8 ms·
A Modest Proposal: A King and Queen for America
- PinkSweater 16y agoFucking liberal jackasses are ruining this country.
- radley 16y agoWest Wing did it... http://tv.yahoo.com/the-west-wing/show/episode/15164/recap&vers=long&start=8 http://tv.yahoo.com/the-west-wing/show/episode/15164/recap&#...
- AndrewO 16y agoStephen Fry touched on this in his book/miniseries on the US and made a pretty interesting observation: in his opinion, the flag takes the place in Americans' minds that is occupied by a royal family in other countries. The problem is that a flag can't ask a chief of government to justify his policies in the same way a monarch with decades of experience can. As an American, I can see how having a head of state with decades of experience who's nominally higher than the chief of government, but with no formal power might help check corrupting influences and promote accountability. Of course, it's rife with problems of its own.
- j_baker 16y agoInteresting. Of course, the whole Constitution forbidding grants of nobility by the United States might get in the way.
- tomjen3 16y agoHey if we didn't follow the constitution before, why should such a paragraph stop us?
- dmm 16y agoThe constitution doesn't mean a damn thing. They would probably just use the commerce clause to justify it.
- e1ven 16y agoJust a quick note, in case you're not familiar- When someone entitles something "A Modest Proposal", they're usually referencing Swift, and are attempting to point out the absurdity of the current situation, rather than suggest a serious solution. Read as a <Sarcasm> tag. See Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
- henrikschroder 16y agoOther countries often hand over ceremonial duties to a titular head of state with no real powers - sort of a national nanny. Actually, it's the other way around, we've taken everything but the ceremonial duties from our monarchs. Also, the countries with non-elected heads of state usually frown upon political statements from them.
- lmkg 16y agoJust so we're all on the same page here: anything with the phrase "A modest proposal" in the title is satire[1]. The main point is that the symbolic and ceremonial responsibilities of reflecting the character and attitude of the nation fall on someone with a real job, while most other countries have a separation of concerns. On the other hand, the United States has a long-standing tradition of treating the government as an enemy rather than an extension of national identity, so we wouldn't actually have that much for such a figurehead to do. The closest that you get is the First Lady taking up A Cause and enacting change at the philanthropic and national-awareness level. [1] The original "Modest Proposal" put forth the idea of eating Irish babies as a solution to feeding the poor in London, and is regarded as one of the finest satires in the English tradition. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
- maxharris 16y agoGovernments that deviate from their proper purpose of protecting individual rights become an outright enemy of their citizens when they supress speech to the point that no one can speak to change things for the better. It is an understatement to say that this American view of government is just a longstanding tradition; see quotes by Jefferson and other founders.
- Towle_ 16y agoSee quotes? See Declaration of Independence. For anyone who hasn't read the full document in a while, a close read probably the best way you could spend the next 10 minutes of your life. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm (maxharris2: just in case clarification is necessary, let the record show that my rhetorical "counterpoint" should be read as a literal "hell yeah!")
- julius_geezer 16y agoOK, provided that we are clear on the distinction between state rights and individual ones as understood today. Most of the colonies went into the revolution with established churches; all states but Massachusetts reached the first census with slavery legal.
- saturdayplace 16y agoIsn't this the role Hollywood stars fill?
- sdurkin 16y agoMore realistically, how about a Constitutional amendment that designates the Vice President, in his role as President of the Senate, to be the titular Head of State for all functions ceremonial?
- rbanffy 16y agoHow about Parlamentarism?
- AndrewWarner 16y agoI don't think the head of state can be someone in politics because the opposing power wouldn't want to make him/her the next president. But I don't think we need a head of state. It's a waste of time to have the president go to events that are often empty photo opportunities.
- siculars 16y agoObama should have declared the entire fiasco a National Emergency and repossessed the entire operation, repossessed all the engineering information and subcontracted out the fix to Exxon under the command of the Army Corps of Engineers or better, DARPA. If BP is the first and only operator drilling at 5k feet and royally screwed the pooch than how worse of a job could Exxon do? When the President of the United States thinks that BP is the best we can do, we are all well and truly boned. Not because that is obviously not true, but because the President has more or less abdicated his power.
- jswinghammer 16y agoWe didn't want the rule of law anyway I guess...
- sp332 16y agoThis is a capitalist country, which means that personal property is sacred and cannot be taken without due process of law. Imagine if the President could just take over whatever property he wanted as long as it was for "national security." The abuses of power would be incredible! Point is, Obama neither has, nor should have the power to repossess the operation.
- siculars 16y agoHey sp332, I'm with you. We are a capitalist country and personal property is sacrosanct. In an era where the Government is looking to takeover virtually everything in sight from how health care works, to how we make cars to how Wall Street operates how can this calamity be off limits? If media reports are to be believed [1][2], which are the best we can go on at the moment, I have no doubt that BP will be shown to have been negligent and hope against hope, criminally at that. I can only hope that BP execs do hard time for this. Will you say that this is not an environmental catastrophe? As an environmental catastrophe is this incident not a national security incident? How can the only answer to this problem be that BP be in charge of fixing it? It would be like saying that Lehman Brothers broke the economy and they are the only ones who can fix it. Obviously that is not the case as evidenced by the Governments extreme, forceful and more than a handfull of people would say illegal intervention. Where is the extreme, forceful intervention the nation is begging for now? How can the POTUS be impotent when we need the "buck" to stop with someone who has the power to do something meaningful? Ya, I'm mashing a whole bunch of things together but, eh, whatever. When virtual numbers flash on a screen in the wrong directions the world basically comes to a halt and there is no limit to the power and absolute authority of the Government. But when an actual real life, physical catastrophe is at hand, the Government is impotent and has no tools or imagination at it's disposal. It's all just sickening and shameful. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30rig.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30rig.html [2] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490...
- ErrantX 16y agoJust to offer a royalist British viewpoint (yes, it is possible to be liberal and a royalist :D). I really enjoy having a Queen as head of state; and I wish the role hadn't become so namby pamby (basically as described in this article). Here the Queen has "effective"/moral power - but it is just accepted she wont use it. This is a departure even in recent times; go back 60/70 years and that sentence would have read: Here the Queen has "effective"/moral power - but it is just accepted she wont use it if the politicians behave. I wish we could go back to that. But, anyway, that is to one side - I meant to explain the idea of royalty. You see a lot of people consider it quaint and ye-olde English. But really in modern times the Queen is just our version of American patriotism. You know that patriotic support for ones country etc. I've always liked that; the idea of believing in an "ideal" (even if the reality is a bit rubbish). I wish there was more of it, instead of less and less. (I realise this is mildly tangential to the point of the piece; which actually, IMO, had a solid point to make)
- mcantelon 16y agoHumans are pack animals and it comforts the pack to have an alpha.
- mpk 16y agoWell, yes. It's not just comforting, it's also practical. Nobody ever gets to be head of state because that position is already taken by the royal family, who in turn are expected to behave and not mix in with politics. Works well where I'm living.
- argv_empty 16y agoHere the Queen has "effective"/moral power - but it is just accepted she wont use it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many here would trust monarchs or anyone else not to use their power.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- 16y ago
- mhd 16y agoAnd we'll build a castle in Duluth!
- mhd 16y agoSigh, judging from the downvotes, it seems that the famous "Untold Delights of Duluth" speech is mostly forgotten... http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1971/4/1971_4_76.shtml http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1971/4/...
- elai 16y agoHaving a popular 'government celebrity' (king or queen) can be bad even if they have no formal power. It can become a sort of national lynchpin or dependency and contribute to political instabillity as in Thailand.
- philwelch 16y agoI suspect the king of Thailand actually provides stability rather than instability--imagine how bad the coups and so forth would be if there wasn't someone who could effectively back one faction over another in these disputes.
- nazgulnarsil 16y agothe portrayal of monarchy by the pro-collectivist modern era is a caricature. monarchy is an actual method of organization, not a broken form of democracy. for a contemporary example see private corporations, the military, and certain religious institutions.
- pier0 16y agoI say Americans appoint Calacanis and Arrington as their King and Queen. And if you downvote this you will be named the Queen's jester.
- mscantland 16y agoThis is very cynical. Are we really to believe that the only part of Obama's reaction one would find lacking is his lack of theatrical anger? I would argue that his actions are coming up short too. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama is presiding over a country that is allowing its largest businesses to gain immense profits at the cost of its taxpayers. A few examples include Goldman which is arbitraging the markets with funds borrowed at a near-zero Fed discount window and oil companies such as BP whose profits (6.2 billion EBIT in Q1) clearly indicate that the leases on which it is drilling are priced far too low and don't possibly cover the external costs of drilling.
- roundsquare 16y agoThat is besides the point. The main point of the article is that people want to see him get emotional and thats just not who he is. Its silly for people to want that... its a waste of time. But, since people will always want it, lets get someone good looking to do it and let him do his job.
- mscantland 16y agoIt isn't beside the point. He isn't doing his job, and painting it as simply criticism of his failure to emote is a smokescreen.
- roundsquare 16y agoSorry, I think I wasn't being clear. If his actions are coming up short, thats very important. In fact, thats what we should be discussing. Thats where we should be pressuring him to do better. So we are, in fact, in agreement that the President's actions should be under the closest scrutiny and open to criticism that he should take into account. The point of the article however is that the President (whoever it may be) is also called upon to do two things: 1) Seemingly react with the same emotions as the American people. 2) Take part in various ceremonial activities. Especially with respect to the first (and to some degree with the second, though this can be debated more easily) this is absurd. Just because people are angry with something, why should the President show the same anger. At times, it may be strategically sound to do so, but at times it would be a bad idea. This, I think, is the main idea of the article. Note that I have not mentioned any specific President or any specific disaster or event. This is a general point. If you take issue with Obama's actions, thats all well and good, but its not what the article was getting at (at least in my reading). Edit: Minor edit for clarity.
- adolph 16y agoI think that there is nothing else besides the New York Times behind the "national campaign to get President Obama to emote." It is hard for me to believe that the government is taking the problem seriously without meetings between the president and the BP's leadership (as what happened during the financial crisis).
- roryokane 16y agoThis covers the same point as a blog post I once read: http://t-a-w.blogspot.com/2010/05/want-democracy-get-figurehead-king.html http://t-a-w.blogspot.com/2010/05/want-democracy-get-figureh.... That post uses a ranking of countries by democracy to conclude that figurehead monarchs provide the most democracy of the types of government examined.