Yes, I am a Monarchist. Dictators suck, and republics always end up in failure (primarily beginning when society’s parasites realize they can vote …themselves other people’s money). In a way, Monarchy is the only true Libertarian form of government, as the nation is ruled essentially by a private citizen.
In US politics, Monarchy is the most lost of all causes. Won’t happen.
I used to hold to the most sane of Republican positions: Libertarianism. If a modern state has to exist, it should be as small as possible, with as little power as possible. That too will never happen. It sucks to be right sometimes.
First of all, I am a monarchist because it is the most beautiful form of government (beauty is tr…uth, truth beauty) and since no other government comes close to it in that regard, I think it is a powerful argument for its veracity. No one would read a book or watch a film with the title: “The Return of the President”, at least not in as great as numbers as “The Return of the King” (after Obama, I’m pretty sure NO one will want The Return of the President). The reason for this is that while monarchy does not represent an ephemeral “will of the people” it does represent the soul of the people, their families, culture and traditions. As such, the monarch is raised to be the perfect representative of the nation, which means attendance at the most beautiful church (or other place of worship), wearing the most beautiful national/cultural clothes, possessing the best manners as defined by the culture, and living in the most beautiful home in the nation. It is not pretentious for this to be so, since the monarch is the representative of the nation and is its ambassador to the world. There have been many monarchs who have lived acetic lives and given all their discretionary income to the poor but few have ever turned their backs on the responsibility they have had to the nation and burned the palaces, joined a church in a basement (though they may protect the right to do so and may not despise the idea), melted down the crown or acted like a crack addict in a Federal prison.
Monarchy is not actually a system of government. This is important because the data on the performance of nations (economically, morally, etc.) who happen to possess a functioning monarch on the throne is contradictory. Some nations with a monarch are more or less cruel while others are more or less just. For example, the Khans were not great people (though brave and capable) while the English monarchs were and are mostly decent and deserving folks (with flaws, of course and bad examples). That monarchy is not a system of government per se is clear from the fact that a monarch can co-exist with any other form of government. The British monarch rules a parliamentary democracy in England and Republics in Canada and Australia, the French kings ruled absolutely, the Japanese monarch ruled alongside a dictator (Tojo), and the old Caliphs of the Middle East were essentially religious leaders as well as monarchs. In all these different (and occasionally bizarre) systems of government, the monarch is the only common thread; in fact, monarchy has been the common thread in government throughout most of human history.
While monarchy is not a system of government, what is much more significant is that a monarch provides invaluable benefits to the nation, such as stability, unification, a living image of God’s rule, etc., (which I have described in greater detail in my previous comments) that nations lacking a monarch must go without.
A return to monarchy does not necessarily imply a return to a feudal system of economics (although I am of the opinion that feudalism has been unduly maligned by the academic wing of the Left and that opinion is sadly accepted by the general population today). Just look at the kingdom of Monaco, an absolutist monarchy. The economy is one of the most capitalist economies on the planet and the population is incredibly prosperous (not a great surprise there). I would definitely want to live there. Most of Europe’s remaining absolute monarchies are in similar states. Also, a note on serfdom; it did not exist in many places, including in Russia, before the dawn of the modern era (1500s). In the West, serfdom was the result of the conversion of the Roman Slave State (a result of a republic fallen into dictatorship-75% of the population were slaves) into a Christian hodgepodge of monarchies who transformed the horrid slave situation into the much better, if still imperfect, state of serfdom and eventually voluntarily abolished the practice altogether by the 19th century.
Some examples of bad monarchs are hilarious and true. However, I would argue for a more refined understanding of one of them: Ivan “the Terrible”. During Ivan’s much maligned reign, Russia’s population declined from 15million to 9million 1598-1613. Here is what Wikipedia has to say regarding the population decline: “In the 1560s the combination of drought and famine, Polish-Lithuanian raids, Tatar invasions, and the sea-trading blockade carried out by the Swedes, Poles and the Hanseatic League devastated Russia. The price of grain increased by a factor of ten. Epidemics of the plague killed 10,000 in Novgorod. In 1570 the plague killed 600-1000 in Moscow daily.[11] One of Ivan’s advisors, Prince Andrei Kurbsky, defected to the Lithuanians, headed the Lithuanian troops and devastated the Russian region of Velikiye Luki.” All of these factors formed the bulk of the decline, especially and unsurprisingly, the Black Plague. Some of Ivan’s policies did cause unnecessary death, and he went insane at the end of his reign. However, the picture of his rule is not as bad as is usually presented; he greatly expanded Russia’s borders, especially against the Muslims, he codified the laws, destroyed the largest slave trading center on the Volga (slavery was not allowed in Russia, the trading center in mention was conquered) and introduced local self-government in many areas. He did bad things too, but so does the regime in charge of our republic today. Hey, our republic allowed slavery at one point, then abolished it, fought devastating wars, eliminated whole populations, levies horrifically high taxes and regulations, and our leaders lead immoral and evil lives, even committing murders to stay in power. In many ways, our republic is no better and in some ways, remarkably worse (especially considering abortion), than most monarchies today and in the past.
Not to say I hate my country; far from it. I love the land of my birth and have put my life where my mouth is, as it were (those of you who know me know to what I am referring to here). However, I feel that a monarch would raise our already great nation to more noble heights and would put the brakes on potential tyrants.
