|
Zonie63 -> RE: US supporting freedom and democracy? US against terrorism? (1/5/2013 10:42:17 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
But then, if this is the case, how can you say that the monarchy has no power? How would it increase division within Britain if they had a President instead of a monarch, if the monarch has no power anyway? What difference does it make? Is the monarchy just some sort of meaningless affectation, and if so, what does it say about the British political consciousness?
Simplistically, the monarchy has been shed of political power and takes a role in the constitution of making sure no political party usurps power, in theory the monarch acts as a referee. In the American system the President is a politician first and foremost and in Britain would probably be seen as ideologically biased, which the American president is, if they have nbothered to formulate and ideology, Reagan gave most Europeans the impression he formulated policies based on instinct and prejudice.
It sounds like the monarchy's role as referee might be comparable to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is also supposed to be non-political. But how can any human be non-political? I don't think it's really possible.
The President is a politician, yes, although there have been times when politicians from opposing parties might still rally behind the President, when there's something like a war or a major crisis. Likewise, the President is ideally supposed to elevate himself above politics - "for the good of the country" - that sort of thing. But does that ever really happen in practice? Yes, but probably not as much as it should.
As for Reagan, I'm not sure if he formulated his policies in the manner you describe, nor am I even sure that he himself formulated those policies. He was surrounded by a very slick crew of conservative ideologues and political experts, while Reagan seemed more like a good front man.
As I mentioned above in a response to Ermood, the main reason that Reagan was elected in the first place was because Carter was seen as weak and ineffectual, that he was letting America's defense and our position in the world fall apart. His impotence during the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was seen as harmful to America's interests and could encourage more countries to attack us.
I also mentioned that one of the deeper divisions in America has to do with how we perceive the outside world and our role in it. The actions of other countries have been able to influence elections in the United States. In that sense, it was partly the Iranians' fault that we ended up with Ronald Reagan (and George Bush and Jr. came part of the package). Anti-Americanism is a kind of vicious circle and a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more anti-American the outside world gets, the more entrenched and aggressive America becomes, giving the outside world even more of a reason to be anti-American.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Well, it would seem to me that since the military takes an oath to the monarch, then they would be duty bound to follow the monarch’s orders, no matter what those orders might entail or whatever the circumstances. Am I wrong about that?
In theory but in reality Parliament decides what the military does. However, should a political party decide to use the military to gain permanent power, the power of military allegiance would come into play, the monarch's responsibility is to defend the constitution.
Since the system seems to work to maintain political stability and guarantee the rights of citizens, then I suppose I can't argue with it on that basis. I think any system could be prone to corruption and usurpation for illicit ends, but it really depends on the people who control it. The most effective way of measuring a system is through its effectiveness and the results of what it produces, both the positive results and the negative results.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
True, but my main point here is that the monarch does have some kind of moral influence in the eyes of the people. They could use their position as a kind of bully pulpit.
Victor Emanual was a fascist puppet which is why after the war a plebiscite voted away the monarchy. No doubt if Victor Emanual had been his own man and resisted the fascists, people would have wanted to keep the monarchy.
I imagine that if the war had been going better for Italy, Mussolini might have been able to keep his job.
But it would seem that the people also felt as if the monarch should have done more, and the results of the plebiscite would seem to be indicative of their disappointment and disapproval. That may also be the reason for the Germans wanting to overthrow the Kaiser and the Russians wanting to overthrow the Tsar. Perhaps they thought their monarchs should lead for the good of the country, but when they were doing such a crappy job of it, the people got angry and threw them out.
It would seem that whether a monarch has a lot of power or very little power might depend a great deal on the monarch himself/herself. From the article linked earlier by Politesub53, it seems that the British monarchy has no power mainly because the monarchy itself wants it that way. They can still have their castles and riches, not have to do any work, can travel and live life in opulent luxury, yet if anything goes wrong in the government or with the country, they're not to blame, since they have no power. It's a great job if you're born into the right family.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
But I could be wrong about that, so I welcome any input or feedback you might have. I must admit that this gray area tends to make me wonder, because if the monarch has no power, why have one at all? What’s the point? Is their whole job just to sit there and look pretty?
They have the moral power of being above political partizanship and if they act wisely, as in defending the constitution, they will have the power of the people behind them that no purely political party can muster. (In theory)
In theory. That's where there might be some gray area. I'm not really criticizing here. It's somewhat interesting to me, although it seems more like a relic from a bygone era. It also has religious underpinnings which seem to be growing more irrelevant in this day and age. In theory, the Queen is also head of the Church of England, although I guess that's also a figurehead position where she has no real power over the policies and day to day affairs of the Church.
That's another major difference in that we have separation of church and state. The President couldn't possibly the head of a church. That would be unheard of.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I think that any government, regardless of what form it takes or what system is used, can be usurped or fall due to the corruption of human beings. Humans operate governments, and as the saying goes, power corrupts. Humans have shown themselves to be quite corruptible, even those who have royal blood.
True. The power of the monarchy relies on the quality of the monarch but it is in the self interest of the monarch to defend the constitution. As we have seen with Victor Emanual, his fall was down to his allowing himself to be used as a puppet.
Indeed, but couldn't that also be said of the Kaiser and the Tsar in that they marched their countries off to war, ostensibly against the will and the best interests of their people? Were they really in charge and could they have made a difference? Or were they just puppets of the vested interests in their society?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I favor republicanism over monarchism myself, although I’ve had this discussion before on another message board.
Of course, the Weimar Republic was a weak republic, and they really didn’t have any reliable system of checks and balances, which are necessary to prevent any single individual from holding too much power. Term limits for President also help.
The Weimar republic was the most democratic government the west has ever seen but with economic crisises and external hostility from the victors of WWI, particularly France and Belgium, with their humiliating accupation of the Ruhr Valley, it had little chance of succeeding.
That's probably another lesson we learned, since we decided to take a different approach towards Germany after World War II. Rather put the screws to them and leave them starving and bankrupt, the goal was to help them rebuild and become a strong, economically viable ally against the Soviet Bloc.
It seemed a bit bizarre in a way. After all, the real perpetrators within the German government who were responsible for the war seemed to get off scot-free. The Kaiser was overthrown but escaped to the Netherlands (where he lived long enough to see the Nazi occupation of that country). As far as I know, he was never arrested or brought up on any charges. Moreover, it seemed that the post-war German government was trying to make an honest go of it, in terms of democratizing and reforming their system. Why would France, Belgium or other Allied powers try to punish them for that?
That's what never made any sense. What's more, when Hitler was rising to power and Germany really was becoming a threat again, they just sat there and did nothing until it was too late. Instead of appeasing Hitler, perhaps they would have been better off appeasing the Weimar government instead. It might have been just enough to prevent Hitler's later rise to power.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I think that capitalism has evolved to some degree, at least here in the U.S. Slavery and indentured servitude are long gone. Sweatshops and child labor have been outlawed. Unions are legal, and workers have the right to collectively bargain. There are minimum wage laws, OSHA requirements, overtime, FMLA, ADA, and other reforms which protect workers.
Granted, none of this came easily. Some capitalists have been rather stubborn, fighting tooth and nail against any kinds of reforms (not to mention causing a Civil War). But capitalists have had to adjust.
Capitalists adjusted because they had to adjust but they still resist and capitalism is still the enemy of the majority of people as one population is played off against another.
And ironically, in this capitalist crisis, capitalist debt has been socialized meaning the corporate capitalism is socialism for the rich and brute capitalism for the poor, who are the ones who have to pay for capitalist folly.
Granted, although I tend to view capitalists in the same way I would view politicians or anyone who holds a comparable level of power. Just as with monarchy, capitalism is only as good as the people who control it and operate it. Some have been good, while others have been scoundrels. One can say the same about politicians, lawyers, religious leaders, military leaders, or any number of powerful positions in a given society. Some are decent, some are not.
Perhaps it's gotten a bit lopsided in recent years, and that may explain part of what's going on these days. Corruption may have reached a saturation point in our society and culture, and now, the system is cracking all around us.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
As for European wars started by communists, that may be debatable. We still can’t forget Stalin’s pact with Hitler which divided Poland and started World War II, along with the Soviet attack on Finland and annexation of the Baltic Republics.
Stalin was supposed to be a communist, Hitler a fascist who believed in the private market and private corporations working on government contracts, largely how western governments employ corporations today (even the US, maybe more so the US with its military-industrial complex). Both were what they were through convenience of politics, not through any ideological belief. They were the same, both were dictators. They both were where they where through the failure of capitalism but was one communist and the other capitalist? Only in name at best.
I think both Stalin and Hitler were political opportunists who saw weaknesses in their political systems and used those mechanisms to gain absolute power. There were no safeguards or checks and balances to prevent it.
Ironically, many of Stalin's victims were other communists. As for the capitalists, I imagine German capitalists were having a pretty rough time under Hitler's leadership, especially towards the end there. Capitalists may support the military-industrial complex, but they're also gambling that they're going to win the war. Not all capitalists are quite so reckless. I wouldn't put all communists in the same camp either, as some have more moderate views than others.
I think both ideologies have somewhat fossilized. Both were formulated as reactions to an older social system and a world situation which no longer exists today. They can't really seem to come up with anything new.
|
|
|
|
