The Disturbing Rise of Monarchism in America

[Cyber Liberty]

FYI....
When we need a zoo keeper we will rattle your cage.

If you make Dad pull this car over the shit's gonna hit the fan.....

[EasyAce]

A while back I started looking at plants to attract butterflies to the garden.  Got tired of "self-pollinating" the eggplant, if you know what I mean.  While researching, I learned of the plight of the monarch butterfly, which between habitat destruction and a cold snap in Mexico several years ago are not doing well.  Since I live in a place where it's not allowed to frost, and the monarchs won't be able to winter in Mexico once we build the stupid wall (not to mention the pleasure I get in screwing with evolution, as any evil right-winger must), I ordered some milkweed seeds and started growing them so that the monarchs would have a habitat in the winter.

Last night I found my first two monarch caterpillars.  Yeah!

And now, not 24 hours later, some jerk off at NRO is attacking me for supporting monarchs.  I'll tell you what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna post without reading the article, that'll show the SOB!

[Wingnut]

If you make Dad pull this car over the shit's gonna hit the fan.....

A real dad wouldn't pull over.  A real Dad could smack you in the back seat with his right hand while driving 70 MPH and never  stray near the center line as he steered the car with his left hand. 

[dfwgator]

It's difficult if not impossible to deny that there are too many among us in this country who prefer
a monarchic president. (Monarchism doesn't automatically imply favouring a hereditary royal type.)
Difficult if not impossible to deny, and depressing to contemplate.

I think the proper term is "Benevolent Dictator."

[Hondo69]

Got tired of "self-pollinating" the eggplant, if you know what I mean. 

Is this what they call the Butterfly Effect?

[EasyAce]

I think the proper term is "Benevolent Dictator."

It was once, I suspect, until some thinkers came to think of it as being something along the line of
"promiscuous celibate," rhetorically.

[Bigun]

I don't hang with bears in the woods, but that doesn't mean there are no bears in the woods.

 

I don't hang with the followers of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels either but there are DAMNED SURE plenty that do!  Many of them in Washington DC currently!

[Bigun]

@EasyAce

First, I should clarify. By monarchy I do not mean hereditary monarchy, which would adapt itself poorly to the
relatively egalitarian class structure of modern America. Nor do I necessarily mean absolute monarchy, although there
are some who want that. The monarchy I’m imagining could be an elective one, and it could admit certain informal
constraints. But I don’t want to weaken my position too much either: I am not referring to the purely ceremonial
monarchies of Northern Europe, nor am I making reference to a heavily regulated constitutional monarchy existing
within the strictures of a mixed government. I term as monarchy what Polybius calls “kingship,” a rule of one “voluntarily
accepted by the subjects and where they are governed rather by an appeal to their reason than by fear and force,”
which operates in contradistinction to aristocracy, democracy, or some form of mixed government such as operates
in America today. This monarchy might depend on popular ratification in some way, perhaps through regular elections
or referenda, but it would not be accountable to representative bodies, appointed councils, or high courts, and it would
claim virtually all policymaking and governance under its remit.

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

James Madison Federalist No. 58, 1788


Without going into detail here are the historical FACTS. There have been monarchist among us from the very beginning and to this day they have NEVER stopped trying to undermine the form of government we were given by our founders.  They have, over time, been VERY successful in their efforts much to our great determent!

[truth_seeker]

Made up story, to take swipes at Trump. NR mostly not relevant, anymore.

[EasyAce]

@EasyAce


"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

James Madison Federalist No. 58, 1788


Without going into detail here are the historical FACTS. There have been monarchist among us from the very beginning and to this day they have NEVER stopped trying to undermine the form of government we were given by our founders.  They have, over time, been VERY successful in their efforts much to our great determent!

Pinging me, you're pretty much preaching to the choir. It would be an interesting exercise to discover just
how many of our members here, and in political forums elsewhere, are even aware of The Federalist,
never mind having read No. 58. (To a lot of people these days The Federalist is just another right wing
nutbag site . . .)

[EasyAce]

Made up story, to take swipes at Trump. NR mostly not relevant, anymore.

No, it is plainly enough an opinion piece, and the writer in fact took more and longer
swipes at His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada and Hilarious
Rodent Clinton and the monarchistic-like adoration their sycophancies bestowed upon them, than
in fact he did or might have against Donaldus Minimus and the monarchistic-like adoration some
of his sycophancy bestows upon him. The writer calls it a part and parcel of monarchism, and
it's not an unreasonable argument, though I usually called (and call) it as Mr. Gene Healy has
done in his books The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Fixation with Executive
Power and False Idol: Barack Obama and the Continuing Cult of the Presidency. It's
entirely possible that Donaldus Minimus's full first term may yet provoke Mr. Healy to another
followup, perhaps to be called Graven Image: Donald Trump and the Still-Continuing Cult
of the Presidency . . .

But it is amusing in its way to be reminded that National Review, which has been remarkably
fair to Donaldus Minimus since he was elected, crediting him when due and discrediting him
when due with rather equivalent aplomb, remains irrelevant to Donaldus Minimus's sycophancy
for no better reason than that the magazine published a symposium opposing his candidacy
early enough in the primary season last year, the sycophancy partying, if you will, like it's still
January 2016.

[Bigun]

Pinging me, you're pretty much preaching to the choir. It would be an interesting exercise to discover just
how many of our members here, and in political forums elsewhere, are even aware of The Federalist,
never mind having read No. 58. (To a lot of people these days The Federalist is just another right wing
nutbag site . . .)

That indeed would be an interesting exercise!  I find that most members of forums like this don't really want to discuss much of anything in any detail.

[EasyAce]

That indeed would be an interesting exercise!  I find that forums like this don't really want to discuss much of anything in any detail.

I can still remember the time elsewhere when, answering one poster who forged a well-thought
argument during which he leaned upon some of the classic political thinkers (I remember Burke,
Michael Oakeshott, and James Burnham being cited) to buttress his argument, another poster
attacked him for leaning upon "irrelevant" dead thinkers. And I was put in mind of a remark
by William F. Buckley, Jr. over a similar dismissal by another writer, Buckley saying, "He stands
proud of his ignorance of Burke and I sit ashamed of my incomplete knowledge of him."

[Bigun]

I can still remember the time elsewhere when, answering one poster who forged a well-thought
argument during which he leaned upon some of the classic political thinkers (I remember Burke,
Michael Oakeshott, and James Burnham being cited) to buttress his argument, another poster
attacked him for leaning upon "irrelevant" dead thinkers. And I was put in mind of a remark
by William F. Buckley, Jr. over a similar dismissal by another writer, Buckley saying, "He stands
proud of his ignorance of Burke and I sit ashamed of my incomplete knowledge of him."

Sad!  I edited the post you responded to.

[INVAR]

Made up story, to take swipes at Trump. NR mostly not relevant, anymore.

What is it with you people?

It's NOT a 'made-up story'.  It's an analysis of the kind of groupthink that now exists in this country by both the Left and the Joe Sixpack Populists.

When any group or mob decides a man  elected to office is going to 'save us'; 'fix us'; 'restore us'; 'transform us'; 'heal us' - are a people who want a monarchy, even if they bristle and get upset at the term.  The fact is, YES - they want a monarchy/Dictatorship in either a man or a party to do all the things they think a person or party is going to do for them, even when the constructs of this Republic explicitly exist to prevent such a thing.

All the things I have read and heard about 'Trump is gonna do this' and 'Trump is gonna do that' while cheerleading the promises of punishment upon their enemies is no different than how the Leftists worshipped Obama and delighted in the very same things.  Everyone who opposed Obama was seen as a domestic enemy of the state - and the Trump Populists are right in line with that kind of thinking.

It is very relevant the fact that the country has decided the Presidency is a monarchy when their particular political savior is at the helm.

[INVAR]

Pinging me, you're pretty much preaching to the choir. It would be an interesting exercise to discover just
how many of our members here, and in political forums elsewhere, are even aware of The Federalist,
never mind having read No. 58. (To a lot of people these days The Federalist is just another right wing
nutbag site . . .)

You will likely be reminded by Republicans and some intelligent Leftists that actually know what The Federalist Papers are - that those documents 'are not law', and therefore irrelevant and of null effect.

That comment usually coming from imbeciles who are always pining on about 'intent' of the Framers.

It's right in front of them,  but when it runs afoul of their cherished ideology or political party or politician, why - the Federalist is to be ignored and seen as a quaint, ineffectual irrelevancy.

[Wingnut]

I can still remember the time elsewhere when, answering one poster who forged a well-thought
argument during which he leaned upon some of the classic political thinkers (I remember Burke,
Michael Oakeshott, and James Burnham being cited) to buttress his argument, another poster
attacked him for leaning upon "irrelevant" dead thinkers. And I was put in mind of a remark
by William F. Buckley, Jr. over a similar dismissal by another writer, Buckley saying, "He stands
proud of his ignorance of Burke and I sit ashamed of my incomplete knowledge of him."

Yu know there is something to be said for a well thought out, erudite insulting retort.  Buckley was a master at it.  I only saw him use the F word (or I think it was the f word) maybe it was both f words....when he let that homo get under his skin.

[Bigun]

You will likely be reminded by Republicans and some intelligent Leftists that actually know what The Federalist Papers are - that those documents 'are not law', and therefore irrelevant and of null effect.

That comment usually coming from imbeciles who are always pining on about 'intent' of the Framers.

It's right in front of them,  but when it runs afoul of their cherished ideology or political party or politician, why - the Federalist is to be ignored and seen as a quaint, ineffectual irrelevancy.

@INVAR

The "intent" of our framers is exactly what was incorporated into the Constitution which is supposedly the supreme law of this land!

The federalist and the anti-federalist papers are anything but irrelevant because they greatly inform us as to the goings on at the time of the founding!

[INVAR]

@INVAR

The "intent" of our framers is exactly what was incorporated into the Constitution which is supposedly the supreme law of this land!

The federalist and the anti-federalist papers are anything but irrelevant because they greatly inform us as to the goings on at the time of the founding!

Of course.  You and I know that.  It explains in great detail the actual thought-process that went into forging the government they established and reveals the worries, the warnings and the reasons they did what they did.

But when arguing with a Collectivist, no matter what party they claim to be from - when citing the federalist as a proof against the assertions made in favor of Statism, you are often rebuked with the 'irrelevance' argument I cited above.

[Bigun]

Of course.  You and I know that.  It explains in great detail the actual thought-process that went into forging the government they established and reveals the worries, the warnings and the reasons they did what they did.

But when arguing with a Collectivist, no matter what party they claim to be from - when citing the federalist as a proof against the assertions made in favor of Statism, you are often rebuked with the 'irrelevance' argument I cited above.

Or, as has been argued right here in the recent past, "It doesn't matter what their "intent" was...

[EasyAce]

Yu know there is something to be said for a well thought out, erudite insulting retort.  Buckley was a master at it.  I only saw him use the F word (or I think it was the f word) maybe it was both f words....when he let that homo get under his skin.

You're thinking of the television skirmishes Buckley had with Gore Vidal, one of which climaxed in the following exchange during
ABC (who arranged their exchanges) covering the 1968 Democratic National Convention:

Vidal: As far as I am concerned, the only crypto Nazi I can think of is yourself, failing that, I would only say that we can't have---
Howard K. Smith (the anchor for the coverage): Now, let's not call names.
Buckley: Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto Nazi or I'll sock you in your goddam face and you'll stay plastered---
Smith: Gentlemen! Gentlemen! Let's not call names---
Buckley: Let Myra Breckinridge go back to his pornography and stop making allusions of Nazism . . . I was in the infantry in the last
war.
Vidal: You were not in the infantry; as a matter of fact you didn't fight in the war.
Buckley: I was in the infantry.

(Buckley was, in fact, in the infantry, technically: he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army and assigned to
infantry posts in Georgia and Texas, though he also served for a brief period in FDR's honour guard. He wasn't sent into combat
but he was in the infantry.)

Buckley wasn't averse to swearing once in a blue moon. But the funniest instance in which I ever saw him use or quote the F
word was when he disclosed David Niven's reply, when Buckley asked Niven for a blurb to promote his first spy novel, Saving
the Queen, and Niven responded specifically to one certain audacious scene in the book: Probably the best book ever
written about f@cking the Queen.

(When Buckley went to England to promote the book, almost the first question asked of him at the press conference was, "Mr.
Buckley, would you like to sleep with the Queen?" Having to think real fast, Buckley didn't skip a beat: "Which queen?")

[jmyrlefuller]

a.k.a. the Cult of the Presidency; or, the president as our national daddy. Democrats have touted their
Roosevelts, Kennedys, Clintons, and Obamas as our saviour-king-daddies; Republicans have touted
their Reagans, Bush IIs, and Trumps as our saviour-king-daddies. And when not elected, they have
touted their assorted candidates as saviour-king (queen)-daddies (mommies). Oh, sure, they couch
it in the rhetoric of we've got to bring that damn recalcitrant government in line, but they
say little to nothing when it turns out also to be we've got to keep the damn recalcitrant people in
line, and never mind such pesky little things as a certain Supreme Law of the Land . . .

It's not just the Presidency.

Look how many people, in total seriousness, worship that half-bit singer Beyoncé as a queen.

This phenomenon goes far beyond government and politics; it pervades our culture.

[Bigun]

It's not just the Presidency.

Look how many people, in total seriousness, worship that half-bit singer Beyoncé as a queen.

This phenomenon goes far beyond government and politics; it pervades our culture.

@jmyrlefuller
That is also true! 

Anybody here ever heard of a man by the name of Edward Bernays?  (He's the guy Joseph Goebbels learned his craft from!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

[INVAR]

It's not just the Presidency.

Look how many people, in total seriousness, worship that half-bit singer Beyoncé as a queen.

This phenomenon goes far beyond government and politics; it pervades our culture.

Exactly the image she (and others) portray of themselves, and have portrayed for years:

[EasyAce]

It's not just the Presidency.

Look how many people, in total seriousness, worship that half-bit singer Beyoncé as a queen.

This phenomenon goes far beyond government and politics; it pervades our culture.

The distinction would be that worshipping a singer as a queen does far less damage to our culture
(which is more than just our performing arts) than worshipping a president as a monarch or expecting
if not praying that he become one.

B.B. King was (and remains, the title should be retired in his honour) known colloquially as the King of the Blues,
though he certainly never acted like one (those who had the honour of meeting the man testified to his basic
humility), but I bet you B.B. King had no intentions of trying (with apologies to the late Sen. Sam J. Ervin) to
turn George Washington's America into Gaius Caesar's Rome.