Does America need a king?

posted at 5:31 pm on January 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

No way. Install a king and before you know it he’ll be issuing royal edicts changing the law willy nilly to suit his daily whims.

What would be left of America then?

In parliamentary systems around the globe, the head of state is separate from the head of government. In some countries, like Russia and France, the president (as head of state) is more powerful than the prime minister (who is head of government). In others, like Israel, the president serves simply as a symbol of the nation, while the prime minister runs the country. Europe’s constitutional monarchies limit their heads of royal houses to symbolic functions, while reserving that role to one family. Having a national, unifying position ostensibly standing outside the daily muck of politics provides a rallying point for all citizens and a safety valve to redirecting national passions in a non-partisan way.

We have no such safety valve in the United States. Our experiment in self-government has progressed to the point where the differences in our increasingly complex country are now the salient feature of public life. They are certainly not as fundamental as the questions of slavery or civil rights, but they are deep and growing deeper nonetheless. The role and size of government, individual rights to privacy, immigration, the definition of marriage and the like are all driving polarization, not just in Washington, but in Peoria and Albuquerque and Manchester. The result is a country that is becoming shriller, more willing to demonize opponents and less united. This deep corrosion of political life is directly responsible for Americans’ growing sense of alienation.

A figurehead presidency like Israel’s would be the perfect job for Obama. That’s essentially the job he ran for in 2008: The point of Hopenchange was that O, through the sheer force of his sunny post-racial personal awesomeness, would usher in a new dawn for America. His legislative agenda was so far beside the point that his big domestic initiative ended up being cooked up as a throwaway applause line for an early stump speech. (“We needed something to say,” one advisor told Politico. “I can’t tell you how little thought was given to that thought other than it sounded good.”) We’re not even through five full years yet and his disengagement from the legislative process is legendary, a new story about his reluctance to twist arms and schmooze members of Congress hitting the wires seemingly every week. The extent to which he claims not to know what’s going on in his own administration is comic fodder even for media outlets that cheer for him. The guy palpably does not enjoy governing. Why not give him a job he does enjoy by letting him be “the biggest celebrity in the world” without having to worry about any executive duties? He could flip the coin at the Super Bowl, hold photo ops with visiting monarchs at the White House, maybe order an ObamaCare deadline arbitrarily moved now and then for old time’s sake. He’d love it. The highest ambition of Obama 2008 would finally be realized.

Problem is, I’m … not sure Prime Minister Boehner would be an upgrade.

Exit question: Would a parliamentary system be better for tea partiers? As a matter of pure identity, conservatives would be happy to be free of the GOP brand and able to vote for a party more to their liking without fear that doing so would necessarily hand power to Democrats. They could, in theory, even partner with liberal Democrats on a few areas of mutual interest, like reining in the NSA and the excesses of crony capitalism. On the other hand, with the Republican Party now shorn of its most conservative elements, the GOP could partner with liberals to pass amnesty and “fixes” for ObamaCare with little recourse for conservatives. The big risk would be that wave elections would leave the out party with no way of checking the other like the GOP has now with its House majority — and while in theory that risk is the same for both sides, in practice there are more registered Democrats in the U.S. and likely to be even more in the medium-term due to demographics. Second look at presidential systems?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

No to parliamentary systems. Yes to fusion voting, which allows a candidate to appear on more than one line on the ballot. This gives third parties a stronger voice in the election without discarding the two-party system.

njcommuter on January 3, 2014 at 10:52 PM

To add to your points, ajacksonian–
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/06/how_democracies_perish_deathbed_edition.html

onlineanalyst on January 3, 2014 at 9:26 PM

(Fixed the link).
A very powerful article.

You can read more like it in “An Enemy Hath Done This” by Ezra Taft Benson, a compilation of his speeches in the Sixties against Communism and socialism, with grave warnings based on his extensive experience in government service in the mid-20th-century.

No people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law. God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights and no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these. The function of government is to protect life, liberty and property and anything more or less than this is usurpation and oppression.

The Constitution of the United States was prepared and adopted by courageous men acting under inspiration from the Almighty. It is a solemn contract between the peoples of the states of this nation which all officers of government are under duty to obey. The eternal moral laws expressed therein must be adhered to or individual liberty will perish. It is the responsibility of government to punish crime and provide for the administration of justice and to protect the right and control of property. But today these basic principles and concepts are being flaunted, disregarded and challenged, even by men in high places. Through the exercise of political expediency the government is condoning the breakdown of law and order. (Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, pages 4-5)370pp. 978-0-9843972-3-5

(PS He became President of the LDS Church some decades after he gave these talks.)
More political comments of some Mormon leaders, and various important American political documents.

AesopFan on January 3, 2014 at 11:08 PM

This man is slowly but surely destroying the republic through his unconstitutional power grabs and rule by executive fiat. Congress needs to act swiftly to check this budding despot’s reign through caprice.

Conservchik on January 3, 2014 at 11:54 PM

This man is slowly but surely destroying the republic through his unconstitutional power grabs and rule by executive fiat. Congress needs to act swiftly to check this budding despot’s reign through caprice.

Conservchik on January 3, 2014 at 11:54 PM

But they won’t, and the rest of us will pay the price.

Cylor on January 4, 2014 at 6:43 AM

Del Dolemonte on January 3, 2014 at 6:20 PM

The UN bylaws state that the SecGen cannot come from any of the 5 permanent members. That is why no American has been SecGen.

ladyingray on January 4, 2014 at 7:36 AM

The entire country has a King and New York City has a commissar . . . thank you enlightened voters, your really stuck it to us this time.

rplat on January 4, 2014 at 8:01 AM

Based on his lack of intellectual prowess, America’
s tyrant, dictator Hussein has more in common with old kings and queens who suffered from inbreeding

That he sees hisself as a pop culture personality points out his inability to lead since he has no desire to rub shoulders with the lesser folks unless they are needed for another photo op

tuttle from tacoma on January 4, 2014 at 8:08 AM

What do Liberals and Conservatives have in common?

Every time they hear Obama speak, they cry out: “Oh, my god!!!”

PackerBronco on January 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Gondor has no king. Gondor needs no king.

ShadowsPawn on January 4, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Actually,

We could use one good investigative reporter that has national reach.

Instead, we have members of the P.R. team of the White House masquerading as “reporters.”

ProfShadow on January 4, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Bohner will go down in history as the most inept, incompetent, and perhaps corrupt weeper of the house.

He cried like a baby about making sure kids get a shot at the American dream, yet he works to destroy it and enslave generations to pay for this most selfish, lawless, and corrupt administration and congrASS.

Robert Jensen on January 4, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Why do we need a king? We have oba-mao…

ultracon on January 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM

The people suggesting we would rally around a monarch are the same people who suggest we rally around a television show, or abortion. And oddly enough, they never suggest we rally around the flag.

BKeyser on January 4, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Not that stupid AA jack off

TexasJew on January 4, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Israel saw all the nations around it and demanded a king. God said he will be bad for you but if that’s what you want, go ahead. And it didn’t turn out well.

Now the American people wanted a messiah, and they got one of sorts. Sure, now they want to crown their messiah, but it won’t go well.

flicker on January 4, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Christ is our only king.

JohnBrown on January 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM

If there were such a living person that would be treason!

Annar on January 4, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Having a national, unifying position ostensibly standing outside the daily muck of politics provides a rallying point for all citizens and a safety valve to redirecting national passions in a non-partisan way.

Who believes this non-sensical sentence? A king is a “national, unifying position”? That’s a king?

And exactly how has the King of England (that is, Prince Charles, or perhaps Queen Elizabeth) ever done anything of politcal or sociological importance?

Prince Charles’ princely leadership was limited to ineffectually lamenting the loss of classical architecture. His late ex-wife provided a story-book dream for all the girls named Princess today. And she survived a miserable divorce only to die an even more miserable death.

As Britain slides further and further into socialized medical neglect, contented jobless dole-seekers and Mohammedanism, what do the people look up to and see? Where is this national unifying position providing a safety valve redirecting national passions?

flicker on January 4, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Apparently the two executive orders President Revenge issued today regarding 2nd Amendment rights are in violation of HIPPA.

But he doesn’t care. Kneel before Zod!

22044 on January 3, 2014 at 5:34 PM

More importantly, Boehner and McConnell don’t care.

rrpjr on January 4, 2014 at 12:39 PM

And don’t worry, Allah. We have almost three years to bust the economy, put 75% of Americans on Welfare, bankrupt the US, foment racial riots, cut Welfare by 90% and maybe throw in a few terrorist detonations of dams and poisoning of water systems.

Then the DHS will step in with their black MRAPs and armored police soldiers and slowly move against the rowdy masses, within which the Knock-out Game will be just another form of casual conversation between strangers, and the NSA will coordinate the subjugation of any remaining free thinkers.

By October 2016 Obama will decare martial law and remain in office to insure continuity during the unrest and purges. Hillary will weep in her sunroom overlooking a tranquil Atlantic, dropping tears on a photo of Huma.

America will have its king, who then considers rebuking the judiciary, cancelling the newspapers, filtering the internet, nationalizing banks and oil companies, giving free cable and Obamaphones to everyone, sending national troops into the factories of toilet paper manufacturers, and declaring all electronics goods to be free from now on.

What a party it will be.

flicker on January 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Well said ALLAHPUNDIT. We do not need a a King, Charles should be the last one to ever get close to ruling U.S. Besides, our current leader would not even consider himself a King.

His Roots are planted in extremist (Black Panther aka Muslim Brotherhood with strong Shira ideologies) which extend beyond being a King. These beliefs allow only those to sit with him, are those who agree with him. Others are to be humiliated (e.g. mortified, chagrined, humbled, abased, hurt, wounded, injured, bruised, offended, ridiculed etc.) into compliance.

His goal is not to be King, because he subconsciously or consciously considers himself to be the Twelfth Imam.

MSGTAS on January 4, 2014 at 2:10 PM

King Barack might be a good idea. With an elected “president”, we the people are tied up in knots with Constitutional sensibilities unlike the current occupant of the Oval Office. But with a King, there is worldwide historical precedence to storm the castle and “do away” with the S.O.B. I’m liking the idea of a King.

SpiderMike on January 4, 2014 at 2:52 PM

“Every age that has historical status is governed by aristocracies.
Aristocracy with the meaning – the best are ruling.

Peoples do never govern themselves. That lunacy was concocted by liberalism. Behind its “people’s sovereignty” the slyest cheaters are hiding, who don’t want to be recognized.”

“Liberalism” in this case in the classical liberal sense. The Thomas Paine sort of liberalism.

That quote is Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany.

crosspatch on January 4, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Question decided, 1764 to 1789.

Hang anyone who pushes kingship.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 4, 2014 at 3:11 PM

We had one once…remember how THAT ended?

Guess what… It’s gonna end that way this time, too.

a5minmajor on January 4, 2014 at 4:54 PM

The UN bylaws state that the SecGen cannot come from any of the 5 permanent members. That is why no American has been SecGen.

ladyingray on January 4, 2014 at 7:36 AM

Any man that can neuter our constitution and our congress can disregard any puny UN bylaws with a wave of his hand.

Don L on January 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM

Christ is our only king.

JohnBrown on January 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Yours? Fine. “Ours”? No.

Irritable Pundit on January 4, 2014 at 5:52 PM

A king?

Does america need another revolutionary war?

It would happen, quickly, suddenly and the king would loose.

TX-96 on January 4, 2014 at 6:25 PM

OMG. I didn’t think anything could increase my contempt for this administration.

evergreen on January 4, 2014 at 7:54 PM

2nd sentence – Obama is already doing that. If America DID ‘need’ a king it certainly wouldn’t be THIS loser!

Will someone PLEASE impeach his @$$ already?!

easyt65 on January 4, 2014 at 10:20 PM

I think the issue here is the confusion between the problem and the cause of the problem. The problem is the author thinks our politics is too divisive. He suffers from trouble most people have- which is thinking history started when he was born. When we declare war on each other and kill a half million of our own people we can use divisive as a term. Also he confuses the problem with the real cause one we were warned about by our founding fathers. We allowed, through our own greed and laziness, career corrupt politicians to entrench themselves in an abusive government.

That is why their polls are so low. Replace them with good honest people, limited in term, who understand they must live under the laws they pass we will see a increase in the numbers.

How to get from here to there is anyone’s guess now. The system is rigged for the elites to remain in power and they will never give it up without a real fight. Which is why they are arming up the large and growing administrative government under them and beholden to them for food housing and wealth for their own families.

The king isn’t the answer. Ask the French what happened to theirs…and the tens of thousands who supported his form of government.

archer52 on January 5, 2014 at 8:00 AM

Christ is our only king.

JohnBrown on January 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Yours? Fine. “Ours”? No.

Irritable Pundit on January 4, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Why not? The king should just be a figurehead, not a legal ruler.

Jesus already fulfills that function superbly. Christians don’t need another king. It’s the looney Democrats who fall prostrate at the feet of their earthly rulers. Those grovelers need an earthly king, and, not having one, they make kings out of their political leaders. That is very dangerous.

fadetogray on January 5, 2014 at 9:48 AM

The illusion of wealth and freedom goes a long way. It worked for the Romans for two millenia (including Byzantium) just like the underlings who work for mob bosses.

It’s like how these wealthy southern landowners kept the majority of whites firmly in the Dixiecrat fold for so long-”Hey, boy, don’t complain, you’re still way better off than the blacks!”

Unfortunately, humans are designed to follow others and be happy with what they’ve got, especially since that they can be easily convinced that they’re living high on the hog even when they’re little more than serfs. Ripe pickings for the crooks that promise you more, and thrust you even deeper into debt and slavery.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 5, 2014 at 10:05 AM

one minor thing forgotten:

The monarch or head of state is not a narcissistic lying selfish thief like Obama

When he is , you get situations as in North Korea, Iran and other

huntingmoose on January 5, 2014 at 11:21 AM

“Exit question: Would a parliamentary system be better for tea partiers?”

Absolutely NOT! If their system was so much better with so many more safety valves than ours (not true) then why is it that the vast majority of Europe, outside of maybe Germany / Italy that has seen some economic growth, is doing economically much worse than us?

European Parliamentary systems have like in Britain have lead to Single Payer Healthcare. It has lead to many elites traveling to America to get their Health Care.

America would be far more communist than it already is if we had their system from the beginning.

Varchild on January 5, 2014 at 11:56 AM

The result is a country that is becoming shriller, more willing to demonize opponents and less united. This deep corrosion of political life is directly responsible for Americans’ growing sense of alienation.

Translation:
ZOMG, it worser than ever …

I laugh heartily at this kind of historical ignorance.

dissent555 on January 5, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Christ is our only king. JohnBrown on January 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM

That’s what I learned in fourth grade in public school.

If we ever have a king I hope we shortly thereafter have a Cromwell. But not a Presbyterian one.

Akzed on January 5, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Obama, the nastiest president in American history, is worried about America becoming shriller! The little man who never stops dispensing rudeness and insults as well as lies? That little man. It takes a lot of self ignorance to talk like that>

arand on January 5, 2014 at 5:02 PM

Americans need to read good, healthy doses of Frederic Bastiat’s The Law.

The man died 164 years ago, and he’s still hitting it out of the park.

You would think he had met Obama personally.

kbTexan on January 5, 2014 at 8:39 PM

let them try,
we will end it faster than you can say king louie the 16th.

sniffles1999 on January 5, 2014 at 10:40 PM

The role and size of government, individual rights to privacy, immigration, the definition of marriage and the like are all driving polarization, not just in Washington, but in Peoria and Albuquerque and Manchester. The result is a country that is becoming shriller, more willing to demonize opponents and less united.

Ironically, if you reduce the size and role of government significantly, then you don’t really need that safety valve.

And, interestingly, it’s the side aiming for more government that controls more aspects of our lives in an ever-intrusive fashion that is the side forcing shrillness into the culture.

GWB on January 6, 2014 at 9:05 AM

This is America. We don’t do kings.

magicbeans on January 6, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Well, that’s pretty much the dumbest headline I’ve
read in a while.

FineasFinn on January 6, 2014 at 11:48 AM

No, thanks. We’ve already got one.

TimBuk3 on January 6, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2