I’m listening to BBC World Service at the moment, and I just heard a promo for an upcoming program on people who would like to change their systems of government. One of the people mentioned in the promo was a guy who said he was the head of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Monarchists League or something like that.
My immediate reaction was that the BBC is being silly, giving air time to total crackpots. No one in the US wants a monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy (which is what the dude apparently wants). Also, it would be next to impossible to implement. And who would be the monarch? How could you possibly choose?
Am I wrong? Would you like a constitutional monarchy?
In the UK, it serves as an artifact of the nation’s history. It’s preserved as part of the UK’s heritage. A living museum piece. In the US, it would serve no purpose at all.
There’s some valid reasons to want a division of Head of State and Head of Government. The argument goes that an apolitical Head of State can serve a better job as a global ambassador than a political Head of Government, and also serves as a better “rallying point” for ceremonial functions than a political Head of Government.
However, the apolitical Head of State doesn’t need to be an unelected, life term hereditary monarch. That can leave much to be desired, and there can be lots of embarrassment if the heir ends up being gaffe prone, stupid, or deficient in some other way. No, I think a better system is to select a Head of State to a lengthy (6-8 year) term, have them be either retired or previously not-too-partisan politicians, and stipulate they can’t hold national-level office ever again after serving as Head of State (that essentially removes them very well from the political machinations, as far as can be done.)
However, I think while there are some niceties to this divided system, I think there are more benefits to just having the two combined offices. It’s all well and good to have a Head of State hob nobbing with visiting dignitaries, but without having real power they can’t do any sort of real diplomacy and negotiate any real agreements. The nice thing about the President of the United States is they fulfill both roles and real negotiations and discourse can start right away in such situations.
I’d be in favor of it if it meant the head of state could reveal his NCAA tournament picks without being criticized by political opponents for wasting time.
A somewhat antiquated argument for a constitutional monarchy is that the head of state is “above” politics. Of course pretty much nobody with any real influence in the world ever advances this any more when constitutional reform is being discussed in relation to a republic. But it did used to be put forward by people as a perceived way of escaping past political strife.
I used to hang out on the alt.talk.royalty newsgroup because there were often discussions there that gave interesting insights into various historical constitutional happenings. Anyway, one of the regular posters there was an American who quite emphatically believed in absolute monarchy, and who presumably believed that the US would benefit from its introduction. Not quite what the OP had in mind…!
Generally speaking, I’d say that there are many Americans who like the idea of royalty, but who aren’t interested in monarchy. With a huge population you’re going to find people who believe just about anything, though.
A monarch can serve a valuable political function. They can symbolize the unity of a country that rises above factional differences.
But the problem is for that to work, everyone has to agree that the monarch symbolizes that. If not, then the monarch just becomes another factional issue dividing the country.
Which is why a monarch wouldn’t work in America. We don’t have the tradition and history which would imbue a monarch with that meaning.
I’ve never really envied modern monarchs. It makes a lot more sense to just envy the fabulously wealthy, they get pretty much all the benefits of royalty with none of the burdens.
The current patriarch of the Hohenzollern family (the guy who would be Kaiser if Wilhelm II hadn’t been forced off his throne) was interviewed awhile back and said he is very happy with his lot in life and thinks he has it better than currently reigning royalty. The guy inherited a large fortune (he’s worth a few tens of millions in USD, so not crazy-wealthy but still very well off) and is under very little public scrutiny in regard to his behavior, he has no expectations, he can travel freely and not be hounded by the press and doesn’t have to worry much about being the target of assassinations / kidnappings /et al.
If we decided to become a crowned republic, where would we get a dynastic line? We can’t go back to being subjects of the British monarch: The Revolutionary War and, in specific, the Treaty of Paris (1783) are not to be tossed aside like that. Besides, ethnically speaking, a large number of Americans are not English, British, or of any other ethnicity represented by that crown. In fact, drafting the House of Hohenzollern makes more sense, given that ‘German-American’ is the most numerous self-reported ethnicity in this country.
Finally, all of the European monarchic traditions are explicitly Christian, with many (all?) explicitly representing one specific sect. That brings up obvious First Amendment and Violent Riot problems. On the other hand, it would be interesting to invent ceremonial forms for a non-religious monarchy.
I’m going to completely out of the box here and disagree with Qin.
It’s more efficient, if it can be done properly. However, if they can be combine properly it’s also more efficient to do it that way. In the USA, it’d just be another Political Quagmire. This year it’d be GWB or Dick Cheney running against Al Gore or Bill Clinton for “Monarch” or whatever while Obama/Biden/Hillary and Jindal/Palin/Romney run for President.
It’d be more politicing and less getting anything done in the USA. The US Federal government is meant to be slow and ponderous. It’s not meant to get shit done. The state governments get shit done. The federal government is supposed to be this somewhat intimidating big brother-esque figure protecting you and keeping you from fighting with your siblings.
Hmm. Bring back the monarchy, you say. How about court astrologers? We could get rid of the Department of Health, and just have the king going around touching people to cure scrofula. Before the country goes to war, the Secretary of State can sacrifice a bull, and examine its liver to see whether the omens are good. And while we’re at it, lets burn heretics at the stake, and fully fund alchemy research to turn lead into gold, that should solve our budget deficit.
How about promoting some Native American family to royalty? If you choose the right group, all at the same time you could restore a hereditary monarchy, avoid the issue of Christianity, pick people whose pedigree in the USA goes back before the British ever heard of it, and struck a blow against the hegemony of white power. I nominate the Hawai’ian royals as the most recently reigning group [yes, I know they’re Polynesian & not NA], but perhaps the descendants of Pocohontas would like to put in a claim?
A number of countries over the years have switched to splitting the roles, or have redistributed powers between the two, so clearly there are differing views on this point.
It can be very hard for us to imagine to how a fundamentally different system of government could work when we have no direct experience of it. This is a function both of how our minds run on rails more than we care to believe, and also because each system of government is moulded to the society it operates in.
Having multiple layers of government in the United States maybe looks very inefficient and redundant to the outsider!
The OP specifically referred to a constitutional monarchy. While that doesn’t absolutely negate mediaeval-style royalism, it seems a bit of a stretch to assume that an introduced monarchical system would look to a time five centuries ago for much inspiration!
Speaking as a citizen of a long-established constitutional monarchy, I’m unaware of there being any court astrologers here (cf. Ronald Reagan!); nor has any monarch here claimed to cure scrofula by touch since the seventeenth century or so at the latest; nor does any government minister or official sacrifice bulls for any purpose; nor are “heretics” burned at the stake or anywhere else, or indeed subject to any other punishment by the state; nor is alchemy funded by the state.
