In Defense of Monarchy

[SLD]

So I’m reading a fascinating history of the French Revolution and it explores the debates of the monarchists and I thought this one deserved some further discussion.

This is from Louis de Bonald, an unrepentant nobleman who fought against the revolution and later served under Louis XVIII and Charles X.

His fundamental postulate is that individuals have no existence outside of the social units to which they belonged: the family, the state, and the religious community. To prevent conflict, each of these units must have a single ruler: the father, the king, and the pope, respectively. “Man only exists for the sake of society, and society forms him only for its purposes.” He profoundly disagreed that the society was a creation to serve the needs of the individual.

Few would agree with such a defense of absolutism today. But we are witnessing today a backlash against democracy. Trump, Orban, Erdogan, Putin have all pushed back against democracy and unleashed populist, even violent reactions to democracy. The French Revolution created a government far more repressive and undemocratic than Louis XVI. Kings argued that they were necessary to preserve peace and order in society, and Robespierre proved that thinking right. The bloodlust of the Terror or of Stalin’s purges put their former monarchs to shame. They appear downright enlightened! Monarchs viewed themselves as champions of the little people, as their father. Kinda like Trump? It’s generally the Bourgeoisie that revolts and not the peasantry. That’s where Trump draws his support - uneducated white males who’ve lost the patriarchy.

To this I should add what a wise judge once told me. People give lip service to democracy. What they really crave is order and power.

So is democracy doomed?

 

[repoman]

In some ways it is better to have a king that is a known quantity than rotating politicians that are like a cross between whack a mole and a merry go round regarding accountability.

When these politicians rip us off after not following through on their promises then the media blames the voters.

A King knows how much he can get away with and this is a stable arrangement. Not saying it is great either, but compared to the whorehouse of representatives...

 

[RVonse]

According to Thomas Sowell, it is much more normal not to have democracy than to have it. And if anyone would know it would be Thomas Sowell who spent his long life studying all the cultures and histories of the world.

Even the fathers of our own Constitution knew how fragile maintaining a democracy would be. Which is why that document was written to limit the power of government.

So to answer your question we are probably doomed. But I dissagree with you that Trump supporters are the real issue. The issue is that our present government has strayed too far from the Constitution which is never followed anymore. The same government that is now building fenced walls around its capital and is now afraid of its own citizens.

 

[Politesse]

I prefer the chaos of democracy to the rapid generational decay of a royal line. In a democracy, at least when the people well and truly demand something, there's a reason why politicians have to listen to them aside from the threat of violence, as I do not see violent uprisings and coups as the optimal way to transition between governmental paradigms. Monarchies in which the next monarch is selected on some basis of merit rather than automatically awarded based on primogeniture work a bit better, but there always comes a weak link in the chain eventually. My boy Marcus was one of the best and a good example of selection by adoption... right up until he caved to familial affection and failed to disown first a brother and then a son who were not ready for the purple.

Mind you. I don't think govenrmental strategies and structures impact the basic pattern and experiences of human life as much as people imagine they should. The same few families always end up in charge one way or another.

It is much more normal not to have democracy than to have it.

Perhaps, but then if you pan out enough and include enough of the human millennia, it is also more normal not to have a government than to have it, and saying that changes nothing about our current situation, in which the practical needs of social management have outstripped the inherent limits that our social instincts can handle. We must have a government at this juncture in history, and there's a reason all these longstanding historical dynasties have failed. Availability of information, for one. You really think a character like Louis XIV could exist in the modern world? Because I don't. His mystique was part of his power, it doesn't work if the camera's always on.

 

[barbos]

Coming from Soviet Union I used to wonder how US and other democracies manage to have all these freedoms without utter chaos. I don't wonder anymore.

 

[Politesse]

His fundamental postulate is that individuals have no existence outside of the social units to which they belonged: the family, the state, and the religious community. To prevent conflict, each of these units must have a single ruler: the father, the king, and the pope, respectively. “Man only exists for the sake of society, and society forms him only for its purposes.” He profoundly disagreed that the society was a creation to serve the needs of the individual.

My general, anecdotal experience has been that men who think their family needs a "strong" father to rule them and a gentle mother to suckle them, usually turn out to be child abusers, wife beaters, and such when the kids grow up and the truth comes out. Not always. You meet a true Cliff Huxtable every now and again. But you meet a lot more Bill Cosbys who think they are Cliff Huxtable. So I'm not sure putting these sorts of people on a golden throne will necessarily improve their ability to turn their ideals into practice, without to succumbing self-interest and their inevitable rage when control is predictably lost.

 

[Swammerdami]

In democracy, who is allowed to vote? Only the elite could vote in the famous ancient democracies (or in early U.S.A. for that matter); disenfranchising the ignorant masses has an advantage: Ignorance doesn't contribute to good electoral outcomes. Either way, it is VERY useful if the electorate has qualities like sense of common purpose, good will, and humane values. The U.K. and U.S. are were existence proofs that this is possible.

Or rather democracy worked well in those countries for the electorate. Subjects in the British Raj elected no M.P.'s and were treated almost as slaves. The U.S. didn't ask Iranians to vote in 1953 on whether they should be ruled by the liberal Mossadegh government or by a CIA-installed Shah. Perhaps — asking historians? — democracies succeeded BECAUSE colonialism (in the case of Europe) or a large frontier of expansion and rapid technological progress (in the case of U.S.) allow a country to direct its "libido" outward, rather than inward and against itself.

Having an autocrat may be good ... if the autocrat is an intelligent and good person. How do you ensure the autocrat is good? Elections? I live in Thailand where the difference between the late constitutional monarch Rama IX and his wealth-obsessed playboy son is profound. I think I would favor laws whereby high government officials and their families would be prohibited from acquiring excessive wealth. (It would be "unfair" to Hunter Biden not to be allowed to join in GME stock games? Life isn't fair.)

The fact that democratic U.K. and U.S. prospered for many decades with improving social conditions is proof that democracy did work. What went wrong? There have been no recent genetic changes making English-speakers stupider or greedier; the problem is that greedy liars have been enabled. If there were some way to put certain innovations (social media?) back into Pandora's box, these democracies might work once again.

The issue is that our present government has strayed too far from the Constitution which is never followed anymore. The same government that is now building fenced walls around its capital and is now afraid of its own citizens.

Can anyone explain what RVonse means here? His comments completely miss the point and seem apropos of nothing.

 

[barbos]

Yeah, John Oliver had a show about Monarchy in Thailand.
Putin in Russia is essentially a Monarch. He is well above average as a russian ruler and most people vote for him because alternative is not that great.
US system has been corrupted by money for so long that enough people "decided" that POS like Trump is a good way to go.
If it was up to me, I would have tried to reset the system by actively getting rid of professional politicians. Terms limits and draft system on everything.

 

[Politesse]

Putin in Russia is essentially a Monarch. He is well above average as a russian ruler and most people vote for him because alternative is not that great.

Yes. Although, at least in that case it seems very unlikely that Maria Vorontsova will suceed him as monarch. Part of the problem with monarchic systems is that they may begin with the career of an unusually charismatic individual, but countries outlive men, even "Great" ones. Indeed, monarchs often have a somewhat artificially shortened lifespan, and all the more often as a dynasty corrodes.

 

[barbos]

Putin in Russia is essentially a Monarch. He is well above average as a russian ruler and most people vote for him because alternative is not that great.

Yes. Although, at least in that case it seems very unlikely that Maria Vorontsova will suceed him as monarch. Part of the problem with monarchic systems is that they may begin with the career of an unusually charismatic individual, but countries outlive men, even "Great" ones. Indeed, monarchs often have a somewhat artificially shortened lifespan, and all the more often as a dynasty corrodes.

Monarchy does not have to be hereditary. Kings in Poland were democratically elected I think. In other places as well.

 

[DBT]

A meritocracy? Rule based on qualifications and ability? Those with too much ambition disqualified from holding office?

 

[barbos]

A meritocracy? Rule based on qualifications and ability? Those with too much ambition disqualified from holding office?

Yes, draft system for people who qualify but don't necessarily want all that crap associated with running for it.
And term limits of course.

 

[Harry Bosch]

According to Thomas Sowell, it is much more normal not to have democracy than to have it. And if anyone would know it would be Thomas Sowell who spent his long life studying all the cultures and histories of the world.

Even the fathers of our own Constitution knew how fragile maintaining a democracy would be. Which is why that document was written to limit the power of government.

So to answer your question we are probably doomed. But I dissagree with you that Trump supporters are the real issue. The issue is that our present government has strayed too far from the Constitution which is never followed anymore. The same government that is now building fenced walls around its capital and is now afraid of its own citizens.

????? Unbelievable. Your side went against constitution and tried to overthrow the election. And you defended this.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So I’m reading a fascinating history of the French Revolution and it explores the debates of the monarchists and I thought this one deserved some further discussion.

This is from Louis de Bonald, an unrepentant nobleman who fought against the revolution and later served under Louis XVIII and Charles X.

His fundamental postulate is that individuals have no existence outside of the social units to which they belonged: the family, the state, and the religious community. To prevent conflict, each of these units must have a single ruler: the father, the king, and the pope, respectively. “Man only exists for the sake of society, and society forms him only for its purposes.” He profoundly disagreed that the society was a creation to serve the needs of the individual.

Few would agree with such a defense of absolutism today. But we are witnessing today a backlash against democracy. Trump, Orban, Erdogan, Putin have all pushed back against democracy and unleashed populist, even violent reactions to democracy. The French Revolution created a government far more repressive and undemocratic than Louis XVI. Kings argued that they were necessary to preserve peace and order in society, and Robespierre proved that thinking right. The bloodlust of the Terror or of Stalin’s purges put their former monarchs to shame. They appear downright enlightened! Monarchs viewed themselves as champions of the little people, as their father. Kinda like Trump? It’s generally the Bourgeoisie that revolts and not the peasantry. That’s where Trump draws his support - uneducated white males who’ve lost the patriarchy.

To this I should add what a wise judge once told me. People give lip service to democracy. What they really crave is order and power.

So is democracy doomed?

I don't think democracy is doomed. Having lived in two monarchies (Sweden and Denmark) I can see it's benefits. People over here just love our royals. I think it's pretty deep rooted in humans to love submitting to a powerful person who embodies the nation. I'm personally a republican (no, not the American kind). But while I'm against monarchy on meritocratic grounds, I'm actually for monarchy in how well it works. I wish people here weren't so enthusiastic about our royals. But it is what it is. It is, for whatever reason, creating national unity. It takes some pressure off our prime ministers. They become less soap opera stars, and can focus on running the country. Nobody in Sweden could give less of a shit who are prime minister is dating or the name of his pets. I like that.

You're also making a mistake to equate monarchy with dictatorship. In a constitutional monarchy the monarch is nothing but a symbol. In France, the president is in practice the king, he has one power, to dissolve parliament and call a re-election in a crisis. The British queen, has in theory, the same power. She has never used that power. But apparently, she can. This is actually a power that protects against abuse of power.

I also don't think we're seeing a backlash against democracy. What we are seeing is a transformation of the economy, and the ruling elite failing to respond and take the poorest members of society into account. The poor, respond by voting authoritarian (and blaming immigrants). The economy is becoming more high tech, and shifting away from low skilled factory work. We can't do what our parents did for a living. That creates anxiety and instability. Radically shifting from one economic sector to another is painful. And people usually try to hang on to their old, and doomed jobs as long as they come. So typically are sucked into a depressing economic death spiral for decades, because accepting reality and moving on in life. These people are desperate for a politician to tell them that he'll save the old ways. That's what Trump did. He did successfully manage to increase the number of low skilled manufacturing jobs in USA.

No, democracy isn't doomed. We will adapt. It'll be painful for a couple of decades and then it'll be better than before. That's usually what happens. While it looks like doom and gloom everywhere, our global economy has never been in better shape, or more efficient. Even with Covid-19 fucking it up.

Nah, it'll be fine

 

[Politesse]

Putin in Russia is essentially a Monarch. He is well above average as a russian ruler and most people vote for him because alternative is not that great.

Yes. Although, at least in that case it seems very unlikely that Maria Vorontsova will suceed him as monarch. Part of the problem with monarchic systems is that they may begin with the career of an unusually charismatic individual, but countries outlive men, even "Great" ones. Indeed, monarchs often have a somewhat artificially shortened lifespan, and all the more often as a dynasty corrodes.

Monarchy does not have to be hereditary. Kings in Poland were democratically elected I think. In other places as well.

This is true. The first Muslim caliphs, as well. Really, most kingships on occasion, the elites or the military do occasionally take things into their own hands.

But if you give someone absolute power, they have a lot of latitude in "helping" the people decide whom to elect next.

 

[Swammerdami]

You're also making a mistake to equate monarchy with dictatorship. In a constitutional monarchy the monarch is nothing but a symbol.

In my dialect of English, "monarchy" means autocracy. The word for constitutional monarchy — a very different system — is "constitutional monarchy."

 

[SLD]

W

You're also making a mistake to equate monarchy with dictatorship. In a constitutional monarchy the monarch is nothing but a symbol.

In my dialect of English, "monarchy" means autocracy. The word for constitutional monarchy — a very different system — is "constitutional monarchy."

Correct. I did not mean constitutional monarchy. That was close to what initially replaced the Ancien Regime in 1791. But I doubt that is what De Bonald had in mind. He was a supporter of the Ancien Regime not the Assembly that drafted the 1791 constitution.

What is interesting is that there was a strong movement to restore the monarchy in some fashion after the end of the terror, but the future Louis XVIII would only hear of it if he was given full powers. 19 years later though he accepted a modified version of the 1791 constitution. But he was the last King to die in office. His younger brother and Louis-Phillipe were both driven from office by uprisings. Once the mob knew it could take down a king, it never really stopped.

De Bonald didn’t live to see the final destruction of the monarchy in 1848. He died in 1834, living long enough to see Charles X run off.

Perhaps another example is ancient Roman Republic. Towards its end, it served only the elites, who often tapped the mob for support. Sulla, Caesar and Augustus were elites who tapped into the growing frustration of ordinary people and used the mob to basically install themselves as autocrats. But is that inevitable? I keep going back to the mob that stormed the capitol. Were they much like the mob that stormed the Bastille?

 

[Elixir]

All forms of government "work" really well as long as there is a sufficiently populous suppressed class of non-citizens whose concerns and suffering can be safely ignored by the rest.
It's not even a challenge.
The challenge - never yet met AFAIK - is to form a government that works really well without that suppressed class.

Most utopian visionaries have surmised that given enough resources and a high enough level of prosperity, a truly egalitarian society could be sustained. Nobody would have to be suppressed to serve the needs and desires of the general public, if people could be comfortable without slaves or servants.
Our current situation lays bare the fact that enough is never enough; poor people today could be living like royalty of yore, or better, but strife and violence will still ensue. Not because of physical hardship, but because of the emotional and mental instability that sets in for a significant percentage of people when they don't have someone to look down upon.
Seems to be an endemic trait.

 

[DBT]

Resource availability does not appear to be the main obstacle toward building an egalitarian society.

 

[barbos]

Resource availability does not appear to be the main obstacle toward building an egalitarian society.

Too much resources in the hands of idiots, we need to start cutting access to twitter resources to idiots, I mean trump supporters. For their own good.