It was very weird for me to watch the coronations of Charles and Camilla on French TV. There was the distance caused by the language and commentary. Also, it seemed like something from the past, which it is. But it seemed even more anachronistic.

Toss in that it is way more ostentatious than any of the other European monarchies, there are 12 of them, six of which are members of the EU (Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden). Things have changed quite a bit since at the start of the 20th century only France, Switzerland and San Marino were the only European nations to have a republican form of government.

Unfortunately for the people who want to say the US is a republic, not a democracy, the only real difference between those two systems of government are that democracy has the ability to be a monarchy. Euronews has an interesting article: Politics and popularity: Why are there still so many monarchies in Europe? It’s not the only news source discussing European monarchies.

I’m not sure how I feel about monarchy these days. Although I do side with the comment that “There is no contradiction between a country being a monarchy and being an advanced democracy”. Also, “One of the roles for the royal family is to be a symbol for the nation as a whole and therefore the monarch as an institution has to strive to represent the whole of the nation.”

Monarchy unifies a nation as Clement Atlee said: “Far less danger under a constitutional monarchy of being carried away by a Hitler, a Mussolini or even a de Gaulle.” That’s an interesting thought to ponder in light of US politics.

Anyway, another interesting article from Euronews: The Kings who never were: the living heirs of Europe’s abolished monarchies

“We are a republic, not a democracy” was the slogan of France during the Terror.

For those not in the know, the Terror was the time when the national razor (aka, the widow or the guillotine) was used in a promiscuous manner.

It also showed up the founders’ love of republics as places where there was an enlightened harmony and stability.

The US is in a serious constitutional crisis and has been for some time.  No, Trump’s election is not the start of this, but a symptom of the decay.

The concept of the electoral college is indeed to thwart the popular vote, a concept in opposition to true democracy.  We can get into it preventing those who shouldn’t have the office. But that isn’t as germane as the concept that it also was supposed to keep a state, or groups of states from controlling the process since swing states control the process as much as a state with a large population.  The bottom line is that a few states control to the detriment of the nation just as much with the Electoral College as without.

Getting rid of the electoral college is a start to much needed election reform in the US.

After all, the US has been going to war to ensure democracy around the world–shouldn’t it practise what it preaches at home?

 

There is an interesting interview on today’s Newshour about the rise of the religious right in the US. One of the interviewees points out that the number of evangelical Christians in the US is declining due to its involvement in religion.

I’ve found that gunloon comments tend to reinforce my belief that the US needs gun control due to the fact that these people are not responsible and have no idea of what right the Second Amendment was intended on protecting. Add in that the institution of militia is pretty much an anachronism. In fact, the militia was irrelevant at the time of the Revolution (see Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations).

Anyway, we have already seen that the Heller-McDonald decisions have nor resulted in much in roads being made in the field of gun rights. And as the word of Revolution go “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t going to make with anyone anyhow”.

Perhaps saying that a variant of “Political Power comes from the barrel of a gun” will backfire on them as badly as failing to heed that religion and politics should not be intertwined.

Americans Elect: Democracy in the Internet Age

I couldn’t have said it better:

Posted by Andrew B. on August 9, 2011

This is exactly the kind of development we need to get us out of the current One Party State:

Though many feel we are stuck with a two-party system after numerous attempts to elect a viable alternative candidate have failed, a new Internet-based political movement is emerging. The goal? To put a presidential nomination on the 2012 ballot derived completely from open voting on the Internet. Called Americans Elect, the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization isn’t a traditional new political party, although it must register as one. Instead, it’s a way to nominate candidates in a more democratic fashion. So far, the group has submitted the required number of signatures to put a nomination on the ballot in eight states and has plans to be on 18 by year’s end. Democratic representation is an old idea that modern technology is reinventing, and the movement has the potential to change American politics forever…and that means 2012 will be an even wackier election year than it is already shaping up to be.

So how does one vote for an Americans Elect candidate?

Visit Americans Elect to find out more.

Governments are running low on money, but don’t want to raise taxes. They are cutting services to the bone? What next?

According to BBC News: Parliament could become wedding reception venue

Well, Take that Mr. White Rabbit Republican! By being a Kingdom, the United Kingdom has a built in tourist factor that EuroDisney just can’t compete against. Why go to a fake-o Disney castle when you can have some REAL history going for you? If we get rid of the Royal Family, then what to do? Get people in funny costumes to play royalty? Personally, I prefer the real thing.

Lesser Toff have been opening their homes to the public for ages. Now, it’s time that “the Firm” catches up with the rest of British nobility and starts opening up their castles for tacky peasant weddings! Those annoying Texans can rent Windsor Castle for the real dream wedding.

It makes so much more sense than creating jobs and getting people to work.

William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, from Act 5, Scene 5:

I have been wanting to mention my US political insider neighbour for a while, but haven’t until now. The reason for this is that I asked him about the coming mid-term elections. His response was this quote from Macbeth:

it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

His main point was that people such as Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell are great for the one-liners, but don’t really stand up to scrutiny. But since the political insider is another media watcher, he pointed out that the elections are manipulated by sound bites. In other words, people hear what they want and don’t investigate any further.

A historical example is:

No taxation without representation

Which I think a lot of people have misinterpreted throughout the ages to be:

No taxation

But the real issue here isn’t taxes, it is the representation in the legislature that is the issue. Likewise, somebody such as a Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell can be edited enough so that they sound lucid and educated. On the other hand, they can’t stand scrutiny if there is a strong media magnifying glass placed upon them. The question is whether they will be presented “warts and all” or edited so that they are palatable to the voters.

Despite what some of the reactionary right would like to believe, the US electorate is pretty much in the centre of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, the parties have worked to thwart people’s interests as I keep pointing out. In particularly, the conservatives have done a wonderful job with single issues (abortion, gun control, taxes, etcetera) in getting people to vote against their real economic interest. In fact, it’s amusing how some people are still true believers in the policies which have brought about the current economic collapse. Fortunately, some reason has prevailed in allowing for the Troubled Assets Relief Programme (TARP) and the bailout of the US motor industry. Had those two programmes not gone through, the economy would truly be in the shitter; whereas, now it can present itself as being somewhat viable.

The ultimate upshot of this conversation was that political insider mentioned Jon Stewart’s rally on 30 Oct 10. It will be interesting to see how many people attend that rally.

I was watching a PBS documentary about Richard Nixon roughly 10 years ago when the thought occurred to me that the programmes that came about in the Nixon administration would be considered liberal, or even “Socialist” (health care), by today’s standards. I also have to question why firearms regulations are being relaxed in the US: in particular the concealed carry laws which were proposed by the gun owners in the 1930s.

SouthernBeale has got me going with her Resistance is Futile and hope for the progressive movement.

Anyway, I was at the Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) website when I saw this post: Move Over—Over and Over: Media’s rightward push for Democrats with the words “You’ll be hearing a lot in this vein” under it. FAIR states that the Democrats are becoming more of a centrist party.

My opinion is that the two main US parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum (or tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dumber). The rightward move is far more obvious in the Republican party than the Democrats. On the other hand, as the attempt and passage of “health care reform” shows, no one is really standing up for the working classes. In the US, the classless ruse has gotten rid of the working class making them the extreme lower middle class, but…

One must think of fascism as an infection of the body politic that can occur when there isn’t a strong leftist working class identified party. Neither US party identifies with the workers or the workers’ interests. Additionally, there is really no interest the ever widening Rich-Poor divide in the US. The term socialism is misused as SouthernBeale also points out. The “Sam’s Club republican” is like the feudal serf who is happy to eat the crumbs from his Lordship’s table.

I am not sure of what to do except hope for the progressive populist revival that SouthernBeale mentions in the Resistance is Futile post. We have to beware that any populist movement isn’t guided by the same forces which tried to push the tea party movement on the people.

Pardon me if I am not very hopeful for the States.

Where I come from “Blue” means “conservative” and “Red” is usually some form of collectivist philosophy, such as Socialism or Communism. This colour scheme is true for most of the world.

Of course, the US in its arse backwards way has these reversed. Although, I am not really sure what US parties actually stand for since it appears to be the party of the rich and powerful v. the party of the rich and powerful (republicrats and Demicans). In fact, the parties are terrible at making any real political stands in such topics as gun control, health care, the environment, transportation, education, and pretty much everything in general. That is a major reason nothing seems to get done in this country, other than making a show of electioneering. We have “wedge issues” such as gun control and abortion, which are really non-issues since gun control and abortion should exist and shouldn’t be any sort of “wedge”.

Actually, I don’t understand the progun crowd’s disliking abortion since the children aren’t alive anyway. They haven’t been born, which means that life is speculative. On the other hand, the gun crowd sees no problem in the death toll in the USA. Perhaps, if we ensured that wanted children came into the world, we wouldn’t have an issue with crime.

But the ultimate bottom line is the public welfare, which I see neither US party as being very interested in promoting. In fact, I am not very sure of what exactly the US parties are interested in promoting other than havoc.

I belong to the Constitutional Monarchist party even though I am registered as a Democrat. This is because being an independent in Philadelphia is like being an atheist in Northern Ireland: I.e. “Are you a Democrat Indpendent or a Republican Independent?” Anyway, being a Constitutional Monarchist is the best way to express my political philosophy, but unfortunately, I am probably the only Constitutional Monarchist in the United States.

Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule of law, popular sovereignty and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. Republicanism always stands in opposition to aristocracy, oligarchy, and dictatorship. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government. Or as John Adams put it, “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.” Much of the literature deals with the issue of what sort of values and behavior by the citizens is necessary if the republic is to survive and flourish; the emphasis has been on widespread citizen participation, civic virtue, and opposition to corruption.

Now the “Republican” party has truly fallen away from this, especially in terms of its attitude toward rule of law and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment would make sense if there were still a strong institutional militia; however, most “republicans” aren’t willing to accept that institution. Moreover, they are willing to destroy the rule of law for popular opinion, which is the exact opposite of how Adams defined a republic.

People in a republic are expected to participate and give their efforts to running the democracy. In early American times, I would have had some government job where I could have contributed my skills and knowledge. Nowadays, I am marginally employed. People seem to get government jobs by knowing somebody, not by ability.

Worse, the “Republicans” have taken to talking about democracy, which is a contradiction. Not to mention it leads to my next point.

Democracy:

In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.

Competitive elections! That doesn’t really apply in the United States as I think that it is a system where loads of money is required to get anywhere in the political process.

Absolute democracy is mobocracy where the majority rule. Of course, this isn’t really the case in the United States as the 2000 and 2004 elections have shown. Also, I have never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate I support (e.g., Wesley Clark in the 2004 election). We are seeing a wonderful thwarting of democracy regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries and apportioning of delegates.

I find it interesting that both a Democracy and Republic demand rule of law, as does a Constitutional monarchy. However, we may be seeing the thwarting of the rule of law by the Second Amendment/Right to Keep and Bear Arms crowd. The Heller case is a wonderful example of how the rule of law works and how it may be thwarted. the principle of rule of law means that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule.

I keep rattling on about stare decisis which is part of procedural rules. A court must follow precedent unless there is a valid reason to overrule that precedent. In other words, judges should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Even more salient, judges should not be swayed by popular opinion or the law will change willy-nilly. Justice Breyer recently summarized this Court’s approach, “[T]he rule of law demands that adhering to . . . prior case law be the norm [and] [d]eparture from precedent is exceptional and requires ‘special justifications’ . . . . especially [where] the principle has become settled through iteration and reiteration over a long period of time.” Randall v. Sorrell, 126 S. Ct. 2479 at 2489 (2006) (declining to overrule Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)). Additionally, if our “leaders” aren’t bold enough to show some backbone in time of crisis, then the courts should stand on precedent. I am not really going to go back into this since I have run on about how Heller could and should stick with precedent and just clarify the Miller decision in terms which even idiots can understand.

Anyway, with the exception of Constitutional Monarchy, these systems require some form of personal responsibility and civic mindedness. Constitutional Monarchy realises that the masses are peasants and do indeed need a nanny state. fortunately, Constitutional Monarchists practise noblesse oblige meaning we have a requirement for social responsibility. We can come up with elections, but there are institutions, such as the landed aristocracy which keeps some form of mob rule under wraps. Also, the landed aristocracy are able to keep land use issues under control, which is sort of sad given the interregnum we have had has led to urban sprawl.

Fortunately, we may have a individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment and I can set up my private army and start my own duchy. I mean my Royal Pennsylvania militia will be very well trained if that is what “well regulated” means. And if Justice Scalia is correct that militias are outside of government control, then we are perfectly justified in setting up a Constitutional Monarchy.

I wonder if Prince Charles will accept our invitation to be King.