Sabine Grant

Buffman: what does George Bush have to do with the concept of monarchy in France? A King is not elected. Certainly not by half of the population while the other half roots for another candidate.

You would be surprised how many French are royalists. We even have a party named the NAR ( Nouvelle Action Royaliste) which is of no use since the King is not the man of any party. The notion of monarchy is more sentimental than it is effective in terms of politics though Charles de Gaulle was a monarchist and offered an opportunity to Henry d'Orleans during WWII to restore monarchy.( while Henry was in Algiers).

Enough with french history...so let us leave George Bush where he belongs.

leonarde

Back to monarchy:

1)The fact that monarchs popped up all over the
globe in one form or another indicates that there
is at least a trope in that direction in human
societies.

2)Even if only ceremonial, a monarch is a marvelous symbol of national unity.

3)When monarchs are dispatched to the guillotine
(France)or the firing squad (Russia), the "revolutionary" ethos tends toward instability until it (the ethos) can be used as a justification for a single ruler far more powerful
that the deposed monarch ever was (Napoleon, Stalin).

4)Democratic institutions tend to satisfy no one
completely: someone is always out of power and the
horse-trading which is the bread and butter of
legislators seems a mean practice....

Cheers!

Buffman

Sabine Grant

Buffman: what does George Bush have to do with the concept of monarchy in France?

Did someone else say this?

As for myself, I support a constitutional monarchy, I am not an american and I want to reassure you that most monarchies in Europe are far from being in the "Dark Ages".

A King is not elected. Certainly not by half of the population while the other half roots for another candidate.

Some might argue that GWB was not elected.

You would be surprised how many French are royalists. We even have a party named the NAR ( Nouvelle Action Royaliste) which is of no use since the King is not the man of any party.

I spent time in Europe associating with representatives from many countries. I am well aware of attitudes in France and about the French.

The notion of monarchy is more sentimental than it is effective in terms of politics though Charles de Gaulle was a monarchist and offered an opportunity to Henry d'Orleans during WWII to restore monarchy.( while Henry was in Algiers).

I am also well aware of Gen. de Gaulle's history before, during and after WW II.

<a href="http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/en/books_art/fiches_t/cdg_algerie.htm" target="_blank">http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/en/books_art/fiches_t/cdg_algerie.htm</a>

(Extract)
Between November 1954 and the end of 1962, tens of thousands died in Algeria. The Evian accords were followed by a series of tragedies, such as the FLN massacre of pro-French Algerians, in particular of the Harkis (Algerians who served in the French armed forces) who were recruited against the General's instructions, the massacre of independence supporters by the OAS, and the massive exodus of the French colonists, the "pieds-noirs". The scars that marked the French population as a result of this war - which the French government has only just recognised as such - would take years to heal.
End extract)

Enough with french history...so let us leave George Bush where he belongs.

Unfortunately you do not seem to be as aware of how American and French history are intertwined. Here is a cursory refresher.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/thefrenchrevolution/causes.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/thefrenchrevolution/causes.html</a>

Now you might wish to review these:

<a href="http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/museum/exhibits/JA.html" target="_blank">http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/museum/exhibits/JA.html</a>

(Extracts)
Protocol and ceremony had to be determined. Precedents were being set. As President of the Senate constitutionally he could only vote during a tie. Adams, of course, chafed at this largely ceremonial role. He expended a lot of political capital on a huge debate over how the president should be addressed - "Mr. Washington" or "Sir" or "Your Excellency" or "Mr. President" or "His Highness". Adams persisted with more formal titles, but the Senate preferred the simple "Mr. President." He lost the fight. Eventually, he reigned himself in and stopped lecturing the Senate on issues, but he lost considerable respect with his colleagues.

Internationally, the revolution in France was a subject of intense speculation in the United States. Feelings ran strong in discussions regarding the tyranny of the mob versus the tyranny of the monarchy. Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate soon divided themselves into Parties. Some supported the Federalist Party led by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton; other supported the Republican-Democrats led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. President Washington's entire Cabinet had split into factions. President Washington was above petty squabbles through most of his eight years in office, but toward the end of his term, he too was coming under public criticism. Vice President Adams remained staunchly independent, but isolated. Adams found comfort in writing a series of articles eventually published as Discourses on Davila.

When Washington declined to stand for elections for a third term, John Adams was elected President, with Thomas Jefferson his vice president. He inherited a tough international situation and a fractious domestic political landscape. Though Washington had issued a Proclamation of Neutrality, France continued to intercept American shipping because of France's war with England. Adams would not declare war on its former ally. Adams did promote a strong navy for defense. After Adams' peace mission failed and he was severely criticized. He signed the highly unpopular Alien and Sedition Acts that imposed fines and prison for criticizing the government.

In 1800, Adams sent a second mission to France, now under Napoleon, avoiding war through last-minute masterful diplomacy. This news arrived too late to save the domestic political situation, and Adams lost the presidential election to Thomas Jefferson. Adams left Washington, D.C., not attending Jefferson's inauguration
(End extract)

I most definitely believe you should read this and do some follow-up study/research.

<a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0852911.html" target="_blank">http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0852911.html</a>

Perhaps this will help you to better understand my previous post.

galiel

Appropo Buffman's history links:

Ever read Scandalmonger by William Safire? Great fun. A fictionalized but historically-accurate version of the events you describe, including the XYZ affair, among others, during those exciting times in the late 18th century, from the perspective of the two chief (and eternally rival) muckracking journalists of the era. A well-written romp through demythologizing all of our early heros. I hate Safire's politics, but he sure can write.

For another perspective, and a tale of one of the most amazing yet least-known dramas of early American history, I highly recommend: American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns, by Richard n. Rosenfeld. An amazing true story of the newspaper, published and edited by Benjamin Bache, grandson of Benjamin Franklin, and William Duane, that dared to debunk the Washington myth and revealed John Adams' plot to overthrow democracy and install himself as King of America.

Both editors were arrested and one died awaiting trial. This was the true reason behind the passage of the notorious Sedition Act of 1798, and serves as a remarkable cautionary tale. Never in our history have we come closer to losing our democratic republic entirely.

Aurora also serves to set the record straight: many of our early triumphs were not, in fact due to the warrior-heroes' acts of bravery in battle; they were due, more often than not, to the careful diplomacy and peaceful negotiation of men of letters like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

This was the book that turned me on to history, after having turned my back to it, like most people, because of the boring and uninspiring way it is taught in school. I find American history in particular to be fascinating, because we are a relatively young country, and have so much original documentation from the years of our country's founding, and because the key people involved are so modern in their sensibilities and political understandings.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Colander of Truth

Of course, if it is a gay woman, she belongs to class of people wo are LEAST likely to have AIDS.

Why is that? Is god a lesbian?

Goriller

I agree.

All governments are religious. The government of the United States operates under the religion of secular humanism. The option is not religious government or nonreligious government but rather which religious government.

To say that verse condemns that belief is to read way too much into the text.

Why shouldn't they be considered criminal activities today?

No. That would be an ecclesiocracy. I'm in favor of a constitutional monarchy. All constitutions are written from someone's perspective of a just system (presumably). The Bible condemns people who do what they think is right. Instead, we have an obligation to find out what is right (from the scriptures) and do that.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Goriller ]</p>

Buffman

Goriller

All governments are religious. The government of the United States operates under the religion of secular humanism. The option is not religious government or nonreligious government but rather which religious government.

Please tell me which "supernatural" power is the one worshipped by the secular humanists of our government. Additionally, exactly which of our elected officials are secular humanists. I would love to know so I can vote for them again.

If you are unable to provide verifiable evidence for your claims, might I recommend that you take your dog and pony show over to a religious propaganda site that will support your allegations on faith alone. Thank you. And Zeus be with you.

ADDED

Galiel

Oresta and I have been tauting "American Aurora" for nearly two years. It really "de-iconizes" many of our founding fathers. There were plenty of mean-spirited and devious men (and women) back then...especially among those in office or desiring political power. Being able to read the actual newspaper editorials, from both sides, is quite an enlightening, and somewhat depressing, experience.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Goriller

There is a difference between sins and crimes. All Biblical crimes are sins but not all sins are Biblical crimes. Jesus said if you hate someone, you have committed murder in your heart, but He never said if you hate someone you should be executed for committing murder.

Goriller

<a href="http://because41.tripod.com/text/humanism.htm" target="_blank">http://because41.tripod.com/text/humanism.htm</a>

Goriller

They should work for food and water. Second Thessalonians 3:10 says, "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this, that if anyone would not work, neither should he eat."