Tonight I became a confirmed monarchist.—The immediate spark was a newspaper article about how Dubya is using the Office he was awarded by an illegal vote of the Supreme Court, to bring out a larger conservative voter turnout in the upcoming Congressional elections, than they got in 2000, so they can forward their fascistic agenda. Such behavior is nothing new in politics of course. But this time I just became hugely offended that our Presidency unites political, administrative, and symbolic functions, so the symbolic is often prostituted to the political. As a result the whole country is literally up for grabs—to the highest bidder, as we see in the many Campaign Financing scandals and Conflicts of Interest; but also to the ‘best’ slogan or soundbite, no matter how deceitful; law and justice be damned. Everything is at the mercy of the politicians, parties, “activists,” “lobbyists.” GOD SAVE US FROM THE POLITICIANS!
As I’ve pointed out here before, America currently doesn’t have a single highest office. Constitutionally speaking, since the three Branches of government are equal, so are their heads: the President of the United States (i.e., of the Executive Branch), the President of the Senate (i.e., the VP of the US, but more commonly in his/her stead the Senate Majority Leader), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the United States. Arguably, each and every member of Congress and the Supreme Court, and not just their ‘heads,’ is also mostly equal. It can even be argued that the entire Federal Bench is equal, since lower Federal Courts are merely extensions, Constitutionally speaking, of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. And as we learned to our great offense in December 2000 more than ever before, not a single one of these Offices is exempt from “politics” or free from “politicians.”
Make no mistake, I remain a “liberal,” a civil libertarian, etc. etc. Also, coming from an Irish Catholic background, I am under no illusions about the shortcomings of the English/UK governmental system. But I now believe the United States needs a Monarch, more or less in the modern English style. And of course, the change would need to take place nonviolently.
(A liberal democratic Monarchist…what a concept! 🙂
Actually, I’d like an American Monarch to be a little more active than Queen Elizabeth II has been. She privately questioned the morality of Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies in the 1980s, but in the end she signed all the Acts of Parliament and executive acts, and apparently did nothing of substance about them, despite her constitutional duty “to advise and warn” the Prime Minister. But a U.S. Monarch needs to be more principled than that…even principled enough to be so without being “political.” It has to be understood by all that a U.S. Monarch’s job is to protect the nation, its resources, its law, and its needy…and to represent all of us regardless of our politics, religion, race, etc.
And of course, an American Sovereign will be hereditary, not elected…and trained for the job from birth.
Equally important, penultimate power—legislative, executive, and judicial—will be retained by elected “politicians” (directly or indirectly), but who are now clearly and openly so, and no longer pretending to represent all of us…because that’s not their job.
The English system is usually misrepresented in American civics discourse, and even, to be honest, in most UK politics. Thus most people think the Queen is a figurehead, even a puppet. But this is not the case, legally or constitutionally, and is not supposed to be; ultra-Tory critics claim the UK monarchy has been weakened by Elizabeth’s relative youth (age 26) when she became queen, and her unusual degree of deference to [I think it was?] Churchill. In addition, of course, she wasn’t necessarily raised for the role from birth, since her father only became king when his brother abdicated. But in fact, it is rightly said that the English monarch “possesses absolute power, as long as she agrees not to use it” (since the 1600s).* Of course, no ruler is absolute, because all depend, minimally, on the obedience of their functionaries, and realistically, also on the advice and support of their counselors and constituents. (*–I believe I read that quote in the Australian media in the runup to their Republic referendum a couple years ago…which the voters there rejected.)
An American Sovereign would have to be able to veto bad legislation or administration, at least temporarily, without “precipitating a constitutional crisis” as they usually put it in the British press. It would be hoped that he or she also could propose good legislative or administrative measures or ideas…in confidence to the Prime Minister. And s/he would be expected to not lose touch with persons not of his/her class, race, religion, ethnicity, etc., so that her/his actions, as much as possible, might reflect the interests of the nation as a whole, and not only of his/her class, race, etc. A Monarch of America must protect and enhance democracy, not sell it out.
I hope to expand on these ideas on a new website. But for now, the late Marc-Eric Ely-Chaitlin had some ideas I find very intriguing (as well as some others that, as you’ll see, are very quirky to himself—God be good to him). But may God save us and the whole nation from the politicians in all 3 Branches who exploit us instead of representing us. Stop the rape of America, and the world!