Make America a Monarchy Again

[Tolkien R.R.J]

My latest article is addressed to the "No King" protestors. Titled "Make America a Monarchy Again"

Smith: Make America a monarchy again

To all the “No King” protesters:

www.rutlandherald.com

 

[Fantine]

The Tony's were on recently, along with videos of Jonathan Groff playing King George III. Back with his battalions to remind you of his love. Lin-manuel Miranda got it perfectly. George III was comical but so repulsive you just had to overthrow him. And that is exactly the style of monarch the Trump would be. No More Kings.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

The Tony's were on recently, along with videos of Jonathan Groff playing King George III. Back with his battalions to remind you of his love. Lin-manuel Miranda got it perfectly. George III was comical but so repulsive you just had to overthrow him. And that is exactly the style of monarch the Trump would be. No More Kings.

I think you mean no more monarchs!

I say no more monarchs or presidents!!!

 

[Richard T]

You penned some interesting ideas that I never would have thought of. In comparing times we must admit that the earliest American democracy did offer more freedom than most monarchies of that time. That a constitution was instituted also certainly helps break down any authoritarian types power with the American system, as did the Magna Carta and other documents limit later English kings.
Of course, the mode of industry and services changed over time, as did the international threats and challenges which resulted in the need for more government. For the most part the USA has transitioned pretty well. Exceedingly well at times, lackluster to even failure at others, but those failures were never complete though one might conclude their is a risk of that with Trump.
Trump though to me is not what is making democracy fail in the USA, but instead that falls to corporate and monied interests that seemingly compete to run the government for their own interests. If anything the idea of noblesse oblige that has changed to the detriment of society, not our democracy over a somewhat powerless monarchy. Make America First, in reality aligns with a Make Me First; a society that is doomed to failure morally, biblically and eventually physically.
Rather than a Monarchy versus Presidency competition, I see America more in the midst of a Neo-Marxist interpretation. That Trump's gospel includes not only a greater opportunity for the wealthy but some ideas that represent traditional cultural interests, versus those of the left which are too radical for moderates or most
independent voters. This snapshot of government seems closer to Gramsci, to control areas of cultural life so as to control the power of the America. Retrospectively, I think that Trumpism will turn out to be too bold, too white, too controversial, and too unconstututional.
As the courts weigh in on everything from tariffs to immigration we will see how Trump behaves in all of this. The midterms and failed policies too will likely cool the movement down or perhaps heat it up to aggression. Whether a monarchy or powerful Presidency, the next transition is bound to be quite messy as more foreign and domestic conflict seem likely.

 

[rebornfree]

Your President has far more power than our Monarch has! Charles III cannot issue executive orders, express his own views on party political issues or initiate his agenda.

 

[Fantine]

Your President has far more power than our Monarch has! Charles III cannot issue executive orders, express his own views on party political issues or initiate his agenda.

I think our president might like that. No demands other than standing on a balcony and waving. True, King Charles' son picks up some of the slack. He could recruit Ivanka, the most inoffensive of the older 3.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

My latest article is addressed to the "No King" protestors. Titled "Make America a Monarchy Again"

Smith: Make America a monarchy again

To all the “No King” protesters:

www.rutlandherald.com

Yeah, hold the coronation in Boston. Sure it'll be historic.

 

[Richard T]

I think our president might like that. No demands other than standing on a balcony and waving. True, King Charles' son picks up some of the slack. He could recruit Ivanka, the most inoffensive of the older 3.

Monarchs pay no taxes too.

 

[rebornfree]

I think our president might like that. No demands other than standing on a balcony and waving. True, King Charles' son picks up some of the slack. He could recruit Ivanka, the most inoffensive of the older 3.

Actually King Charles does work hard but not in an executive role, as we're a democracy and Parliament makes the decisions. However he has many duties to perform and I think it is a demanding job. He is supported by other royals notably his sister, as well as his wife, older son and younger brother and their wives.

 

[ralliann]

Yeah, hold the coronation in Boston. Sure it'll be historic.

Or more liberal histrionics.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Or more liberal histrionics.

Sure, invent phrases when there's no argument, everyone's doing it.

 

[ralliann]

Sure, invent phrases when there's no argument, everyone's doing it.

No argument? Why on earth would someone argue with over the top claims of coronations LOL.
The sky is always falling with you guys. Geesh

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No argument? Why on earth would someone argue with over the top claims of coronations LOL.
The sky is always falling with you guys. Geesh

The above post is definitely over the top.

 

[Careyap87]

You penned some interesting ideas that I never would have thought of. In comparing times we must admit that the earliest American democracy did offer more freedom than most monarchies of that time. That a constitution was instituted also certainly helps break down any authoritarian types power with the American system, as did the Magna Carta and other documents limit later English kings.
Of course, the mode of industry and services changed over time, as did the international threats and challenges which resulted in the need for more government. For the most part the USA has transitioned pretty well. Exceedingly well at times, lackluster to even failure at others, but those failures were never complete though one might conclude their is a risk of that with Trump.
Trump though to me is not what is making democracy fail in the USA, but instead that falls to corporate and monied interests that seemingly compete to run the government for their own interests. If anything the idea of noblesse oblige that has changed to the detriment of society, not our democracy over a somewhat powerless monarchy. Make America First, in reality aligns with a Make Me First; a society that is doomed to failure morally, biblically and eventually physically.
Rather than a Monarchy versus Presidency competition, I see America more in the midst of a Neo-Marxist interpretation. That Trump's gospel includes not only a greater opportunity for the wealthy but some ideas that represent traditional cultural interests, versus those of the left which are too radical for moderates or most
independent voters. This snapshot of government seems closer to Gramsci, to control areas of cultural life so as to control the power of the America. Retrospectively, I think that Trumpism will turn out to be too bold, too white, too controversial, and too unconstututional.
As the courts weigh in on everything from tariffs to immigration we will see how Trump behaves in all of this. The midterms and failed policies too will likely cool the movement down or perhaps heat it up to aggression. Whether a monarchy or powerful Presidency, the next transition is bound to be quite messy as more foreign and domestic conflict seem likely.

We were never a Democracy we are a Republic Constitution.

 

[RileyG]

If, America, in a hypothetical situation, was a monarchy would Episcopalianism be our state religion since we descended from the Church of England? Who would be King?

I don't ever see that happening, and I'm thankful for that.

We have no Kings/Queens since 1776!

The people have spoken!

 

[Aldebaran]

Your President has far more power than our Monarch has! Charles III cannot issue executive orders, express his own views on party political issues or initiate his agenda.

He can't express his own views on party political issues?
Good thing the First Amendment applies to our president the same as for us "commoners", which means that even commoners in America have more rights to free speech than King Charles does in England.

 

[rebornfree]

He can't express his own views on party political issues?
Good thing the First Amendment applies to our president the same as for us "commoners", which means that even commoners in America have more rights to free speech than King Charles does in England.

Yes, and us commoners in the UK do too but the Royal Family are meant to be impartial, as their role is to represent everyone and to provide a Head of State who is separate from the lawmakers in Parliament.

They can express views on good causes and appreciate charitable concerns etc. For example the King's Christmas message may thank people who have especially contributed to society that year (e.g.the NHS staff during the pandemic) and comment on values such as helpfulness and good will. However they wouldn't comment on whether taxes should be raised or lowered. That would be considered party political. The King's speech at the opening of Parliament each year sets out the Government's agenda, but it is the Government's policies, not his.

The King and closest members of the Royal Family forego many freedoms, which is why I don't think that Trump would like being a king in a democracy.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, and us commoners in the UK do too but the Royal Family are meant to be impartial, as their role is to represent everyone and to provide a Head of State who is separate from the lawmakers in Parliament.

They can express views on good causes and appreciate charitable concerns etc. For example the King's Christmas message may thank people who have especially contributed to society that year (e.g.the NHS staff during the pandemic) and comment on values such as helpfulness and good will. However they wouldn't comment on whether taxes should be raised or lowered. That would be considered party political. The King's speech at the opening of Parliament each year sets out the Government's agenda, but it is the Government's policies, not his.

The King and closest members of the Royal Family forego many freedoms, which is why I don't think that Trump would like being a king in a democracy.

I don't see why not. People are saying Trump is trying to make himself a king. From what you described, they should be thanking him for wanting to be a king, if indeed that's what he's trying to be.

 

[Careyap87]

I don't see why not. People are saying Trump is trying to make himself a king. From what you described, they should be thanking him for wanting to be a king, if indeed that's what he's trying to be.

He is NOT a king at all.

 

[rebornfree]

I don't see why not. People are saying Trump is trying to make himself a king. From what you described, they should be thanking him for wanting to be a king, if indeed that's what he's trying to be.

Well yes, if it makes him less powerful, but would you want him to represent your country? Would he be able to hold back his views and act graciously and impartially?