|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 27, 2011 4:03:56 GMT -5
I don't mean a traditional monarch who dictates and such, but rather, something closer to what Britain has.
He/she wouldn't even have to be called king/queen, maybe prince/princess.
Someone who is the face of America, allied with neither republicans nor democrats nor any other political entity. Someone who would rank about the President in importance, though have no actual power to speak of.
Because one of the things I've noticed is that Britains have common identity. Whether they dislike the monarchy or like the monarchy, they can still claim the royal family. Meanwhile, the USA has no such unity. We're 50 states that are so intertwined that our borders are disappearing, but yet we try so hard to be 50 mini-countries that we harm our own people over it. And we have so many factions, one that tries so hard to work with the other at the expense of its ideals, and the other that wants absolute control and religious dominion, and then all of the various shards that sadly won't ever get anywhere.
So, do you think having someone that we could unite under could actually help America?
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkfireTaimatsu on Sept 27, 2011 4:14:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 27, 2011 4:16:28 GMT -5
I believe the term you're looking for, Zacky, is "figurehead." And, yes, a figurehead could be a uniting factor for Americans, but, we were established by people who wanted to move away from any semblance of monarchism, even in name. That, and many Americans would likely be far too proud to even admit that such a figure could potentially be very useful.
Though, if you think about it, America does have a form of royalty: its wealthy. For some, the wealthy are seen as the titans of industry, the absolution of the American Dream. The unfortunate thing about all that is, though, that these "royals" actually do have power in our government, far more than they should. Which is why allowing corporations to essentially buy their own officials is a very, very bad idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 27, 2011 4:20:19 GMT -5
During yor last election cycle I got in quite an argument with an American friend over the Monarchy... she was saying she couldn't understand why Australia was still a monarchy, so I pointed out that the US isn't much different, since (at the time) it appeared that only 2 families were now elegible to put supply the head of state.
In all seriousness, however, in many ways America already far more resembles 18-19th century Britain with its plutocratic nobility than most peoples' idea of a "genuine" democracy.
How on Earth you'd go about selecting your monarch is beyond me... since the entire political dialogue in your country currently seems to be based on the premis of disagreeing with the other side, no matter what.
ETA: I think Americans are generally supportive of the idea of a monarchy though... just look at the rating figures for the recent Royal Wedding, or the number of Americans who sent flowers to Kensington Palace when Slut-Whore was dealt with.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 27, 2011 4:27:35 GMT -5
I think that this is all about the Civil War. The last civil war England had was in the 17th century.
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 27, 2011 4:32:40 GMT -5
If ya think about it, America already is kind of an empire. Though, instead of directly controlling large tracks of land, its more of a socioeconomic empire. Seriously, you see America fucking everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 27, 2011 4:36:50 GMT -5
I'd say no. To say the royal family is why the Brits seem more united to you than Americans is extremely naive at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 27, 2011 4:39:58 GMT -5
It is easier to unite 60 million people than it is to unite 312 million.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Sept 27, 2011 4:46:16 GMT -5
I think you overestimate the unifying power of the monarchy. I do not think Britain shares a common identity (itself a questionable claim) more because of thousands of years of history building up an ethnic and linguistic identity, which America does not have. I also think a more sensible alternative would be for America to do what almost every other country on earth does and have a Head of State separate from the Head of Government. Especially if you have an involved Head of State (e.g. France, South Korea etc.) then you have a system that works nicely as a power check. It is of course possible for a monarchy to act as a power check but when there is a strong enough risk of a monarchy being toppled they can effectively be controlled by a putative rogue head of government (think Blair and the war in Iraq).
|
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Sept 27, 2011 5:40:22 GMT -5
The last thing we need are more rich lazy assholes.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 27, 2011 7:01:07 GMT -5
Stone Cold Steve Austin?
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Sept 27, 2011 7:48:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 27, 2011 8:11:08 GMT -5
This is so entirely incompatible with the United States' founding principles and its history that it is outside the bounds of reason. A monarch is a personification of a country's sovereignty, the mandate that grants a nation to have supreme authority within a certain geographic boundary. The United States was founded on the principle of popular sovereignty, that is that sovereignty does not rest in a monarch by virtue of divine right, but in "We the People." All American citizens are in effect sovereigns, and they voluntarily vest certain portions of their sovereignty in the state governments, and the state governments in turn vest some of this sovereignty in the federal government.
Your policy would require the sovereign American people to relinquish 100% of their sovereignty in a single person. Ain't gonna happen. Nor should it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 27, 2011 8:15:00 GMT -5
He is totally my idol! As yet, my petitioning of Who's who and the Australian electoral role to gazette me as Baron Blackwater are as yet unsuccessful. |
|
Leander
New Member
Shadowrunner
Posts: 10
|
Post by Leander on Sept 27, 2011 11:13:32 GMT -5
Even if a Monarchy of any kind had the power to "unify" the USA, which I highly doubt, where would you get one from? As far as i know there is no nobility in the states...
What you could "get" is a kind of impartial, elected, representative figure like the German "Bundespräsident" (Who is nominally the Head of state but rather powerless).
|
|
