Tuesday, February 14, 2006

The State of Democracy


I have felt leery at voicing some of my opinions publicly in the past, but recent events have allowed me greater freedom. I have recently been honorably discharged from military service. Although never told to keep my opinions to myself, and without any knowledge of any formal rule against expressing such views, I feel more at ease now at expressing my views about the U.S. government.

The War in Iraq—
When the U.S. invaded Iraq, I wholeheartedly (and perhaps even enthusiastically) supported the invasion. This was before I in enlisted in the military, but I did have the intention of enlisting. I thought that the words of caution—to put it mildly—of the late John Paul II were misguided, perhaps caused by his old age and Parkinson’s disease. To put it bluntly, I summarily disregarded the Holy Father’s opposition to the war.

As time passed, and no weapons of mass destruction turned up and the reasons President Bush gave for the war and continued military presence changed, I began to have doubts about the war. At first I thought that Bush simply acted on faulty intelligence, but considered the world a better place at having one less tyrant. Now I’m not sure why we invaded Iraq. Was it faulty intelligence, was it for oil, or even perhaps a personal vendetta against the man who tried to kill the President’s father when he was president? I have no idea. Do you?

What scares me is the current justification for the war by the Bush administration and Republican supporters of the war: spreading freedom and democracy around the world. First of all, were the 40 million babies murdered through abortion since Roe v. Wade free? What about their freedom? Is democracy the cure for all of mankind’s ills? Rather, I believe that democracy is the cause of many of mankind’s ills. It scares me to think that, as the strongest and most powerful nation on earth, America sees its divine destiny to spread the lies and evils of American “freedom” and democracy around the world. What is the answer to the “red white and blue tide”?

The Answer—
I believe that the answer to the evils that have been brought as the results of “freedom” and democracy is a powerful and strong monarchy to rival the power and influence of the democratic governments of the world. How can such a monarchy be born in the 21st century? One possibility is to take an existing monarchy and greatly increase its power, strength, and influence. The problem with that is there aren’t any currently reigning monarchies where this is feasible. The world’s current monarchs either don’t have enough power and popular support, or they simply don’t rule over large enough nations. Another possibility is to bring back an exiled monarchy. The problem with this option is that there aren’t any exiled monarchies with enough popular support to warrant a return. Another option is revolution. The problem with this option is that revolutions are almost always bloody, and nowhere does there exist enough popular support to found a new monarchy. Do you see a pattern here? (Hint: popular support). The problem is that nowhere in the world is there enough popular support to warrant a powerful and strong monarchy to exist (by powerful I mean on the international level, not powerful in the case of monarchical powers wielded by the monarch, as is the case in kingdom of Tonga).

The only solution I can think of is for monarchists around the world to join their efforts to either change the hearts and minds of others (how long have pro-lifers been trying to change the hearts and minds of pro-abortionists?), or to join together and found a new nation with a strong monarch. The former does not seem likely to work well, and the latter seems too idealistic. Where does this leave us monarchists? Feeling rather depressed. Do you have any ideas? If you do, please e-mail me and let me know (click on “View my complete profile” at the right and then on “e-mail” under “Contact”).

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

How much power would you want a monarchy to have? I think that the advantage of a monarchy is that it doesn't usually have the bureaucratic nonsense of a democracy. It is unimaginable for a Louis XIV to impose Prohibition. I would not want a monarch as powerful as a President. However, a monarch with great authority (as opposed to coercive power) is ideal.

Nick said...

I believe that the strength of a monarch lies in his power, i.e. his ability to "get things done" without being kept back by the limitations of his office. My ideal would be for a monarch to have more power than a president. Even in President Bush wanted to outlaw abortion (which I do not truly believe he does), he is not able to due to the restrictions of his office. A monarch with strong executive, legislative, and judicial powers would not have this problem.

Andrew Matthews said...

Hi Nick,

I am an Anglican Christian monarchist with strong sympathies for Roman Catholicism. You might want to check out my blog Unpopular Opinions (www.unpopops.blogspot.com), where I have just written a short justification for Bush's Iraqi experiment.

As for your final thoughts about what strategy monarchists should pursue, I think the answer is both/and. We need to keep the dream alive by making and publishing good arguments for monarchy and against democratic republicanism. And we also need to work for the establshment of a functioning monarchy.

Since we are Americans, the United States is our country. We know it the best, its strengths and weaknesses. And it does have its strengths! I hope you appreciate the sturdy and unpretentious spirit that Norman Rockwell expressed in his art so ably.

The government of the U.S. is not an immutable thing. It is always changing. It may be that we can work to strengthen the executive branch so that when the right candidate from an excellent family comes along, he may be able to take the reigns of power to raise our nation to the next level of her greatness.

Nick said...

Hi Andrew!!

Just wanted to say nice to meet you and thanks for stopping by!!