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

I have serious questions about anyone who venerated the founders, who had no fucking idea what they were doing. That’s pretty much of an understatement for anyone who has any idea of early American history. Patrick Henry had an inkling he was making a mistake when he said:

Whether this (Independence) will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people will make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable.Righteousness alone cannot exalt us as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others.

Not sure how anyone who was paying off the cost of a war would think that having another one would solve any problems. Toss in all the other issues that were left unaddressed because a bunch of hotheads wanted another war.

Anyway, their love for republics was yet another aspect of their ignorance. The Roman republic may have lasted for nearly 500 years but

Unlike the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire, the Republic was in a state of quasi-perpetual war throughout its existence. Its first enemies were its Latin and Etruscan neighbours, as well as the Gauls, who even sacked the city in 387 BC. The Republic nonetheless demonstrated extreme resilience and always managed to overcome its losses, however catastrophic…At home, the Republic similarly experienced a long streak of social and political crises, which ended in several bloody civil wars.

Toss in the French revolution would demonstrate that republics were anything but stable.

So, for all their attempts at trying to show a difference between a republic and a democracy. there probably wasn’t that much of one even in classical times,. But it sounds nice if one is starting on shaky ground.

In this case, the fact that everything EXCEPT the Electoral College is responsible for Clinton’s loss.

Of course, that means the standard “you must be a Russian agent” if you disagree with me crap which I thought went out with Joe McCarthy.

A couple of thing have me going: one is someone who should know better using that argument. Then doing some research into how the Clinton Campaign totally underestimated the Midwest/rust belt: in particular Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin .

OK, Given that Hillary won the popular vote by around 3 million votes. Toss in that she had one of the largest margins of the popular vote since the current system began in the 1820s. Yet she lost in an institution which is unique to the United States and was designed to frustrate the popular vote: the electoral college.

How does a vote really count in that sort of system?

I am now going to get really specific since it is well documented that the Electoral College distorts the vote. It already cost Gore the presidency in 2000. Yet its antidemocratic (or even antirepublican since a republic requires free and fair elections) nature is not being addressed.

Let’s say I voted for Hillary Clinton, which would have increased he popular vote victory. But unless she got one more vote than Trump, she still would have lost my jurisdiction. That’s because the electoral college is winner take all in a state. Toss in she would have had to have done the same in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to have had a chance of winning. Yes, she needed the electoral votes in all three of those states to have won.

You can call me whatever the fuck you want, but the system is in dire need of repair especially if you are vaguely familiar with what the Electoral College is supposed to do (hint–Trump shouldn’t be president and you can’t make claims of foreign influence, see Federalist Paper 68).

But it doesn’t.

Let’s toss in that Wisconsin was ignored by the Clinton Campaign. Likewise her campaign neglected Michigan. I saw an extreme overconfidence in the Clinton campaign that she “couldn’t lose”. Which she didn’t if the popular vote actually meant something.

BTW, I wasn’t voting against anything. I was voting for a candidate I saw actually discussing issues and not running on a platform that she wasn’t Trump and was a woman. It’s campaigning that wins elections: not trying to scare the piss out of people.

Likewise, we need to work on campaign and election reform: not use insults.

You lost the argument when you started attacking people based on them somehow being Russian spies.

See also:

• How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election – POLITICO
• Ex-DNC aide hits back hard at Clinton, says her campaign ignored data on Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
• How Clinton lost ‘blue wall’ states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

 

“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?

 

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.

I really don’t understand this comment since when one lives in a democracy or a republic,

ONE IS THE GOVERNMENT.

Is it paying taxes? The phrase is No taxation without representation, not just No taxation. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous), but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament. In short, many in those colonies believed the lack of direct representation in the distant British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as Englishmen, and therefore laws taxing the colonists (the kind of law that affects the most individuals directly), and other laws applying only to the colonies, were unconstitutional.

Thyey don’t call the state Taxachusetts for nothing

Also remember what Samuel Adams said, “Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death.” Meaning, you can rebel against that tyrant across the ocean, but not the tyrants who live next door. Or yourself if you vote and participate in the politcal process.

What is the alternative? Do you trust private industry to run the country? I know I certainly don’t given how the lack of regulation and civic conscience has led to the current economic crisis.

In fact, if we get to it. Even though there is a democratic process, most of the politics are controlled by special interest groups. Take for example the Cato Institute which has been quite pivotal in changing the interpretation of the Second Amendment. It also has worked for eliminating disclosure requirements for those who contribute funds in support or opposition of ballot measures. One of the primary reasons the two groups cited was the high costs associated with disclosure requirements. At the time, these requirements were already weaker than those required for contributions to a candidate’s political campaign.

In their 1996 book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado describe a shift in Cato’s patron base over the years. “Early on,” they wrote, “Cato’s bills were largely paid by the Koch family of Wichita, Kansas. Today, most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation.”[1]

Cato’s sponsors

In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters:

* Altria (the report identifies Altria Corporate Services as the contributor)
* American Petroleum Institute
* Amerisure Companies
* Amgen
* Chicago Mercantile Exchange
* Comcast Corporation
* Consumer Electronic Association
* Ebay Inc
* ExxonMobil
* FedEx Corporation
* Freedom Communications
* General Motors
* Honda North America
* Korea International Trade Association
* Microsoft
* National Association of Software and Service Companies
* Pepco Holdings Inc.
* R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
* TimeWarner
* Toyota Motor Corporation
* UST Inc
* Verisign
* Verizon Communications
* Visa USA Inc
* Volkswagen of America
* Wal-Mart Stores

Foundation Support:
* Castle Rock Foundation (Formerly Coors Foundation)
* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Koch Family Foundations
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

My point is that the Cato Institute is not publicly funded. per it’s own literature: “In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding.” Independence from what–public scrutiny? Cato lists its major corporate, foundation and individual financial supporters. However, it does not list the amount or the purpose of corporate or foundation contributions..

The Cato Institute is hardly unique. You can learn more abot who funds what at Sourcewatch, which is a lovely tool for finding out who is behind what in US politics. If you are suspicious about government, you should find out who is bankrolling whom.

You are going to be a slave to government if you allow yourself to remain ignorant of the political process and not participate in it. Even more of a slave to not verify the sources of your information.

Dr. Samuel Johnson Pointed out “that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes” at the time of the revolution. Thomas Jefferson stated that “all men were created equal”, yet he had 187 slaves. Patrick Henry screamed “give me liberty or give me death”, yet was also a slave owner. Was Mr. Henry as willing to give his slaves liberty?

Add in George Washington and most of the Southern rebels.

Another cry was “no taxation without representation” which came from Massachusetts. Rather humourous given that the colonies were taxed at a much lower rate than those back in Mother England. Even funnier that the places this cry was heard have high taxes post rebellion (mostly due to the debts incurred from said rebellion). They don’t call it Taxachusetts for nothing.

Self-representation and we tax you like the Beatles’ song Taxman (“one for you, nineteen for me
‘Cause I’m the taxman,…Should five per cent appear too small, Be thankful I don’t take it all”). Of course, quite a bit of this money goes toward a standing army, from which the Second amendment is supposed to protect me. We should have a citizens’ militia. Of course, it is better to pay high taxes than have to give up time for militia duties.

The “founding fathers” were also not fans of Democracy. Typical contemporary writings describe it as mob rule. The word had a similar connotation to how we use anarchy today. Our friends who were screaming for liberty while screwing their slaves (Old Tom and Sally Hemmings) were all for representation by property owning white males and sod the masses. Fortunately, property was so cheap in North America that most white males could fit into this category.

I draw your attention to the Impeachment of Samuel Chase for criticising voting reforms as “mobocracy”. You might also do well to check out my previous post on this subject.

The basic gist of this is that the common man would be considered the mob, or rabble. No where in the Constitution is the word “democracy” used. This is a republic, a vastly different system. The reason Dubious Bush became president had nothing to do with popular vote, but the electoral college. Check out that institution.

Republics expect duties from their citizens which modern libertarians seem to miss.

So, don’t let the language of liberty obfuscate the issue. As my dad loved to point out the Soviet Constitution sounded very egalitarian as well.