cthom
3,011,451,295
no! have ours! why spend money flying 3000 miles to see them when you can have them 'on tap'. btw, isn't there a monarchy sort of party in the us, i remember reading about it?
we'll have the swedish monarchy.. or some of it..
AmericansL Should we Adopt a Monarchy?
- Thread starter Cheezy the Wiz
- Start date
no! have ours! why spend money flying 3000 miles to see them when you can have them 'on tap'. btw, isn't there a monarchy sort of party in the us, i remember reading about it?
we'll have the swedish monarchy.. or some of it..
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
No. Then the president would end up more like senators who are always concerned only about being reelected. Better to stay safe and have the checks and balances.
Catharsis
catch u on the flip scythe
Of course. All the cool countries have monarchies. There's Britain, and...
...umm, Monaco?
...umm, Monaco?
Mise
isle of lucy
Monaco's a Principality. Many European countries still have Monarchies, however they are somewhat understated compared with the grandeur of the British monarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy#Current_monarchies_of_the_world
A monarchy wouldn't just mean being president for life - it would mean that the next president would be Bush's eldest daughter, and so on...
Although on the other hand, if it was modelled like many modern day monarchies, Bush wouldn't have any political power, he'd just be left to embarrass the nation in humorous rather than disasterous ways, so maybe that's an improvement
On a related note, it was only in the last ten years that the UK got rid of its second house being made up of hereditary Lords (though we still have a few of them). Would people favour one of the US' political houses being made up in this way?
Although on the other hand, if it was modelled like many modern day monarchies, Bush wouldn't have any political power, he'd just be left to embarrass the nation in humorous rather than disasterous ways, so maybe that's an improvement
On a related note, it was only in the last ten years that the UK got rid of its second house being made up of hereditary Lords (though we still have a few of them). Would people favour one of the US' political houses being made up in this way?
Well a family such as Bush's is already important in the US's history. I don't see why telling Americans to just accept it is more unreasonable than me being told I should just accept the British royal family.
BEHIND_THE_MASK
A Liar... A Cheat...
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,840
Oh please... Its not like Presidents like Bush are actually ruining the Country, I say give him more power... in fact! 4 more Years!
I'll be watching from Russia
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
We have that already, it's called the Senate.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
It seems better than having him do whatever the hell he wants in his second term, knowing it won't matter in the end.
No it doesn't. It has happened many times where an electorate of some kind (typically the aristocracy in the Middle Ages) would elect themselves a king, and when he died, they'd elect another one. A monarchy need not be hereditary.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
I don't think it happens quite like that (or, if it does, it's being overstated). Too much public opinion at stake, not to mention the better he gets along with the rest of the government the easier it is for him.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Interesting you say this; I think the opposite seems to happen. President Bush launched a popular war in his first term, got himself re-elected, and is now trying to work diplomatically with other countries to try and improve his image for history. Clinton, also, became much more interested in Middle East peace in his second term. Reagan's negotiations with the USSR were better in his second term. Kennedy/Johnson tried to launch a popular war in the first term to try and get people to forget the Bay of Pigs failure...
Anyway, it seems if the president only has one term, he'll be more concerned with doing the right thing for a historical legacy than for popular re-election opinion.
Well, no. His family isn't anywhere near important in American History compared to the family of a royal family, who have ruled Britain for well over a millennia.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
We already have too much of a Monarchy system for my liking with the Bush's and Clinton's running or being in office for the past twenty years. Monarchy systems are not good for a stable country, unless the leader is Ron Paul.
That's interesting. I wonder, in all the debates about whether countries with monarchies should get rid of them, whether instead they should move to having an elected head of state that remains for life?
If such a thing can still be called a monarchy, we wouldn't be getting rid of the monarchy, so people would be less likely to oppose it - at the same time, fewer people would have a problem with a system where the head of state was elected rather than born into it.
If the monarch was elected, you wouldn't have a single family with the same importance either.
Plus this seems a silly requirement for a monarchy, because obviously at one point, the families in existing monarchies did not have such history. But if the new US monarchy was hereditary, then in time they would grow in importance.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
Royalty living off my money. No way. I'd rather the government spend it to find out why latrines smell bad.
Also the media would go crazy over the royal family like they do with Anne Nicole Smith and Brad Pitt.
Also the media would go crazy over the royal family like they do with Anne Nicole Smith and Brad Pitt.
Mercenary82
King
The only chance we had of becoming a monarchy was after the revolution, many people wanted George Washington to become King, but he wanted no part of it.
The march of history would be reversing itself, with any such moves toward such a proposition as this.
Rather, we should delve deeper into our population, and allow (reasonably qualified & intelligent) members from 'the masses' of society to serve... much shorter terms (i.e. 1 or 2 years, and you're out, no matter what) high public offices, even the POTUS. But especially the Congress. This would cut down on corruption.
Rather, we should delve deeper into our population, and allow (reasonably qualified & intelligent) members from 'the masses' of society to serve... much shorter terms (i.e. 1 or 2 years, and you're out, no matter what) high public offices, even the POTUS. But especially the Congress. This would cut down on corruption.
