Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 05-09-2003, 07:54 AM

Since at least one person was interested why I described myself as a 'monarchist' I thought that I would create a new thread just to avoid excessive hijacking of the 'labelling' thread. Where to begin?
I have only started to THINK of myself as a monarchist in recent years (and never really told anyone since the subject doesn't much come up).
I'll try to give my thoughts on it via numbered points but make no claims to being coherent, let alone logical.

1) I know monarchism has no chance in the US (because of our history/because the President plays the role of head of state for 4 years at a stretch).

2) still even the 'lost cause' aspect of monarchism has its appeal for me (as do a number of lost causes: the Romanov dynasty, the Southern rebellion of the War between the States, etc.)

3) I also see the irony in an American calling himself a monarch and I smile at myself for it.

4) nevertheless it isn't entirely merely a personal quirk or indulgence.

5) I see politics as a practical matter, both in terms of policy decided upon and in terms of the symbols, associations, personages involved.

6) all too often though, modern politics, both among the elites and among ordinary people, functions as a morality tale, a substitute for a system of virtue, a way of affiliating in a quasi-familial and quasi-clanish way. (Federalists vs Anti-Federalists, Tories vs Labor, Trotskyists vs. Stalinists etc).

7) This is true in American society but I suspect it is true in just about ALL societies (and in primitive societies there really seems to be NO DISTINCTION WHATSOEVER between the religious and the secular).

8) But to get back to the PRACTICAL way of looking at politics: if we look at things since the French Revolution, what do we see?
The French Revolution (ie the overthrow of a class system but a monarch as well) was succeeded by the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte; if he was not more powerful than Louis XIV
he certainly affected Frenchmen more: they were forced to fight from Paris to Moscow. Yet apparently few saw the contradiction of crowning Napoleon Emperor in the name of 'liberty, equality and fraternity'. It was (and in some circles still is) described as 'continuing to spread the ideals of the French Revolution' (!!!!).
By way of an Emperor(!!!).

9) More recently, what was the most salient feature of the 20th Century? The rise and spread of 2 great systems of ideology: fascism(in the widest sense: that of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco etc)
and communism (Marxism-Leninism). The former was quite explicit about the role of the leader (Il Duce, der Fuehrer etc,).

10) But when we look at many communist societies we see something quite similar: The "cult of personality": gigantic statues of Stalin, Kim Il Song etc.; the ubiquitous book of the sayings of Chairman Mao; enormous power devolving to one man.

11) In the case of communism this should be unexpected: Marx and Lenin's writings stressed the role of masses, of classes IN LIEU of personalities.

12) In reaction to the above the political moralist shouts "Hypocrisy!" , the political logician shouts "Illogical and inconsistent".

13) The realist, by contrast, strokes his chin and says "Hmmm this leader-worshipping thing must be deeply engrained in the human psyche to keep appearing again and again!"

14) And so it is: in society after society a single leader personifies the state, serves as a kind of human national flag.

[END OF PART ONE; TO BE CONTINUED]

Hubble head · 05-09-2003, 08:07 AM

Are you high? Monarchy -Oh yea -lets all support one corrupt jackass or family of inbred corrupt jackasses who think they deserve to be above the law by some unidentifiable right and everyone else is a little piece of shite.

They need a goofy religion to stay in power more than any other form of Govt.

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."-Denis Diderot

And centralized leadership by one or a few ALWAYS ends badly:
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Read some good world history sources. I don't have time today to go back and forth or pull all the illogic out of your shpeal but I'm sure someone will soon enough.

Misso · 05-09-2003, 08:53 AM

Two things in defense of monarchy: it provides fluidity and competence.

In a presidential and parliamentary system, the whole society could, in theory, be rearranged every four years (or whatever the term is). In a monarchy, where one leader usually stays in power for 30 or more years, things will most likely not change as much and mainly not as rapidly as possible in a presidential and parlimentary system.
The competence factor should not be underestimated. Traditionally, heirs to the crown receive a higer education that the common man, and receive specific education in the field of political sciences and the like. In a democracy it's possible to get a total incompetent idiot (e.g. an actor) as a ruler, whereas in a monarchy this risk is much more limited by the received education.

The downsides are indeed the lack of democracy (education doesn't mean one knows what is best) and the monarch's absolute power, though many of today's monarchies' powers are very limited by the parlimentary democracy built around them. I believe worldwide only three absolute monarchs remain, one of which is moving towards democracy.

Jat · 05-09-2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Hubble head

Are you high? Monarchy -Oh yea -lets all support one corrupt jackass or family of inbred corrupt jackasses who think they deserve to be above the law by some unidentifiable right and everyone else is a little piece of shite.

Like with Bush?

Grad Student Humanist · 05-09-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Misso
The competence factor should not be underestimated. Traditionally, heirs to the crown receive a higer education that the common man, and receive specific education in the field of political sciences and the like. In a democracy it's possible to get a total incompetent idiot (e.g. an actor) as a ruler, whereas in a monarchy this risk is much more limited by the received education.

This "specific education" is no protection at all against an incompetent monarch.

First of all, if the King's firstborn son is an idiot, no education in the world is going to make him a fit ruler. Yet, it would be his right to rule anyway. Ditto if he were a psychopath or had some other mental illness.

Or, the King's son could be well-educated AND a selfish prick who cared only about himself and his power and not about his people. In which case he would still be an incompetent ruler and the people would have to put with him for life.

As bad as Bush is, he was voted in. People knew he was an idiot and still voted for him. Had the electorate been wiser they would have rejected him, but the point is that Bush didn't have any right to be the ruler, he had to win the approval of the people.

With a monarchy, the King's firstborn son becomes King whether or not he is competent and whether or not the people want him. History shows, over and over again, how any incompetent boob can be King, as long as he belongs to the right family.

Hubble head · 05-09-2003, 09:23 AM

Exactly the point Jat, thx. I hope we still have some ability for our elections process to work without corruption. I think it will be tough in 04 for the neo-cons and Bushies to win if the playing field is level.

August Spies · 05-09-2003, 09:34 AM

theyeti · 05-09-2003, 09:38 AM

Leonarde: I find your reasoning somewhat bizzare, but thanks for sharing. BTW, what do you think about the obvious sucess of republican forms of government since the 1800's? Your one-leader-as-human-nature angle is interesting, but it seems to me that it's hard to maintain in the face of what would appear to be empirical disconfirmation.

theyeti

Alan G · 05-09-2003, 10:33 AM

As someone who lives in a country with a monarchy, please take them. If you wish a system where there is an unelected leader chosen because of who their parents were then you are welcome to them. Please also take over my responsibility of paying taxes to keep them in the lap of luxury in lavish palaces whilst people go hungry on the streets.

P.S.

see how some newly elected MSP's responded to having to take an oath of loyalty to the Queen

from The Scotsman

from the BBC

meritocrat · 05-09-2003, 11:20 AM

Monarchism in itself is a rather outdated ideology. Maybe during the 17th century it possesed greater prominence.

Besides, contemporary monarchists support constitutional monarchy. I suppose a monarch can be a 'focal point' for the people nonetheless if a monarch is a figurehead within a liberal democracy, why simply not have a president or republic-type system?

05-09-2003, 07:54 AM	#1
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Why I am a monarchist Since at least one person was interested why I described myself as a 'monarchist' I thought that I would create a new thread just to avoid excessive hijacking of the 'labelling' thread. Where to begin? I have only started to THINK of myself as a monarchist in recent years (and never really told anyone since the subject doesn't much come up). I'll try to give my thoughts on it via numbered points but make no claims to being coherent, let alone logical. 1) I know monarchism has no chance in the US (because of our history/because the President plays the role of head of state for 4 years at a stretch). 2) still even the 'lost cause' aspect of monarchism has its appeal for me (as do a number of lost causes: the Romanov dynasty, the Southern rebellion of the War between the States, etc.) 3) I also see the irony in an American calling himself a monarch and I smile at myself for it. 4) nevertheless it isn't entirely merely a personal quirk or indulgence. 5) I see politics as a practical matter, both in terms of policy decided upon and in terms of the symbols, associations, personages involved. 6) all too often though, modern politics, both among the elites and among ordinary people, functions as a morality tale, a substitute for a system of virtue, a way of affiliating in a quasi-familial and quasi-clanish way. (Federalists vs Anti-Federalists, Tories vs Labor, Trotskyists vs. Stalinists etc). 7) This is true in American society but I suspect it is true in just about ALL societies (and in primitive societies there really seems to be NO DISTINCTION WHATSOEVER between the religious and the secular). 8) But to get back to the PRACTICAL way of looking at politics: if we look at things since the French Revolution, what do we see? The French Revolution (ie the overthrow of a class system but a monarch as well) was succeeded by the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte; if he was not more powerful than Louis XIV he certainly affected Frenchmen more: they were forced to fight from Paris to Moscow. Yet apparently few saw the contradiction of crowning Napoleon Emperor in the name of 'liberty, equality and fraternity'. It was (and in some circles still is) described as 'continuing to spread the ideals of the French Revolution' (!!!!). By way of an Emperor(!!!). 9) More recently, what was the most salient feature of the 20th Century? The rise and spread of 2 great systems of ideology: fascism(in the widest sense: that of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco etc) and communism (Marxism-Leninism). The former was quite explicit about the role of the leader (Il Duce, der Fuehrer etc,). 10) But when we look at many communist societies we see something quite similar: The "cult of personality": gigantic statues of Stalin, Kim Il Song etc.; the ubiquitous book of the sayings of Chairman Mao; enormous power devolving to one man. 11) In the case of communism this should be unexpected: Marx and Lenin's writings stressed the role of masses, of classes IN LIEU of personalities. 12) In reaction to the above the political moralist shouts "Hypocrisy!" , the political logician shouts "Illogical and inconsistent". 13) The realist, by contrast, strokes his chin and says "Hmmm this leader-worshipping thing must be deeply engrained in the human psyche to keep appearing again and again!" 14) And so it is: in society after society a single leader personifies the state, serves as a kind of human national flag. [END OF PART ONE; TO BE CONTINUED]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-09-2003, 08:07 AM	#2
Hubble head Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Corn rows Posts: 4,570	Are you high? Monarchy -Oh yea -lets all support one corrupt jackass or family of inbred corrupt jackasses who think they deserve to be above the law by some unidentifiable right and everyone else is a little piece of shite. They need a goofy religion to stay in power more than any other form of Govt. "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."-Denis Diderot And centralized leadership by one or a few ALWAYS ends badly: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Read some good world history sources. I don't have time today to go back and forth or pull all the illogic out of your shpeal but I'm sure someone will soon enough.

05-09-2003, 08:53 AM	#3
Misso Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 570	Two things in defense of monarchy: it provides fluidity and competence. In a presidential and parliamentary system, the whole society could, in theory, be rearranged every four years (or whatever the term is). In a monarchy, where one leader usually stays in power for 30 or more years, things will most likely not change as much and mainly not as rapidly as possible in a presidential and parlimentary system. The competence factor should not be underestimated. Traditionally, heirs to the crown receive a higer education that the common man, and receive specific education in the field of political sciences and the like. In a democracy it's possible to get a total incompetent idiot (e.g. an actor) as a ruler, whereas in a monarchy this risk is much more limited by the received education. The downsides are indeed the lack of democracy (education doesn't mean one knows what is best) and the monarch's absolute power, though many of today's monarchies' powers are very limited by the parlimentary democracy built around them. I believe worldwide only three absolute monarchs remain, one of which is moving towards democracy.

05-09-2003, 09:05 AM	#4
Jat Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 1,311	Originally posted by Hubble head Are you high? Monarchy -Oh yea -lets all support one corrupt jackass or family of inbred corrupt jackasses who think they deserve to be above the law by some unidentifiable right and everyone else is a little piece of shite. Like with Bush?

05-09-2003, 09:23 AM	#6
Hubble head Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Corn rows Posts: 4,570	Exactly the point Jat, thx. I hope we still have some ability for our elections process to work without corruption. I think it will be tough in 04 for the neo-cons and Bushies to win if the playing field is level.

05-09-2003, 09:34 AM	#7
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950

05-09-2003, 09:38 AM	#8
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	Leonarde: I find your reasoning somewhat bizzare, but thanks for sharing. BTW, what do you think about the obvious sucess of republican forms of government since the 1800's? Your one-leader-as-human-nature angle is interesting, but it seems to me that it's hard to maintain in the face of what would appear to be empirical disconfirmation. theyeti

05-09-2003, 10:33 AM	#9
Alan G Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Scotland Posts: 155	As someone who lives in a country with a monarchy, please take them. If you wish a system where there is an unelected leader chosen because of who their parents were then you are welcome to them. Please also take over my responsibility of paying taxes to keep them in the lap of luxury in lavish palaces whilst people go hungry on the streets. P.S. see how some newly elected MSP's responded to having to take an oath of loyalty to the Queen from The Scotsman from the BBC

05-09-2003, 11:20 AM	#10
meritocrat Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 2,608	Monarchism in itself is a rather outdated ideology. Maybe during the 17th century it possesed greater prominence. Besides, contemporary monarchists support constitutional monarchy. I suppose a monarch can be a 'focal point' for the people nonetheless if a monarch is a figurehead within a liberal democracy, why simply not have a president or republic-type system?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.