The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
An Atheistic Individualist Defense of Monarchism
Since I am an uppity commoner I will forgo flattery of the company to which I have been kindly elevated and dive right in. The belief posited by Pitt that a defense of Monarchism rests necessarily on a belief in god, a hierarchy ordained by god, and a moral order ordained by god is to my mind false.
As a republican, a defender of mixed and balanced government, I believe that there are several rational arguments to be made in favor of a constitutionally limited monarchy. I believe that when (to steal a line) in the course of human events a group of people must frame a government, there are reasons to consider a limited monarch.
First a hereditary head of state keeps the top job out of the hands of politicians. No matter the nobility of their intentions, all politicians want power. It is questionable weather it is a good idea to give the largest amount of state power and the prestige of Head of State to the same person and one who has fought hard to get it.
Second as you have noted, there is a definite (presumably natural) inequality among people. As many political observers have noticed, an aristocracy, hereditary or natural, is the repository of a great deal of talent and wisdom the taping of which is in the interests of the republic, but an aristocracy is also the reservoir of a great deal of ambition which can provoke serious and destructive rivalry. [An example of the later is the last presidential election where two members of the American aristocracy (such as it is) squared off against each other. Both men are descended from the early British settlers and are something like 14th cousins twice removed.] A monarch lessens this rivalry because the top spot is filled.
Third the Monarch can serve as check on the elected legislature and executive. Just because the majority wants something it does not always follow that they should get it. Further elected legislators and executive officers do not always act in their constituent’s interests. Powers such as: a limited veto, the chairmanship of a committee to nominate judges, and the presidency of the upper house of the legislature can be safely vested in a hereditary head of state.
Fourth, a hereditary head of State is trained from birth to fulfill this roll. This obviously has many advantages over having a Head of State who is trained to win elections.
Fifth, a hereditary head of state has the advantage of a life term of office to gather a huge amount of experience. The difference in experience between say President Ronald Reagan President 1980-1988 and H.M. Elizabeth II (1952-to the present) is simply incalculable. Her reign has already spanned 10 presidencies and if her mom is any indication it will span at least four more. She knows everyone of importance. A monarch is able to use this experience to advise the elected head of government.
Sixth, a Hereditary Head of State has a longer term view of the interests of the nation than an elected politician. Though an elected head of state may have the best of intentions for the long run health of the nation, he has no interest beyond his term of office. A Hereditary Head of State has an interest not only in the nation prospering during his or her reign, but for the reigns of his or her children and grand children.
Seventh, in countries where monarchism is already established, it’s a tradition. The idea that a Hereditary Head of State is old fashioned is just a way of saying it is traditional. The only justification for changing a tradition is that it is a positive evil or that it obstructs a positive good. Changing the form of government because it is unstylish is silly. Habits are a powerful force in everything and politics is no exception. Why does the loser of an election accept the results? Because that is what we (democratic peoples) do.
Eighth, is a closely allied reason to the forgoing, sentiment. People feel a sentimental attraction to the Royal Family, because they are a family. They are people and the public knows about them, their triumphs and their foibles. The late Queen Mum is an example of the power of sentiment. Her death was front page news even here in the states. I am one of many Americans who were saddened by her death. Who can forget how she and her husband helped inspire the British People in freedom’s darkest hour. Some might argue that sentiment is no basis for a political system, but sentiment is a powerful political force. The U.S. veneration of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is a similar phenomena.
Some may think it strange for a republican (and a libertarian one at that) to write a defense of the idea of a Hereditary Head of State, which leads me to the last point I want make, the United Kingdom is a republic. It has been a republic for several hundred years. A republic, res publica, the public thing, is a government not controlled solely by the one, the few, or the many. It is not a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy, but a blend of all three. This has described Britain since magna carta.
If it were true that monarchism could only be defended by reference to some realm of experience beyond rational human understanding than I would be an anti monarchist. Because this is far from the case, I hold that properly constrained (as all government must be constrained) a monarch can be part of a rational system of government.
POSTED BY: adams AT 12:33 a.m. | LINKS |
Since I am an uppity commoner I will forgo flattery of the company to which I have been kindly elevated and dive right in. The belief posited by Pitt that a defense of Monarchism rests necessarily on a belief in god, a hierarchy ordained by god, and a moral order ordained by god is to my mind false.
As a republican, a defender of mixed and balanced government, I believe that there are several rational arguments to be made in favor of a constitutionally limited monarchy. I believe that when (to steal a line) in the course of human events a group of people must frame a government, there are reasons to consider a limited monarch.
First a hereditary head of state keeps the top job out of the hands of politicians. No matter the nobility of their intentions, all politicians want power. It is questionable weather it is a good idea to give the largest amount of state power and the prestige of Head of State to the same person and one who has fought hard to get it.
Second as you have noted, there is a definite (presumably natural) inequality among people. As many political observers have noticed, an aristocracy, hereditary or natural, is the repository of a great deal of talent and wisdom the taping of which is in the interests of the republic, but an aristocracy is also the reservoir of a great deal of ambition which can provoke serious and destructive rivalry. [An example of the later is the last presidential election where two members of the American aristocracy (such as it is) squared off against each other. Both men are descended from the early British settlers and are something like 14th cousins twice removed.] A monarch lessens this rivalry because the top spot is filled.
Third the Monarch can serve as check on the elected legislature and executive. Just because the majority wants something it does not always follow that they should get it. Further elected legislators and executive officers do not always act in their constituent’s interests. Powers such as: a limited veto, the chairmanship of a committee to nominate judges, and the presidency of the upper house of the legislature can be safely vested in a hereditary head of state.
Fourth, a hereditary head of State is trained from birth to fulfill this roll. This obviously has many advantages over having a Head of State who is trained to win elections.
Fifth, a hereditary head of state has the advantage of a life term of office to gather a huge amount of experience. The difference in experience between say President Ronald Reagan President 1980-1988 and H.M. Elizabeth II (1952-to the present) is simply incalculable. Her reign has already spanned 10 presidencies and if her mom is any indication it will span at least four more. She knows everyone of importance. A monarch is able to use this experience to advise the elected head of government.
Sixth, a Hereditary Head of State has a longer term view of the interests of the nation than an elected politician. Though an elected head of state may have the best of intentions for the long run health of the nation, he has no interest beyond his term of office. A Hereditary Head of State has an interest not only in the nation prospering during his or her reign, but for the reigns of his or her children and grand children.
Seventh, in countries where monarchism is already established, it’s a tradition. The idea that a Hereditary Head of State is old fashioned is just a way of saying it is traditional. The only justification for changing a tradition is that it is a positive evil or that it obstructs a positive good. Changing the form of government because it is unstylish is silly. Habits are a powerful force in everything and politics is no exception. Why does the loser of an election accept the results? Because that is what we (democratic peoples) do.
Eighth, is a closely allied reason to the forgoing, sentiment. People feel a sentimental attraction to the Royal Family, because they are a family. They are people and the public knows about them, their triumphs and their foibles. The late Queen Mum is an example of the power of sentiment. Her death was front page news even here in the states. I am one of many Americans who were saddened by her death. Who can forget how she and her husband helped inspire the British People in freedom’s darkest hour. Some might argue that sentiment is no basis for a political system, but sentiment is a powerful political force. The U.S. veneration of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is a similar phenomena.
Some may think it strange for a republican (and a libertarian one at that) to write a defense of the idea of a Hereditary Head of State, which leads me to the last point I want make, the United Kingdom is a republic. It has been a republic for several hundred years. A republic, res publica, the public thing, is a government not controlled solely by the one, the few, or the many. It is not a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy, but a blend of all three. This has described Britain since magna carta.
If it were true that monarchism could only be defended by reference to some realm of experience beyond rational human understanding than I would be an anti monarchist. Because this is far from the case, I hold that properly constrained (as all government must be constrained) a monarch can be part of a rational system of government.
POSTED BY: adams AT 12:33 a.m. | LINKS |
Comments:
Can't see the comments?If you are unable to see the comments, your browser may have javascript turned off or may not support javascript. Check your security settings. Otherwise you can click here to access to comments in regular HTML from the TheirSay! Comment Server.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
