How Long before the USA Republic falls into Monarchy?

[phil25]

I bow to all your greater wisdoms.

 

Phil

[Moonlapse]

If you are vaguely referring to totalitarianism, I tend to appreciate the Orwellian idea that a monarchy would be far too impractical and outdated. The means to that end would need to be very finely spun and not be easily understandable as such by the majority. It would happen by progressive accumulation of precedents made by those who determine the pretexts for those actions.

[phil25]

The key question is whether we are taling words (king, emperor) or process (how the system works).

 

What differentiated Stalin from Peter the Great in practical or policy terms?

 

The words/titles by which people are known/referred to are IMHO irrelevent. It is process that is crucial, and their role in the system.

 

Phil

[The Augusta]

I am a little confused by this whole debate. In the case of the British monarchy, in particular, the Queen is a figurehead only. Phil may correct me if I'm wrong, but the Queen holds no executive or legislative power. All such power rests with Parliament and the Prime Minister and his cabinet. I cannot see how the US would drift into such a system. They already have the President and Senate; why would they add someone who just looks good on a stamp?

[Ursus]

I am a little confused by this whole debate.

 

That's because you aren't in on the little secret that we Legates and Triumvirs discovered recently: the world is actually run by a secret cabal of Mithraic conspirators. Their architecture is everywhere, and their headquarters is at NASA.

 

 

I am sure Queen Elizabeth is part of the conspiracy, and that is how she intends to take over the US. Most likely Diana was killed in an "accident" because she objected to the master plan.

[CiceroD]

As far far as I see it Modern Western Civilization and its democracies have a few legs up on the Ancient Roman Republic.

 

Firstly as far as The United States and most Commonwealth Nations are concerned there is no aristocracy (at least no Official one).

Even in Britain and the european countries that do have an Aristocracy, it's not likely to cause the same social upheavals that destroyed the Roman Republic.

 

Secondly we have a media. The constant comedical (is that a word? ) depictions of modern politicians as buffoonish and sleazy serves a good purpose.

It reminds us that no one, no single person is greater than the state.

while others in The United States have bemoaned the fact that they now vote against someone and not for them, It greatly comforts me.

 

Lastly, In the modern world we have fully proffesional armies that are paid well, are not directly led by their commanders in chief, and their officers are regularly moved to new assignments.

 

Personally I am more frightened by people's apathy towards political issues

I think that we are charting a new course in history given how unique modern western society is.

[phil25]

What about demagogues who learn to use the media - or at least to do deals with those - like Murdoch - who own/control it?

 

Augusta - constitutions evolve, or can be changed. the US constitution is changed relatively frequently (before FDR there was no limit on the numbr of terms a President could serve).

 

Over several hundred years (and the English kingship has already lasted well over 1,000) who knows what situations could serve to severely limit the powers of a President (they were curtailed after Nixon/Vietnam); or to split the ceremonial and executive functions as in the UK.

 

In the UK almost ALL of the powers of the executive rest with the Crown, but are now exercised through the Prime Minister, and cabinet, who are reliant on a majority in the Commons to get legislation through.

 

Most significant changes to the political geography of a nation (I mean a political state really) are made by or to popular acclaim - Augustus, Napoleon, Hitler - who ruled under emergency powers. Who can say what could happen in the US in the aftermath of nuclear war; terrorist outrages; or in the wake of a religious take-over, or racial splits, if a President or group suspended the constitution (with Congress' approval); or used a coup, or a majority in Congress to pass new laws/constitutional amendments. A majority might support them - look at demographic changes and social trends. And once again, I am looking at a timespan of centuries not decades.

 

Phil

[Julius Ratus]

I think that a monarchy in the US is unlikely because there wont be enough time for it to really evolve. I was scared senseless for a while under Bush but earlier this month we the people showed that we still have teeth. I personally think that when Hispanics become the majority the whole political landscape will be severely altered. Many of them already feel more loyalty to their ethnic group, or even their former nation, than they do to the US. Having large, unintegrated ethnic blocs is always a problem. Most of the different ethnic/racial groups in America are integrated into a common culture. All these integrated groups are reliant on one another. The non integrated immigrants of the last wave could form a seperate entity. If that entity is not given some degree of autonomy there will be problems.

[Krackalackin]

The government is slowly eating away at the ideals of the Constitution. The "beauty" of the Constitution is that it is so mutable. A double edged sword. And if the government decides to, they can simply through it out. It won't be popular, but if they all agree, or some use force, it can happen. The actual Constitution cannot fight back; only if it is upheld does it actually have power.

 

How many of us follow the Twelve Tables today?

 

I agree with you completely. As sad as it is it's true and I have some of my own quotes to illustrate my opinion. I believe Monarchys were done away with mainly because of the change of time during the industrial revolution. Democracy in its advanced state time-tested only breeds disunity and erodes tradition and welcomes internationalism and anti-nationalism.

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2006 by Krackalackin

[M. Porcius Cato]

As far far as I see it Modern Western Civilization and its democracies have a few legs up on the Ancient Roman Republic.

 

I agree. Since the original question was about the US, I'd say the following elements were designed to avoid the problems that Rome and Athens faced: federalism, a written constitution, a longer list of individual rights, and civilian control and oversight of the military. Additionally, in the 200 years since the constitution was framed, Americans made enormous strides in expanding civil rights and establishing safeguards to protect them, suggesting that the American constitution was flexible enough to continue the general trend that gave rise to it.

 

But Phil is right that emergency powers can vastly and permanently increase the power of the state and concentrate those powers into the hands of a single individual. As a few simple examples: the vast civil service that was created to deal with WWI continues to this day; the length and scope of Roosevelt's powers were increased largely to deal with the Depression and WWII, with most of Roosevelt's policies continuing unchanged; and who knows how much Bush has permanently changed America with his responses to 9/11.

 

In each case, however, the US Constitution and American voters have provided a check on the continuation of emergency powers. For example, both Roosevelt and Bush lost vast numbers of Congressional allies in midterm elections; both witnessed their unconstitutional power grabs invalidated by the Supreme Court; despite overwhelming popular support for the two Presidents during the emergency crisis, that support rapidly eroded when they went too far beyond their mandates (e.g., when Roosevelt attempted to expand the number of Supreme Court justices after many of his programs were found unconstitutional, he faced such a massive popular backlash that he had to abandon his court-packing scheme).

 

Of course, over the course of centuries, the rise of an expansionist dictator in the US is possible. But it would be a real tragedy. With a vast nuclear arsenal and complete dominance in the international commons (air, space, and sea), an American dictator could do more far more damage than any other dictator in history. For America, the tragedy would be great; for the rest of the world, vae victis.

[Julius Ratus]

Krackalackin -- I agree with you on many points but have a few disagreements.

 

The natives vs immigrants argument has some serious flaws, and sounds way to Gangs of New York. The only immigrant group I seriously fear are the Latin Americans, and only those who refuse to integrate. I know a number of Russian/Eastern European immigrants. They hold on to their Slavic heretage but have integrated into our society. They speak English outstandingly. They do not go about rioting and waving the hammer and sickle about. They immigrate legally (the Bering Straights is harder to swim than the Rio). Many of the African immigrants who are comming to America do not want to make America into another Sudan, Togo, or Nigeria. They learn English and adapt to our customs, and often they retain their heritage but don't go about forcing it upon us. The Indian immigrants I have met all have known English and have learned our culture. They dress like Indians, know their old language, and practice their native religions, but they are willing to get along with the dominant culture.

 

I believe that many Hispanics are willing to adapt. I knew a fellow. He was born in Texas and was a US citizen. He spoke English and knew about our culture. When I worked with him there were Mexicans working there and Americans. When he was around the Mexcans he spoke Spanish and got along with them in their culture, but when he was around Americans he followed our cultural norms and spoke English.

 

Now contrast this to the many "illegals". They come to this country illegally. They support other who come illegally. They refuse to learn our language. I am totally disgusted every time I see forms writted in Spanish. If you want to engage in civic functions int his country then learn English. Then when we try to enact laws limiting these crimes they riot (demonstrate they call it) flying foreign flags and protesting our laws. Foreign governments like Mexico set up consulates where they aide and abet criminals. When we execute or imprison for life Mexican nationals who have murdered or raped our citizens the Mexican government causes a stink and refuse to turn over criminals to us if we do not give them reduced sentences. This is what will destroy America.

 

 

I agree with you that the Tetrarch was a decent system but it had flaws. All governments have flaws. Our system will work fine if it is fixed. The people need to retain power. We need fewer laws. We need more of our rights back. Any power not directly given to the govt by the constitution should be given back to the people. Things won't be as safe or convenient but that is the price of freedom. And for f's sake, lets stop worrying about Iraq and stuff and defend our borders!