The "International Monarchist League." Who knew?
And people say that Americans who posit that their Republic needs to be defended against would-be dictators and monarchs are immature or mad...
How enlightening.
And people say that Americans who posit that their Republic needs to be defended against would-be dictators and monarchs are immature or mad...
How enlightening.
8
"Enjoying a king or queen as head of state" doesn't quite describe the European situation of the early 20th century, when a small group of monarchs holding power simply because of the accident of birth -- and who, by the way, were related to each other -- sent 17 million people to their deaths during the First World War. WWI was not a peoples' war; it was a monarchs' war. Here in the US we may from time to time elect leaders because of celebrity of name -- Bushes, Clintons -- but these surrogate kings and queens will eventually be forced or required to leave office because of constitutional term limits or elections. In the American system, in theory, anyone can become a king or a queen. It was a revolutionary idea in 1776, and remains the one that puts government in control of its citizens.
7
This does get the prize as the most unexpected opinion piece of the day! Rather persuasive, as well!
3
Could you just remind me who elected the Corsican gangster tyrant; and the date of the election?
13
I was part of an employee buyout initiative several years ago. During that experience I came to believe that most people atavistically crave a King and Queen who will protect and provide for them and tell them that everything will be ok. And most, it seemed to me, would gladly give up their freedom of choice to live under such a system.
1
The monarch as head of state is a unifying figure which all of a nation's citizens can embrace. When faced by such leaders as a Richard Nixon, a George W. Bush and - (God forbid) - a Donald J. Trump the monarch is the one national symbol that unites us all as one national family. Monarchy also provides class and distinction to a nation's reputation and honor.
I am referring to a constitutional monarchy, of course, and I recognize that a constitutional or any other kind of monarchy has no historical basis as an American institution. A pity that.
I am referring to a constitutional monarchy, of course, and I recognize that a constitutional or any other kind of monarchy has no historical basis as an American institution. A pity that.
NO, thank you, Mr. Tolstoy. America rose to great heights BECAUSE we did not have a monarchy "keeping us in line". Right now radical christians are trying to force their beliefs on all of us and there is an immense backlash.
You speak of the countries that still have monarchies but I favor France where the "peons" lopped off the head of royalists and their supporters and moved to a democratic society.
We do not need kings and queens. We have entertainers who gain and lose favor instead. We have people in all walks of life who are able to shine because they are not under the thumb of a "ruler". Your idea, and dictators like Putin, Erdogan, and Iran's supreme religious leader, is what keeps the world in constant warfare. The vast majority of people on earth do not want to live that way. Time to evolve as a world population.
You speak of the countries that still have monarchies but I favor France where the "peons" lopped off the head of royalists and their supporters and moved to a democratic society.
We do not need kings and queens. We have entertainers who gain and lose favor instead. We have people in all walks of life who are able to shine because they are not under the thumb of a "ruler". Your idea, and dictators like Putin, Erdogan, and Iran's supreme religious leader, is what keeps the world in constant warfare. The vast majority of people on earth do not want to live that way. Time to evolve as a world population.
31
Canada's symbolic monarchy is completely absent from its politics and day-to-day life. It does not provide any stability or continuity to our governmental affairs or influence our electoral process in the least. It serves for nostalgia and a sense of history. What we do have in Canada that America desperately needs is short electoral seasons.
America is broken on so many levels. To fix it will take term limits on Supreme Court justices, a rethinking of the primary system, as well as the electoral college, longer terms for House representatives, fixing the business of gerrymandering, limiting the power of money. Also the system of separate voting arrangements in different states has to go, and universal voting ID and registrational procedures need to be put in place.
Those who refuse to govern or who obstruct the elected government need to be tried for treason or sedition and seriously punished. Ditto those who call for putting their opponents in jail or disturbing the peace during elections. There must be real punishment for spreading of lies, applying to candidates, as well as media. Above all, the culture of hate and greed that has become so commonplace in the US needs to be seriously dealt with. They can start with that.
America is broken on so many levels. To fix it will take term limits on Supreme Court justices, a rethinking of the primary system, as well as the electoral college, longer terms for House representatives, fixing the business of gerrymandering, limiting the power of money. Also the system of separate voting arrangements in different states has to go, and universal voting ID and registrational procedures need to be put in place.
Those who refuse to govern or who obstruct the elected government need to be tried for treason or sedition and seriously punished. Ditto those who call for putting their opponents in jail or disturbing the peace during elections. There must be real punishment for spreading of lies, applying to candidates, as well as media. Above all, the culture of hate and greed that has become so commonplace in the US needs to be seriously dealt with. They can start with that.
305
Nice try, Mr. Putin, ahem, Mr. Tolstoy.
19
Baloney! Things haven't been good in England in the last century. And the troubles of Europe with Hitler had a lot more to do with the "repairations" extorted from the Germans than the monarchy.
8
Capital idea, Mr. Tolstoy; now to the question: whose family shall be elevated to the crown, and by what means?
Then remember Thomas Paine, and consider our present candidates:
"... it is more than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first rise, we should find the first of them [Kings] no better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners or pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title of chief among plunderers..."
Then remember Thomas Paine, and consider our present candidates:
"... it is more than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first rise, we should find the first of them [Kings] no better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners or pre-eminence in subtility obtained him the title of chief among plunderers..."
60
America will be a fool then to believe that what you say for us to be a Monarchy. Maybe the word Anarchy is better suited. Even though we are on two continents and Britain is surrounded by European countries afloat on it's own island with Northern Ireland doesn't make it a Monarchy if Canada is to the north of us.
What is peculiar is the election here may make a difference to those who become citizens elsewhere. I'm sure that those who do move out of the U.S. to become citizens elsewhere will find no better home than being Independent with a Constitution as us.
If Germany decides what you are recommending for America "Consider a Monarchy, America", Nikolai Tolstoy, I'm sure that the Aryan population would not want what happened during WWII with a dictator and the outcome and that is what America doesn't want either. In My Honest Opinion.
What is peculiar is the election here may make a difference to those who become citizens elsewhere. I'm sure that those who do move out of the U.S. to become citizens elsewhere will find no better home than being Independent with a Constitution as us.
If Germany decides what you are recommending for America "Consider a Monarchy, America", Nikolai Tolstoy, I'm sure that the Aryan population would not want what happened during WWII with a dictator and the outcome and that is what America doesn't want either. In My Honest Opinion.
1
I have been writing about the value of electing a ceremonial king for some time. I propose a 10 year reign and would like to see George Clooney take the initial term. Ceremonial King George would take a huge burden off our elected President. So many diplomatic functions would be filled by his gracious presence, while politicians tended to legislative and executive work.
Kings do not need to follow the pattern of the British Royalty. Norway invited a Danish Prince to become its King when independence was won about 1500 years ago. This Prince said he would accept if a ballot proved the citizens of Norway truly wanted him. They overwhelmingly approved and his line has provided popular and stable leadership to this day.
Americans do not realize how fickle and unstable our government seems to the rest of the world. Indeed, our promises cannot be relied on. The current situation demonstrates how reversible it all can be. The world can not thrive without stability in its great powers. Uncertainties have already eroded stock market values------ And the size of the burden we place on our elected President would stagger Hercules.
Time for an elected Ceremonial King.
Kings do not need to follow the pattern of the British Royalty. Norway invited a Danish Prince to become its King when independence was won about 1500 years ago. This Prince said he would accept if a ballot proved the citizens of Norway truly wanted him. They overwhelmingly approved and his line has provided popular and stable leadership to this day.
Americans do not realize how fickle and unstable our government seems to the rest of the world. Indeed, our promises cannot be relied on. The current situation demonstrates how reversible it all can be. The world can not thrive without stability in its great powers. Uncertainties have already eroded stock market values------ And the size of the burden we place on our elected President would stagger Hercules.
Time for an elected Ceremonial King.
8
Although hereditary monarchy is un-American, we could experiment with something approximating it if only we play our cards wrong next Tuesday.
If Donald Trump were to be elected president, I am reasonably certain that he would assume the largely ceremonial role of queen. He would then let Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and, if he is still available, Chris Christie take over the task of day to day governance. Trump himself would then be free to cement relationships with such radical right-wing populists as Le Pen in France, Orban in Hungary and Kacsynski in Poland, and to further the ambitions of his own Populist-No-Nothing version of the GOP here at home.
He would also then be free to cavort with his buddy and fellow demagogue, Vladimir Putin.
Wouldn't this strategy firm up a legacy wholly befitting the narcissistic, megalomaniacal and authoritarian Trump?
If Donald Trump were to be elected president, I am reasonably certain that he would assume the largely ceremonial role of queen. He would then let Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and, if he is still available, Chris Christie take over the task of day to day governance. Trump himself would then be free to cement relationships with such radical right-wing populists as Le Pen in France, Orban in Hungary and Kacsynski in Poland, and to further the ambitions of his own Populist-No-Nothing version of the GOP here at home.
He would also then be free to cavort with his buddy and fellow demagogue, Vladimir Putin.
Wouldn't this strategy firm up a legacy wholly befitting the narcissistic, megalomaniacal and authoritarian Trump?
52
Is this column supposed to be a joke? If so, it'/ not even remotely funny.
19
Monarchies were moved to figure heads for a reason. Our method ensures that we don't end up with a Henry VIII for more than four years. Lots of lives were lost when European monarchies were vying for power through the ages.
This election cycle has been ugly true. But I enjoy having new ideas about how to keep moving us forward presented every four years. Keeps us from getting stagnant.
This election cycle has been ugly true. But I enjoy having new ideas about how to keep moving us forward presented every four years. Keeps us from getting stagnant.
8
People are ready to start a civil war over the entirely fictitious idea of modestly curbing a single amendment to our Constitution. Good luck scrapping the whole thing. "It's more stable" will convince people on Wall Street and not much of anyone else. But what need have they for a monarch? They own and operate the whole of our government.
12
"neither [candidate] appears to be a Washington or a Lincoln"
As a matter of fact, Lincoln didn't appear to be a Lincoln when he was a candidate, either: he earned less than 40% of the popular vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
And while Washington was admired by many and twice won 100% of the electoral vote, part of that was because his slaves couldn't vote.
As a matter of fact, Lincoln didn't appear to be a Lincoln when he was a candidate, either: he earned less than 40% of the popular vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
And while Washington was admired by many and twice won 100% of the electoral vote, part of that was because his slaves couldn't vote.
61
thinking about taxpayers' money that keep up monarchs' (and their families) lavish lives... thanks but no thanks
26
Thanks for the fine example of understated humor!
11
Is there something in the air?
For the last few days I, too, been mulling over the idea of separating the duties and status of head of government from those of head of state here in the US. Would it lead to elections of h of g that are less emotional and personal, less an expression of the voter's identity; therefore, more rational?
I don't know... (that David Cameron won re-election by promising a referendum on the UK's staying in the EU, for instance, is not encouraging because it related so much to voters' emotions) but maybe the historical examples of Germany and Japan that the author mentions make it worth thinking about.
At the very least, freeing the head of gov from the myriad ceremonial duties of head of state would make the job less exhausting.
For the last few days I, too, been mulling over the idea of separating the duties and status of head of government from those of head of state here in the US. Would it lead to elections of h of g that are less emotional and personal, less an expression of the voter's identity; therefore, more rational?
I don't know... (that David Cameron won re-election by promising a referendum on the UK's staying in the EU, for instance, is not encouraging because it related so much to voters' emotions) but maybe the historical examples of Germany and Japan that the author mentions make it worth thinking about.
At the very least, freeing the head of gov from the myriad ceremonial duties of head of state would make the job less exhausting.
2
Thanks. That was, overall, very interesting reading. I once had a French monarchist present me with similar arguments. In an ideal world Monarchy might well be the ideal form of government. But in the real world, it seems fairly clear that democracy leads to the greatest degree of freedom of individuals.
You made one statement at the start I object to and I'm calling you on the carpet for it (in the spirit of rough play).
"But it seems uncontroversial to say that neither appears to be a Washington or a Lincoln, and that the elective presidency is coming under increasingly critical examination."
It is indeed "uncontroversial" to say that neither candidate appears to be a Washington or Lincoln. However it is HIGHLY controversial to say that "the elective presidency is coming under increasingly critical examination". If anything, there is more and more acceptance of the idea that we should abandon the Electoral Collage and make the presidential election a truly democratic one.
I didn't want you to think you could slip one by us readers.
;o)
You made one statement at the start I object to and I'm calling you on the carpet for it (in the spirit of rough play).
"But it seems uncontroversial to say that neither appears to be a Washington or a Lincoln, and that the elective presidency is coming under increasingly critical examination."
It is indeed "uncontroversial" to say that neither candidate appears to be a Washington or Lincoln. However it is HIGHLY controversial to say that "the elective presidency is coming under increasingly critical examination". If anything, there is more and more acceptance of the idea that we should abandon the Electoral Collage and make the presidential election a truly democratic one.
I didn't want you to think you could slip one by us readers.
;o)
24
Dear Mr. Tolstoy:
Thank you for suggesting a monarchy as the solution to our current governmental catastrophe in waiting. Andy Borowitz in New Yorker has already reported that Queen Elizabeth II has forgiven us our ill-advised revolution and would be willing to step into the breach should we but ask.
However, Nothing much could be accomplished until a way to extricate ourselves from the political grip by the all mighty dollar and the lust after it will even begin the right this ship of state.
Thank you for suggesting a monarchy as the solution to our current governmental catastrophe in waiting. Andy Borowitz in New Yorker has already reported that Queen Elizabeth II has forgiven us our ill-advised revolution and would be willing to step into the breach should we but ask.
However, Nothing much could be accomplished until a way to extricate ourselves from the political grip by the all mighty dollar and the lust after it will even begin the right this ship of state.
5
Drivel.
8
My initial response to this article's headline and opening paragraphs was to flip a middle finger at the computer screen.
Upon finishing the article and thinking for a bit, I changed my mind: both middle fingers.
Mr. Tolstoy's arguments are gentle and reasonable enough, but to many American ears, they will be redolent of old pro-slavery wheedlings: slaves are generally better off in chains, because their masters ensure them three hots and a comfortable cot.
Our way of life has its inherent evils, but we have always believed them to be outweighed by one beautiful and redeeming good, personified in our patron goddess: Liberty. Given the choice between contented subjection and turbulent freedom, America will never hesitate to choose the latter. This is our identity, and this will be our legacy.
Upon finishing the article and thinking for a bit, I changed my mind: both middle fingers.
Mr. Tolstoy's arguments are gentle and reasonable enough, but to many American ears, they will be redolent of old pro-slavery wheedlings: slaves are generally better off in chains, because their masters ensure them three hots and a comfortable cot.
Our way of life has its inherent evils, but we have always believed them to be outweighed by one beautiful and redeeming good, personified in our patron goddess: Liberty. Given the choice between contented subjection and turbulent freedom, America will never hesitate to choose the latter. This is our identity, and this will be our legacy.
111
A couple of centuries ago, we saw very clearly how dynastic power can be misused. We still see that, most of us. Why would we give up the key advantage we built into our country's political and governing structures, that of time-limited leadership from individuals chosen by the public based on perceived merit and experience?
15
"No British monarch has been assassinated for about five centuries."
I attribute that to the Crown's iron hand in denying any rights, including what we here call Second Amendment rights, to the long subjugated people of Ireland.
Britain exported Irish grain and potatoes as a cash crop while millions died of starvation.
The presiding monarch, Victoria, referred to them as "that most distressful nation."
I'll take Clinton, or even Trump, over that monster.
I attribute that to the Crown's iron hand in denying any rights, including what we here call Second Amendment rights, to the long subjugated people of Ireland.
Britain exported Irish grain and potatoes as a cash crop while millions died of starvation.
The presiding monarch, Victoria, referred to them as "that most distressful nation."
I'll take Clinton, or even Trump, over that monster.
28
I am.not going to read this, because I assume I accidentally went to the Onion site.
84
Donald Trump would agree, provided he could be King.
32
I'm only here to acknowledge that this drivel does not deserve a riposte.
I was driven to posting this comment anyway by the absence of comments so far. Were it that it would remain so.
Move along, Nikolai. Nobody cares what you think.
I was driven to posting this comment anyway by the absence of comments so far. Were it that it would remain so.
Move along, Nikolai. Nobody cares what you think.
29
I wanted to make sure the word "drivel" was used here. Thanks for taking care of that, but it did bear repeating.
9
What rubbish.
Perhaps nobody killed a 20th or 19th century monarch because they are so thoroughly insignificant, often stupid and absolute dullards The British did of course celebrate the death of George IV (with headlines that shouted FINALLY!), and dance in the streets; breathed a huge sigh of relief when Old Vic finally had the grace to leave the stage and take her mourning tweeds and priggish ways with her. And let's not forget how glad they were to see the back of Ed 7 (marry your mistress AND get in bed with the Nazis). A role model for all. Thanks, Nicky but I'll take my chances America will do the right thing this Tuesday.
PS: Chancellor of the International Monarchist League? Surely that's not a real job--you crowned yourself right?
Perhaps nobody killed a 20th or 19th century monarch because they are so thoroughly insignificant, often stupid and absolute dullards The British did of course celebrate the death of George IV (with headlines that shouted FINALLY!), and dance in the streets; breathed a huge sigh of relief when Old Vic finally had the grace to leave the stage and take her mourning tweeds and priggish ways with her. And let's not forget how glad they were to see the back of Ed 7 (marry your mistress AND get in bed with the Nazis). A role model for all. Thanks, Nicky but I'll take my chances America will do the right thing this Tuesday.
PS: Chancellor of the International Monarchist League? Surely that's not a real job--you crowned yourself right?
145
You're talking about Edward VIII; Edward VII was actually very effective as a statesman.
5
Wow! What ignorance. Just to begin... Did you forget WW1? More elites that need to read Real history instead of what their Mummies and Daddies taught them.
47
Figurehead monarchies can work, yes, but it's way too late for the United States to get one of those. It's tempting, though.
44
In my opinion, the United States has had a monarchy for some time, yet, it is one that is probably more powerful than any that previously existed. It consists of Wall Street, the Banksters and Corporate America.
3
We can just adopt Queen Elizabeth II. We already follow the royals anyway.
6
Agreed
Although it would make sense for Americans to have someone of royal personage to send around for ceremonial purposes, which would allow the president more time to focus on running the country. And obviously for America, that would person would be her majesty The Queen B, Beyonce Knowles.