Log in
An Outdated Relic
In this ever changing world, in the chaos of the times it seems mythical to even consider the monarchy, like reaching back into the fog of the past to a fairy tale barely rooted in the distant fringe of reality. Yet just this year we saw the passing of a monarch and the reaction of her subjects. While many scorned her passing the British seemed unified, mourning her both as a revered and almost saintly figure but also as family; the passing of a matriarch. And so the thought does tease my curiosity. Is there perhaps a more symbolic role that a monarchy plays for its people?
It is the role of the ruling class, the monarchy, to govern. Not simply rule over but also manage internal and external affairs and be held accountable for related failures, from national diplomacy to riding with the troops, representatives of the people as well as for them, models of their people; wellsprings of morale; paragons of their nation-culture. How well various monarchs have historically succeeded in this is debatable but by inspecting close those we largely agree to be "great" not only in title but in deed it seems reasonable to assume this is the standard expectation in a ruler, mirrored in what we look for even in the liberal democracies of today. The 2016 outcry shows that saving face means more than merit and truth telling to a great many Americans. The overwhelming hyperfocus on individual identity shows no signs of relenting. It would be low hanging fruit to simply blame diversity and hang my hat, call it a night. A catalyst, but not the greater issue at large. Rampant individuality, the human as a corporation(not a person with a lineage and ancestors fighting a 16,000 year war), cannot meanjngfully create but only consume. It is not diversity that is fracturing this country's identity, but unchecked rugged, selfish, short-sighted, culture-cannibalizing, formula one branded walking advertisements whose constellations of logos are presented proudly as a complete personality.
It's simplicity itself, and I don't mean to turn a phrase. The issue is simplicity, or rather complexity in the extreme. Complexity creates more possible points of failure, more weaknesses. If we are too diverse(the individual is the most extreme minority) there cannot possibly be representation on a small scale, let alone a national scale. In the spirit of simplicity: "united we stand."
Without unity there can be no culture, and without culture a nation cannot weather the tests of time. Many fall even with their spirit still burning strong. Without a nation-culture a monarch will not be recognized and cannot truly live up to their greatness, for the king or the president or so on is only as strong as their people. A monarch with less than half of his nation's people often loses his head. I could guess where we go from here, point to others who have walked this path. Suffice it to say that simplicity always returns, one way or another. But we're getting into the weeds a bit too deep here.
Whether we reduce complexity willingly and peacefully or not is above my pay grade, yet that simplicity extends far and wide. Overly complex mechanisms are prone to failure. The archetypal nuclear family unit is the human equation simplified. A monarchy, a father and mother of the nation-culture as role models and examples, as representatives to the rest of the world, is as simple as it gets.
Absolute autocratic monarchy is not what I am referring to but the constitutional monarchy in its various forms. If law and governance are once again the domain of the ruling class, not the common man as intended, why not hold our ruling class to that higher standard? Keepers of our constitution, guardians and exemplars of our nation-culture, stewards of the very spirit of these United States. Stability through the turmoil of state control being juggled back and forth between parties, non-partisan and persistent. That's the only thing I see able to stand in the way of a power vacuum post-collapse outside of theocracy, and probably the longest of long shots as a possible solution in such extreme individualism.
It stands to reason that only the position of president would be sufficient for this role, but powers would have to be rebalanced and partisanship removed to start with. The decision of whether to apply the same format on the state and charter level is a whole discussion to itself. How much of the current title to keep and how much to alter or do away with? Term limits? Election/succession? Which powers should a monarch president keep and relinquish? Nuke codes? It could be enough to split the role of VP from President of the Senate, give VP powers to PotS, presidential powers to VP and make the President a non-partisan figurehead with little to no powers, such as individual pardons, knighting(military honors) and other formal ceremony, especially welcoming dignitaries. However it is done, the preservation of the constitution is paramount, even in amending it, and great care should taken to be very precise and change as little as possible in the process. Keep it simple.
Logical extreme aside, I'd say the traditional role of patriarch and matriarch of the culture are as valid today as they ever were and could be beneficial particularly in times of change and of turmoil. An elective constitutional monarchy may be more palatable today but it's likely we're too far down the path of absolute individualism. The next best thing is the father of our country and the founders so long as the presidency remains partisan. It is up to the individual to cultivate their nation-culture if we are to keep it. It starts with community. It starts with you.
Without unity there can be no culture, and without culture a nation cannot weather the tests of time. Many fall even with their spirit still burning strong. Without a nation-culture a monarch will not be recognized and cannot truly live up to their greatness, for the king or the president or so on is only as strong as their people. A monarch with less than half of his nation's people often loses his head. I could guess where we go from here, point to others who have walked this path. Suffice it to say that simplicity always returns, one way or another. But we're getting into the weeds a bit too deep here.
Whether we reduce complexity willingly and peacefully or not is above my pay grade, yet that simplicity extends far and wide. Overly complex mechanisms are prone to failure. The archetypal nuclear family unit is the human equation simplified. A monarchy, a father and mother of the nation-culture as role models and examples, as representatives to the rest of the world, is as simple as it gets.
Absolute autocratic monarchy is not what I am referring to but the constitutional monarchy in its various forms. If law and governance are once again the domain of the ruling class, not the common man as intended, why not hold our ruling class to that higher standard? Keepers of our constitution, guardians and exemplars of our nation-culture, stewards of the very spirit of these United States. Stability through the turmoil of state control being juggled back and forth between parties, non-partisan and persistent. That's the only thing I see able to stand in the way of a power vacuum post-collapse outside of theocracy, and probably the longest of long shots as a possible solution in such extreme individualism.
It stands to reason that only the position of president would be sufficient for this role, but powers would have to be rebalanced and partisanship removed to start with. The decision of whether to apply the same format on the state and charter level is a whole discussion to itself. How much of the current title to keep and how much to alter or do away with? Term limits? Election/succession? Which powers should a monarch president keep and relinquish? Nuke codes? It could be enough to split the role of VP from President of the Senate, give VP powers to PotS, presidential powers to VP and make the President a non-partisan figurehead with little to no powers, such as individual pardons, knighting(military honors) and other formal ceremony, especially welcoming dignitaries. However it is done, the preservation of the constitution is paramount, even in amending it, and great care should taken to be very precise and change as little as possible in the process. Keep it simple.
Logical extreme aside, I'd say the traditional role of patriarch and matriarch of the culture are as valid today as they ever were and could be beneficial particularly in times of change and of turmoil. An elective constitutional monarchy may be more palatable today but it's likely we're too far down the path of absolute individualism. The next best thing is the father of our country and the founders so long as the presidency remains partisan. It is up to the individual to cultivate their nation-culture if we are to keep it. It starts with community. It starts with you.
