My Case For Choosing Republicanism

My Case For Choosing Republicanism

Becoming increasingly important with the romanticism of absolutism.
153
views

I think now everybody probably is picturing me as the barefoot girl wearing a long dress and Phrygian hat shouting “vive la republique!” while storming the Bastille.

Well, that’s not totally wrong- I do have a Phrygian hat I made ;)

I’m back with my second article in my series on Republicanism and why I’m firmly opposed to monarchies. This is specifically targeted at hereditary absolute monarchies.
The type of monarchy that the Sun King Louis XIV of Versailles fame was. . The type of monarchy where having a religion different from the king, could mean your imprisonment if it questions the king’s absolute power.

This type of monarchy is romanticized in entertainment but dangerous and far from glamerous in real life.



“But we will have consistency and not worry about elections!”


King Justice was a great ruler. He ruled the kingdom of “Humanité” with wisdom and strength. He had a son, Prince Folly who was pampered as a child. Prince Folly knew nothing but comfort, because his father gave so much prosperity to the kingdom. One day the king died and Prince Folly took the throne and due to his pampered upbringing because very selfish, and hoarded the people’s food.

The people starved as the king lived in luxury. The kingdom weakened and the people had one option- revolt for bread so they can live. Of course King Folly didn’t like this, so he then instituted totalitarian measures crushing dissent so he can keep his power and his throne.


This is a fictional story, but all too often history parallels these lines. A good king comes, the nation is happy and prosperous. But future kings who were brought up in prosperity and comfort do not grow to appreciate it, but usually want more. This in turn leads to oppressing the people and the king becomes a despot. Just because the first king was wise, doesn’t mean his successors will be.

“no more excessive red tape!”


Yes, I know red tape can be annoying. But without a Congress representing the people’s needs, how will a king truly know? While you may be lucky and get a good king who goes out and talks to the people this can probably work best in a tiny country like Lichtenstein or Andorra. In any big country- Poland, France, Germany, USA, Canada- think of how much ground the king would physically have to cover.

Even Austria and Switzerland would be tough grounds for a king to get the opinions of every citizen. This is why a legislature and local checks and needed. Let's say the USA has a king, and the king passes a proclamation that favors the areas around DC. He would have no way of knowing how it is affecting the people living in the mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania, or the Great Plains or the West Coast.

He will only know the DC area. Not that he is purposely trying to favor locals, but its impossible even in our modern age for one ruler to have control over that many people.





“the people are stupid!”

Then we will educate them in the virtue of the republic. A large educated class with few chances of advancement is actually one of the causes of the French Revolution. This is why representative government exercises the people's talents.

While it is possible and has happened that dictators have arose through popular elections, this is why many countries have Constitutions and checks and balances in place to prevent rulers from becoming dictators. You know who wasn’t democratically elected and proved to be a despot? Nero. Who else? Louis XV.

The people need to be educated in civics education and the principles of the republic. They also need to have checks on their power because the mob can be just as dangerous as the crown as John Adams put it. A democracy needs checks on its power in order to succeed, and this is what makes a true absolute monarchy dangerous- the king’s words are “divine right.”

“Kings know how to use the money”









“kings know how to use money”

Hmm… building a gold palace called Versailles just seems like a bit much. More extravagant spending on clothes, drinks and overabundance of food while your people are starving, meanwhile you are too busy declaring war on every nation in Europe also seems like a bad idea.

I’m not an economics expert, but I have to say the wisdom of the king in financial matters is largely dependent on who the king is. Chances are somewhere down the road a Louis XVI is going to be stuck with all the previous king’s spending problems and debt and poor Louis will be like “what????” and have a rebellion on his hands.

“The people will be content"

Human nature is that humans want power. This won’t stop the ambitious from becoming advisors to the king, with nobody to hold them accountable and no elections. Good advisors will be beneficial to the nation, but all too often due to human nature these will be bad advisors. Bad advisors corrupt good company and will result in the king making poor choices. With all the power invested into the king the poor choices will extend to the entire nation.

"No polarization, we will only be unified under the king."

Disclaimer: opposing viewpoints will probably be crushed (aka revolutionary viewpoints) since they may or may not lead the people to revolt.

Is this a good thing to have everybody believe the same thing? Looking in history at video clips of young Soviet children all singing the praises of Stalin, or in our modern age children and people in dictatorships all singing the praises of their dictator. Polarization to an extreme is bad, but in general, differing views are a good thing. If we all believed the same thing and nothing was criticized, nothing will change.

We need criticizing of our viewpoints in order to open our minds to others in different circumstances of our own. We need to hear the healthy debates of senators and congressmen debating whether Healthcare Plan A or Healthcare Plan B is better. We need the simulation of discussing problems and theories with our friends at coffee shops not just to hear repeats of our own views, but to hear their viewpoints on how to make the nation better.

Blindly believing that your country is the best, your viewpoints are the best and your leader is the best is a dangerous way to go through life. You will believe whatever you are doing is right, and in turn, this can be used to oppress those who are different and don’t fit your viewpoint. This is how people grow, through open discussion about beliefs.

If we all go through life telling each other “long live the king!” what motivation would exist to sit at a coffeehouse and sincerely discuss the issues troubling the nation?







"A monarch knows what is good for the people."

Does he really? A wise monarch would, but sadly those cases are rare. People are by nature in need of checks on power, or they will have too much. Like the ring for Lord of the Rings, all power will do is cause somebody to want more and power becomes “my precious!!!!”

In a true republic, the people will check their ambition and in turn be checked by the Constitution as the law of the land. In a system where all the authority is channeled into one, that one person will abuse their own authority. Stories of a good wise king are unfortunately very rare.

"The people can still be heard."

Yes, if they storm the gates of the Tuileries and demand “liberty, equality, fraternity!”

It is very unlikely the king will relinquish any part of his power. Mankind is born free, but putting one human with absolute authority on top of an entire nation is in conflict with human nature. At the whims of this king, he can easily take away the freedom of the press.

Are the Protestants preaching that people have an inherent right to rebel against established authority? The king can easily imprison them as “anti-monarchist elements” if they get too annoying. Did the press record an embarrassing incident of the king? The king can easily imprison journalists and threaten them to only report what he wants.

Did you know Louis Phillippe, the “citizen king” of France actually massacred innocent people with no real trial? This happened in the June Rebellion and was quickly covered up.

Also, if a king is taught his whole life that he is “divinely ordained” and his words are supreme, he becomes a very spoiled child who turns into a very spoiled adult. The people’s natural desire for free expression, to pursue the paths they want to pursue and to say what they want to say will be crushed.

If Protestantism is too rebellious a religion, where is freedom of religion? Without freedom of religion- where is freedom of thought? How far can you control somebody’s freedom?

I realize absolute monarchy isn't the same as the totalitarian systems of the 20th century. However, with current technology and the history of the things absolute monarchs have done with unlimited (and even limited power like Louis Phillippe) what is to stop it from reaching that far?




I will take the republic over a monarchy any day. For all the flaws of the republic at least I know this, my thoughts will be protected by a Constitution and my natural rights will be respected as long as I do not infringe on the liberty of another. Vive la republique!

Cover Image Credit: pixabay.com

Popular Right Now

Stop Yelling At Me For Being Conservative

What you shouldn't say to millennial Republicans.
8286
views

Society today has a funny way of making Republicans seem like the scum of the Earth. The funniest thing is that it's actually not funny at all — it's an ignorant, rude way to treat people. See, America these days seems to be all about treating everyone fairly. That is, until differing opinions come about. How dare we Republicans view economics and politics differently? How dare we have our own opinions? How dare we identify as Conservative people, even as young adults?

So, without further ado, here are some things that I, a millennial Republican, am beyond tired of hearing.


"You're just a college girl, what do you know about politics?"

Yeah, I'm a basic white girl. I wear Converse to class and my sorority's letters are on my rear windshield. Guess what, though — I do my research. I've been following the presidential campaigns for months now. I've watched the debates, read the articles, visited the websites and studied the polls. I may be in a sorority and I may wear Converse, but I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this stuff. So, if you ask for my opinion, be prepared to hear a well-thought-out, educated answer.

"You only believe what your parents raised you to believe."

No, actually. My parents raised me to understand the value of hard work. They made me get a job when I was 16 years old so I could learn how to budget, save and provide for myself. My parents did not teach me to rely on other people to get what I want. My parents did not teach me to accept handouts. Therefore, I believe that success comes from hard work and dedication. I believe that each individual is responsible for his or her own success (along with his or her own property and obligations), hence why I identify as a Conservative.

"You're voting for him?!"

Yeah! I am! Funny, I thought we were all entitled to our own opinion. It turns out this is my opinion, and [insert candidate] has my vote. Cool how that works, huh?

"The GOP candidates this time around are horrible."

It doesn't take an idiot to see that none of the Republican candidates are the ideal presidential candidate. It also doesn't take an idiot to see that the same thing can be said of the Democratic candidates. Here's the reality: There never has been a perfect president, there never has been a perfect presidential candidate, there is no perfect president, there is no perfect presidential candidate, there never will be a perfect president and there never will be a perfect presidential candidate.

"You're so selfish."

Define selfish. I want my money to be my money and I want my rights to be my rights; I was unaware that that labels me as "selfish." I am confident that I can survive without the government's help.

"But don't you care about the old people/the kids/the environment/the homeless people/etc?"

Yes, I do. What I don't like is that my hard-earned money gets taken from me and used for other things. I'm not against helping out, don't get me wrong. I would love to donate to charities to help children and homeless people and the planet, that is if I had enough money to do so. Sadly, that money gets taken from me through taxes (Which could be considered forced donation, if you ask me. How is that fair?).

"But what about the minorities? You're just racist."

No, I'm not racist and yes, I do care about the minorities. I believe diversity is one of America's greatest qualities. What bothers me, though, is that society changes the meaning of "fair" when it comes to minorities. Yeah, it would be fair for us to all be able to pay our own medical bills and whatnot. Do you know what else would be fair? For even the members of minorities to get jobs and earn their way to success just like I'm trying to do. If illegal immigrants want to come to America, then they can go through the citizenship process, get a job and contribute to society. If they want to be treated equally, they need to start viewing themselves and treating themselves as working American citizens who pay the same taxes, get the same jobs and fight the same daily battles that we fight.

"You're hateful and/or heartless."

Nah. What I am is honest, self-sufficient and confident that other people can be honest and self-sufficient.

"You're ignorant."

Again, no, I'm not. As I've said several other times throughout this article, I know what I'm talking about and I can justify what I'm talking about. If anything, you're ignorant for accusing me of such things.

"You're crazy if you'd vote Trump over Sanders or Clinton if he's the chosen GOP candidate."

Please enlighten me on how this makes me "crazy." In this upcoming election, I will be voting for the candidate chosen by my political affiliation. The Republican Party's only strong opposing candidates include a self-proclaimed Socialist and a woman under FBI investigation. What I would consider "crazy" is if I voted for Sanders or Clinton over Donald Trump, just because Trump has offended some people before. (And no, this is not me saying I'm a loud and proud Trump supporter. In fact, Cruz has my vote either until he's elected into office or until Trump is chosen as the GOP candidate.)

Side note: I've heard the people, who hate Trump for being mean, say meaner things than that man ever has. A very wise man (Jesus, in John 8:7) once said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."


What you should be saying to me is "Thank you," because I'm voting for freedom. I'm voting for civil liberties. I'm voting for constitutional rights. I'm voting for the will to succeed. I'm voting for the reward for hard work. I'm voting for the things that will actually help America keep prospering.

So, here's what I'll say to you: You're welcome.

Cover Image Credit: Kristi Russell

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

The Crimes And Misdemeanors Of A Sitting President

Whether you agree with Nancy Pelosi, regarding impeachment or not, the question each American should ask is: Can this nation survive any more division?

70
views

Whether you agree with Nancy Pelosi, regarding impeachment or not, the question each American should ask is; can this nation survive any more division? Is Nancy correct in her comment, "He's just not worth it?" Impeachment should not be used as a political tool to remove an unwanted government official out of office. Its purpose is to bring charges against a government official and once the official is impeached then the legislative body can impose judgment which could ultimately remove the official from office.

Moreover, in the past, this country has impeached two sitting presidents and neither ended with his removal. According to www.merriam-webster.com, the definition of impeaching is "(a) to charge with a crime or misdemeanor, specifically: to charge a public official before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office. (b) to remove from office especially for misconduct, and (c) to bring an accusation against."

So how many cases of impeachment has the United States experienced with sitting presidents? According to www.History.com, eight U.S. presidents have faced impeachment, but with very different results. John Tyler was the first president to face impeachment proceedings in 1843. Representative John Botts of Virginia filed claimed Tyler conduct of the U.S. Treasury although the House of Representatives voted Botts' claim down.

Andrew Johnson was the second sitting president to have impeachment proceedings filed against him. In 1868 President Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and according to Congress, the president violated the Tenure of Office Act. Even though Johnson was impeached the Senate would not confirm his removal from office and he finished his term.

With the exception of Grover Cleveland, the twentieth century gave way for many calls for impeachment beginning with Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and ending with George H.W. Bush. None of these presidents were subjected to the process as the claims never had the votes to call for a hearing on the committees.

There were three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, however, he resigned in 1974 before any of the proceedings could take place. In 1998 Bill Clinton was impeached over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice relating to the Monica Lewinsky case. In Clinton's case, the Senate acquitted, and he finished his term in office just like Andrew Johnson.

President Trump is under scrutiny for some of the very reason's other presidents have had impeachment proceedings. He has proven to most American's that he is a danger to our democracy. Trump has snubbed his nose at the foreign emolument clause, creating an open way for foreign powers to pressure our president to stray from his constitutional obligation to the United States. The firing of the FBI Director James Comey and fulling admitting on national television to Lester Holt that he did because of "this Russia thing." This is "obstruction of justice," and other presidents have been charged with this article of impeachment. However, Nixon resigned, and Clinton was acquitted.

So why is he not worth it? First the truth, he won the election. Unless there is proven evidence that he colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 presidential election reversing this fact will drive this new faction of voters back to the polls to elect another under-qualified candidate. In addition, the Republican Party will use the impeachment as a platform in the upcoming election. Citing the Democrats stole the White House from them.

Second, is the nation ready for even one year of Mike Pence as president? His record as Governor of Indiana is the only evidence needed. He banned Syrian refugees, he reinstated mandatory minimum sentences and authored a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. He doesn't take to Twitter, has the political knowledge, and is waiting his turn to strike like an incurable virus.

Third and even more disturbing is the Republican Party and their efforts to gloss over his crimes and misdemeanors and cite the economy, and jobs. Many won't vote against Trump because of his base; cannot afford to have to explain their decisions to his base voters in 2020. Most fear they will have to go through a primary. Even though if they removed Trump and put Pence in his place they could have during their two-year reign and most American's civil liberties would be a thing of the past.

The voters gave their voice in 2018 and Congress is working, unlike the previous Congress. They have a lot of work to do and spinning their wheels debating the crimes and misdemeanors of the sitting president is counter-productive. History will repeat itself and he will be acquitted.

Related Content

Facebook Comments