An American Monarchy

American Crown 1.png
 
The Constitution 1.jpg
 

Why a Monarchy?

Before addressing the concept of Monarchy as an institution of governance, let us first address democracy, which when government is concerned, is woefully misunderstood and incorrectly applied to the lives of humanity. What is democracy? Democracy is a political term, not a social term, and it ask the very simple question of “who should govern?”. And the answer it gives to “who should govern?” is: the Majority of politically equal citizens. Another definition of democracy that has been given is: the amount of direct control that each citizen has in or over the government.

The word democracy has also been used as a synonym for representation or even liberty, and indeed many use the word in this way despite being incorrect. Democracy is not a guarantee of representation or even liberty. Democracies can, like any other government, be illiberal; a democracy can devolve into Mob rule or Majority tyranny where any majority will brutalize, suppress, and oppress any and all minorities.

"The people as a body cannot deliberate. Nevertheless, they will feel an irresistible impulse to act, and their resolutions will be dictated to them by their demagogues... and the violent men, who are the most forward to gratify those passions, will be their favorites." - Fisher Ames, US Representative for Massachusetts 1st District 1789-1797 

Democracy, though a political term, is not necessarily a government form but only really a means to an end, it is a frame not a picture. For instance, if a Communist, Nazi, or Anarchist party gains a majority in the government than that country is going to become Communist, Nazi, or cease to exist all Democratically! Using here the adverb of the word democracy, because democracies naturally grow out of themselves Division, Populism, and Demagogue's, the people's leaders. Democracy produces what threatens it, poisons it, and inevitably will kill it. 

"A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way." - Fisher Ames

"For when men of this sort and their followers become numerous in a state and realize their numbers, then it is they who, in conjunction with the folly of the people, create a tyrant out of that one of them who has the greatest and mightiest tyrant in his own soul." - Socrates, Plato's Republic, Book IX


Liberty asks a different question of us, and it is “How should governing be exercised or implemented?” and the answer is that government should be exercised so that each person or community can enjoy the largest amount of personal liberty or freedom possible. And Liberty can be found in various forms of Government, even in Kingdoms and Empires, and the Founding fathers knew as much, as does any avid reader of history.

"Men naturally love liberty, and dominion over others; so what is the final cause or end or design they have in mind when they introduce the restraint upon themselves under which we see them live in commonwealths? It is the prospect of their own preservation and, through that, of a more contented life thereby; of getting themselves out of the miserable condition of war which (as I have shown) necessarily flows from the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe and tie them by fear of punishment to keep their covenants...And covenants without the sword are but words, with no strength to secure a man at all." - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XVII

Representation can also be achieved by many different forms of institutions, and elections or voting are not always required for this to be so. Lawyers represent you in court, true you may hire your own if you are able, but those that are provided to you have the same duty to represent you as one you hire. If voting was necessary to be represented, then what becomes of those individuals who did not vote or those that cast a vote for the failed candidate? Are they thereby not represented because they have not made their voice known or their voice was not heeded and so any laws that they are constrained to follow are an arbitrary and illegal will over them? Or is there more to representation than that?

"A commonwealth is said to be ‘instituted’ when a multitude of men agree and covenant—each one with each other—that when some man or assembly of men is chosen by majority vote to present the person of them all (i.e. to be their representative), each of them will authorize all the actions and judgments of that man or assembly of men as though they were his own, doing this for the purpose of living peacefully among themselves and being protected against other men. This binds those who did not vote for this representative, as well as those who did. For unless the votes are all understood to be included in the majority of votes, they have come together in vain, and contrary to the end that each proposed for himself, namely the peace and protection of them all." - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XVIII

It is not Election or Voting that is the source of Representation, but Consent or Authorization, and consent comes in two main forms, active and passive. Active consent of course takes the form of elections and voting, but also it can be in the form of placing restrictions on actions or setting limits on what sorts of actions or activity you will or will not tolerate, on what you will or will not consent to. Passive consent is what you provide when you abstain from and election, you gave no preference either way and so automatically agree to any outcome. But passive consent is also what you provide to institutions, constitutions, and the overall structures of government, it is the unspoken agreement of how things are done and what our roles in them are.

Monarchy, or a single hereditary executive, is a paradox in many ways, and by looking at some of the core aspects that make up its Nature, we hope to demonstrate why we believe a mixed (limited) monarchy is the best way to move forward for the United States.

Monarchy, through being hereditary, is naturally A-political. They are impartial and are not compromised by partisanship and faction. The monarch having inherited their position doesn’t need to fight for that authority in elections, and therefor they stand above faction, party, and political maneuvers to view all decisions they make from a very broad perspective. As such they are in the best position to act in a universal way and with equal favor towards all of the citizens and regions of their country.

Elections are naturally divisive; they are never (rarely) unanimous and pit one group against another to gain power. Elected persons are naturally partisan and factional, they speak on behalf of specific constituencies, parties, or base of supporters and so are incapable of accommodating or acting on behalf of the whole, they largely operate under short timelines and self-serving incentives. It is a fight for numbers and there will always be winners and losers and the common good will be severely compromised.

"The difference between these three kinds of Commonwealth consisteth, not in the difference of power, but in the difference of convenience or aptitude to produce the peace and security of the people; for which end they were instituted. And to compare monarchy with the other two, we may observe: first, that whosoever beareth the person of the people, or is one of that assembly that bears it, beareth also his own natural person. And though he be careful in his politic person to procure the common interest, yet he is more, or no less, careful to procure the private good of himself, his family, kindred and friends; and for the most part, if the public interest chance to cross the private, he prefers the private: for the passions of men are commonly more potent than their reason. From whence it follows that where the public and private interest are most closely united, there is the public most advanced. Now in monarchy the private interest is the same with the public. The riches, power, and honour of a monarch arise only from the riches, strength, and reputation of his subjects. For no king can be rich, nor glorious, nor secure, whose subjects are either poor, or contemptible, or too weak through want, or dissension, to maintain a war against their enemies; whereas in a democracy, or aristocracy, the public prosperity confers not so much to the private fortune of one that is corrupt, or ambitious, as doth many times a perfidious advice, a treacherous action, or a civil war." - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XIX

Monarchy is like having a living flag or a personification of the country, its history, and its culture. Their family and ancestors were present long before many of our families either emigrated to the country or even came into exitance. Their person is rooted in the very soil of the nation itself. The buildings, cities, and monuments seen around might have been financed by one of their ancestors, and in that way, we greatly benefit from that historical patronage. A Royal Family and a Nation are often very intimately connected, even if the monarch themselves is a genetic mutt so to speak, their ancestors coming from many different countries and cultures.


Monarchy is also like a trade or apprenticeship. Education in the art has been seen from the earliest times of royalist political philosophy to be crucial for any future monarch to be successful. Being educated in languages, law, literature, diplomacy, etiquette, philosophy, history, politics, constitutionalism, rhetoric, mathematics, music, etc. as well as performing duties in military service would not be uncommon to learn as a monarch in training. Proper education, along with checks and balances as outlined in later developed political theory, were seen as a bulwark against the potential for any tyranny, from either a monarch, an assembly, or other institutions. This educational ideal is also responsible for philosopher and sage Kings, royals who patronized the arts and sciences and commissioned some of the best architects, artists, thinkers, and various scientific specialists that have left behind a tremendous legacy, monarchs who founded museums and universities, who invested in various profitable farsighted ventures, who subsidized industries, who promoted merit and outstanding individuals, etc. Taking inspiration from the Platonic dialogues, one can read the ship allegory; that a country is like a ship, would you want just anyone to steer the vessel or those educated in how to sail? Why therefor, would the choice be different for those that steer the ship of state. 

Monarchs are able to draw loyalty and support from a very wide range of peoples, religions, cultures, ages, and political affiliations within the country. Such a thing is impossible for most if not all presidents or Prime ministers; that focus of support and loyalty for the monarchy is coming from an entirely different angle and almost defies conventional logic. Because why should people hold greater support for a person for whom they have not directly voted vs a person they have? This loyalty given to the Royal authority is rooted in various sentiments, because authority is very different from power. Authority is the right to say what should happen, power is the ability to make it so. Authority which is respected is very palpable and it follows that when you are appealed to, or given a commission, or given a command by it, that there is already a willingness to accede to it, to collaborate, to cooperate; and this arises out of that mixture of sentiments and emotions. There must exist a certain amount of love, of affection, of admiration, of trust in and for that authority, it is a personal and emotional connection.

It is for these reasons, for reasons of the Nature of Monarchy in the abstract verses the Nature of election, why we advocate for a monarchy in the United States. The presidential office has become far too partisan and factional over these past several decades and indeed our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of factions. Hereditary Monarchy seems the best and most practical way of permanently removing any possibility of that from returning to infect the executive branch.