Monarchy to Come to U.S. -

[jbg]

I did not want to sidetrack another thread (link). However, maybe, if anything, we as a republic could use a little more monarchy and a little less republic. I have excerpted below Nicholas Kristoff's Op-Ed in a very recent New York Times (link). Among the advantages not mentioned is that Richard M. Nixon have been exiled to San Clemente, and granted a pardon, with far less trauma then we experienced as a nation.

Thoughts? Excerpts below:

June 9, 2010

A Modest Proposal: A King and Queen for America

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

The national campaign to get President Obama to emote, throw crockery at oil executives and jump up and down in fury has failed. But here’s a long-term solution: Let’s anoint a king and queen.

If we can just get over George III, our new constitutional monarchs could serve as National Hand-Holders, Morale-Boosters-in-Chief and Founts of American Indignation.

Our king and queen could spend days traipsing along tar-ball-infested beaches, while bathing oil-soaked pelicans and thrusting strong chins defiantly at BP rigs.

All that would give President Obama time to devise actual clean-up policies. He might then also be able to concentrate on eliminating absurd government policies that make these disasters more likely (such as the $75 million cap on economic damages when an oil rig is responsible for a spill).

Our president is stuck with too many ceremonial duties as head of state, such as greeting ambassadors and holding tedious state dinners, that divert attention from solving problems. You can preside over America or you can address its problems, but it’s difficult to find time to do both.

Other countries often hand over ceremonial duties to a titular head of state with no real powers — sort of a national nanny.

In Japan, the head of state is effectively the emperor. In Germany, it’s the ceremonial president. In Britain, it’s the queen. Canada divides the job of head of state between Queen Elizabeth (a freebie since she’s on the British payroll) and her representative, the governor general.

A figurehead head of state is a nifty foreign policy tool as well. President Obama has twice had to delay his trip to Indonesia and Australia because of the press of domestic policy, but an American king and queen could spend days greeting crowds and cutting ribbons at new schools. And when they aren’t traveling, our king and queen could be kept busy hosting state dinners five nights a week.

********************

If we choose well and adopt royals who are prone to scandal, we might also give a much-needed boost to the newspaper industry. A particularly fecund couple might offer the prospect of regular royal weddings, with sales of enough commemorative kitsch to balance the federal budget.

How should we choose a king and queen? Frankly, we already have royalty: Hollywood celebrities. And they are well trained to emote and explode on demand.

Just imagine the Nielsen ratings for an Academy Awards-type evening in which Americans would choose a royal family for the first time — live!

I frankly could come up with a far better monarch, and she speaks English just fine; Queen Elizabeth II.

[Jack Weber]

Some fixated poster here is going to be ALL over this...

Edited June 17, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Bonam]

I frankly could come up with a far better monarch, and she speaks English just fine; Queen Elizabeth II.

Even if America offered her this position, I doubt she'd want the job. Being Queen of the U.S.A sounds like a lot of trouble and not much benefit.

[jbg]

Even if America offered her this position, I doubt she'd want the job. Being Queen of the U.S.A sounds like a lot of trouble and not much benefit.

1. The sun would again no longer set on the British Empire;
2. A galling military defeat (1783) and equally galling war fought to a draw (1812-1814) would be reversed at the stroke of a pen; and
3. She will have restored to the United Kingdom empire greater than it ever experienced even at prior colonial peaks.

[ToadBrother]

Some fixated poster here is goig to ALL over this...

I think someone is intentionally trying to piss of bushcheney2004.

[Bonam]

1. The sun would again no longer set on the British Empire;
2. A galling military defeat (1783) and equally galling war fought to a draw (1812-1814) would be reversed at the stroke of a pen; and
3. She will have restored to the United Kingdom empire greater than it ever experienced even at prior colonial peaks.

Except of course that there is no British Empire and Queen Elizabeth II being given some minor ceremonial roles in the US would not change that.

[jbg]

I think someone is intentionally trying to piss of bushcheney2004.

I don't know or care what Bush Cheney 2004's position on this is. So it's not me.

[g_bambino]

[M]aybe, if anything, we as a republic could use a little more monarchy and a little less republic.

You might be intrigued by this piece in The Boston Globe; not that the US is a "modernizing country", but:

Many modernizing countries have found that a monarch provides a source of authority and national identity that stands apart from political squabbles. He or she can serve simply as a figurehead, or more substantively as a kind of independent power center that can check the worst impulses of elected politicians.

Saved by the crown

An article I would'nt've expected to see in a major US newspaper.

[c/e]

Edited June 17, 2010 by g_bambino

[jbg]

You might be intrigued by this piece in The Boston Globe; not that the US is a "modernizing country", but:

An article I would'nt've expected to see in a major US newspaper.

[c/e]

So the Kristoff piece is not alone. Thanks.

[Machjo]

I did not want to sidetrack another thread (link). However, maybe, if anything, we as a republic could use a little more monarchy and a little less republic. I have excerpted below Nicholas Kristoff's Op-Ed in a very recent New York Times (link). Among the advantages not mentioned is that Richard M. Nixon have been exiled to San Clemente, and granted a pardon, with far less trauma then we experienced as a nation.

Thoughts? Excerpts below:

June 9, 2010

A Modest Proposal: A King and Queen for America

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

The national campaign to get President Obama to emote, throw crockery at oil executives and jump up and down in fury has failed. But here’s a long-term solution: Let’s anoint a king and queen.

If we can just get over George III, our new constitutional monarchs could serve as National Hand-Holders, Morale-Boosters-in-Chief and Founts of American Indignation.

Our king and queen could spend days traipsing along tar-ball-infested beaches, while bathing oil-soaked pelicans and thrusting strong chins defiantly at BP rigs.

All that would give President Obama time to devise actual clean-up policies. He might then also be able to concentrate on eliminating absurd government policies that make these disasters more likely (such as the $75 million cap on economic damages when an oil rig is responsible for a spill).

Our president is stuck with too many ceremonial duties as head of state, such as greeting ambassadors and holding tedious state dinners, that divert attention from solving problems. You can preside over America or you can address its problems, but it’s difficult to find time to do both.

Other countries often hand over ceremonial duties to a titular head of state with no real powers — sort of a national nanny.

In Japan, the head of state is effectively the emperor. In Germany, it’s the ceremonial president. In Britain, it’s the queen. Canada divides the job of head of state between Queen Elizabeth (a freebie since she’s on the British payroll) and her representative, the governor general.

A figurehead head of state is a nifty foreign policy tool as well. President Obama has twice had to delay his trip to Indonesia and Australia because of the press of domestic policy, but an American king and queen could spend days greeting crowds and cutting ribbons at new schools. And when they aren’t traveling, our king and queen could be kept busy hosting state dinners five nights a week.

********************

If we choose well and adopt royals who are prone to scandal, we might also give a much-needed boost to the newspaper industry. A particularly fecund couple might offer the prospect of regular royal weddings, with sales of enough commemorative kitsch to balance the federal budget.

How should we choose a king and queen? Frankly, we already have royalty: Hollywood celebrities. And they are well trained to emote and explode on demand.

Just imagine the Nielsen ratings for an Academy Awards-type evening in which Americans would choose a royal family for the first time — live!

I frankly could come up with a far better monarch, and she speaks English just fine; Queen Elizabeth II.

There's a flaw in the article though; if the US should have a monarch, it would not have a president. This would mean that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would likely become the Prime Minister. Unless of course it would involve a complete restructuring of the US government to become a Constitutional Monarchy.

Then there is the question of the rules of successorship. Would it be an elective monarchy or an inheritance-based monarchy? If the latter, would the US simply rejoin the Commonwealth? Though constitutional monarchy does have its advantages over a republic, let's not assume that all constitutional monarchies are the same.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If the latter, would the US simply rejoin the Commonwealth? Though constitutional monarchy does have its advantages over a republic, let's not assume that all constitutional monarchies are the same.

Point of order please...by definition (and formal declaration) the USA was never part of the Commonwealth.

[Machjo]

Point of order please...by definition (and formal declaration) the USA was never part of the Commonwealth.

Good point. Sorry about that. And granted I guess there would be no obligation for the US to join the Commonwealth. If it should choose an elective monarchy, then there is no guarantee that it would be the Queen of England; and even if it were, the two would still be two separate issues, though my guess is the US would see an advantage in joining the Commonwealth if it ended up sharing a common monarch.

[Machjo]

Personally though, I would be in favour of an elective constitutional monarchy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

It would thus benefit from the advantages of constitutional monarchy while avoiding some of its flaws.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If it should choose an elective monarchy, then there is no guarantee that it would be the Queen of England; and even if it were, the two would still be two separate issues, though my guess is the US would see an advantage in joining the Commonwealth if it ended up sharing a common monarch.

Very problematic....from the legal exclusion of Catholics to the requirement for an elected head-of-state. What worked for Cameroon will not work for the USA. There is no obvious political, economic, or military advantage to be gained by the USA in joining any commonwealth....or as you pointed out...The Commonwealth.

Edited June 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

Good point. Sorry about that. And granted I guess there would be no obligation for the US to join the Commonwealth. If it should choose an elective monarchy, then there is no guarantee that it would be the Queen of England; and even if it were, the two would still be two separate issues, though my guess is the US would see an advantage in joining the Commonwealth if it ended up sharing a common monarch.

I was the one who suggested that Queen Elizabeth II and her successors would be a good choice.

[Machjo]

Very problematic....from the legal exclusion of Catholics to the requirement for an elected head-of-state. What worked for Cameroon will not work for the USA. There is no obvious political, economic, or military advantage to be gained by the USA in joining any commonwealth....or as you pointed out...The Commonwealth.

As for the legal exclusion of Catholics, that is not intrinsic to the concept of monarchy but applies exclusively to the British monarch. If the US had an elective monarch, there would be no guarantee that it would share a monarch with any other nation at any given point in time. It could even happen that it would share a monarch on occasion and on other occasions not. This could also cause problems in joining any kind of Commonwealth owing to such instability on that front. As for an inherited monarchy, then it's difficult to ascertain, since it has its disadvantages too. If the US were to go from republic to monarchy, it would certainly be wise to think it through and ensure they move towards something better than they have now and not worse. Even if it just broke even, it would not be worth all the change just to adopt something no better nor worse. They'd have to be sure it really is a step up, and unfortunately, since both republic and monarchy each have their strong points, it is a tough one to quantify very objectively.

[Machjo]

By the way, what worked for Cameroon? It's currently a republic. Did I miss anything?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... They'd have to be sure it really is a step up, and unfortunately, since both republic and monarchy each have their strong points, it is a tough one to quantify very objectively.

If we strip away the assumed and parochial advantages of a "monarch" in terms presently defined for the existing Commonwealth, there is no such imperative for the US to change anything that isn't already possible as a republic.

[bush_cheney2004]

As for the legal exclusion of Catholics, that is not intrinsic to the concept of monarchy but applies exclusively to the British monarch.

Clearly you can see then that this hypothetical fairs better if we ignore the existing British Commonwealth and Holy Trinity of the British throne. Think fresh.....

[jbg]

If we strip away the assumed and parochial advantages of a "monarch" in terms presently defined for the existing Commonwealth, there is no such imperative for the US to change anything that isn't already possible as a republic.

I see as advantages removing the ceremonial aspect of the current President's job. His job is really a fusion of a monarch and Prime Minister and wearing two hats can be awkward. Also, having a monarch creates a method of untangling knotty situations involving a rogue President or PM such as Richard M. Nixon or Gough Whitlam (Australia).

[bush_cheney2004]

I see as advantages removing the ceremonial aspect of the current President's job. His job is really a fusion of a monarch and Prime Minister and wearing two hats can be awkward. Also, having a monarch creates a method of untangling knotty situations involving a rogue President or PM such as Richard M. Nixon or Gough Whitlam (Australia).

I disagree....as the US State Department (and Sec'y of State) exists to fulfill this other purpose. Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were never above the US Constitution, and neither shall be a monarch.

[bloodyminded]

I can't see any really compelling reason for the U.S. to adopt it, even if they wanted to (which seems unlikely). Any current flaws in the system would be easily matched by new ones.

[ToadBrother]

I see as advantages removing the ceremonial aspect of the current President's job. His job is really a fusion of a monarch and Prime Minister and wearing two hats can be awkward. Also, having a monarch creates a method of untangling knotty situations involving a rogue President or PM such as Richard M. Nixon or Gough Whitlam (Australia).

The Constitution affords Congress the means to turf a truly rogue President. As to wearing multiple hats, I don't really see how that adds that much complication. While I'm sure every President has felt differently about greeting foreign dignitaries and holding state dinners, it strikes me that at least some in recent memory rather enjoyed them. Probably one of the highlights of the Reagan presidency, for instance, was the glamor that the President and the First Lady brought to such events. Ronnie and Nancy may have their flaws, but by all accounts they knew how to throw great parties, and oddly enough, in international diplomacy since ancient times, that has been critical.

But the Queen's role is more involved than opening bridges and greeting presidents, and while she is constitutionally constrained, by all accounts her weekly meetings with Her Prime Ministers are, at times, very rigorous affairs for Prime Ministers.

Besides, removing an errant or unwanted monarch has been more troublesome than removing an errant President. Most of the cases have involved considerable intrigue, assassination, open warfare and revolt. There really is no constitutional convention in our system for it. They turfed James II largely on the grounds of his poorly-concealed Catholicism, though the real reason was his dedication to his old man's absolutist notions.

Edited June 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

As for the legal exclusion of Catholics, that is not intrinsic to the concept of monarchy but applies exclusively to the British monarch.

No, it applies to our monarch, as well.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No, it applies to our monarch, as well.

Because our monarch and the british monarch are the same person, there is nothing stopping us from appointing a Catholic monarch.