My Case For Choosing Republicanism

My Case For Choosing Republicanism

Becoming increasingly important with the romanticism of absolutism.
154
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

I Might Have Aborted My Fetus When I Was 18, But Looking Back, I Saved A Child’s Life

It may have been one of the hardest decisions of my life, but I wouldn't be where I am today if I hadn't had done it.

2782
views

Due to recent political strife happening in the world today, I have decided to write on a very touchy, difficult subject for me that only a handful of people truly know.

When I was 18 years old, I had an abortion.

I was fresh out of high school, and deferring college for a year or two — I wanted to get all of my immature fun out so I was prepared to focus and work in the future. I was going through my hardcore party stage, and I had a boyfriend at the time that truly was a work of art (I mean truly).

Needless to say, I was extremely misinformed on sex education, and I never really thought it could happen to me. I actually thought I was invincible to getting pregnant, and it never really registered to me that if I had unprotected sex, I could actually get pregnant (I was 18, I never said I was smart).

I remember being at my desk job and for weeks, I just felt so nauseous and overly tired. I was late for my period, but it never really registered to me something could be wrong besides just getting the flu — it was November, which is the peak of flu season.

The first person I told was my best friend, and she came with me to get three pregnancy tests at Target. The first one came negative, however, the second two came positive.

I truly believe this was when my anxiety disorder started because I haven't been the same ever since.

Growing up in a conservative, Catholic Italian household, teen pregnancy and especially abortion is 150% frowned upon. So when I went to Planned Parenthood and got the actual lab test done that came out positive, I was heartbroken.

I felt like I was stuck between two roads: Follow how I was raised and have the child, or terminate it and ultimately save myself AND the child from a hard future.

My boyfriend at the time and I were beyond not ready. That same week, I found out he had cheated on me with his ex and finances weren't looking so great, and I was starting to go through the hardest depression of my life. Because of our relationship, I had lost so many friends and family, that I was left to decide the fate of both myself and this fetus. I could barely take care of myself — I was drinking, overcoming drug addictions, slightly suicidal and living with a man who didn't love me.

As selfish as you may think this was, I terminated the fetus and had the abortion.

I knew that if I had the child, I would be continuing the cycle in which my family has created. My goal since I was young was to break the cycle and breakaway from the toxicity in how generations of children in my family were raised. If I had this child, I can assure you my life would be far from how it is now.

If I had carried to term, I would have had a six-year old, and God knows where I would've been.

Now, I am fulfilling my future by getting a BA in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, having several student leadership roles, and looking into law schools for the future.

Although it still haunts me, and the thought of having another abortion truly upsets me, it was the best thing to ever happen to me. I get asked constantly "Do you think it's just to kill a valuable future of a child?" and my response to that is this:

It's in the hands of the woman. She is giving away her valuable future to an unwanted pregnancy, which then resentment could cause horror to both the child and the woman.

As horrible as it was for me in my personal experience, I would not be where I am today: a strong woman, who had overcome addiction, her partying stage, and ultimately got her life in order. If I would have had the child, I can assure you that I would have followed the footsteps of my own childhood, and the child would not have had an easy life.

Because of this, I saved both my life and the child's life.

And if you don't agree or you dislike this decision, tough stuff because this is my body, my decision, my choice — no one else.

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

Abortion Bans Are Only A Small Part Of The Republican War On Women

These bans expose the Republican Party for what it truly is.

143
views

This week, several states passed laws that ban abortion after six to eight weeks of pregnancy, before most women even know that they're pregnant. The most egregious of these is Alabama — the state has banned abortion except for in cases of danger to the mother. Exceptions in the cases of rape and incest were actively voted against by the state legislature. Under the new law, any doctor who is caught giving an abortion would be sentenced to 99 years in prison, and the woman would be charged with murder.

Apart from the fact that this explicitly violates the decision of Roe v. Wade (which is the point), this is only a small part of the slow but steady degradation of women's rights by Republicans in the United States. To anyone who believes that this is simply about people being "pro-life" or "saving the children," then tell them to look at what happens after the fetus is carried to term.

Republicans oppose forcing fathers to be involved in the lives of their children that were forcibly carried to term, desires to cut food stamps and make it more difficult to feed said child, cut funding for affordable housing to make it more difficult for them to find homes, cut spending to public education so these children can't move up the social ladder, and refuse to offer the woman or her child health insurance to keep them both healthy. What about efforts to prevent pregnancy? Republicans also oppose funding birth control and contraception, as well as opposing comprehensive sexual education. To them, the only feasible solution is to simply keep your legs shut. They oppose all of these things because it is, in their eyes, a violation of individual rights to force people to do something. The bill also makes women who get abortions felons, and felons can't vote. I'll let you finish putting those two together.

If you view it from this framework, it would seem like Republicans are being extremely hypocritical by violating the personal freedoms of pregnant women, but if you look at it from the view of restricting social mobility for women, then it makes perfect sense. The Republican dogma of "individual rights" and "personal responsibility" is a socially acceptable facade that they use to cover up their true intentions of protecting the status quo and protect those in power. About any Republican policy, ask yourself: does this disperse power or consolidate it? Whether it be education, healthcare, the environment, or the economy, Republicans love to keep power away from the average citizen and give it to the small number of people that they deem "deserving" of it because of their race, gender, wealth, or power. This is the case with abortion as well; Power is being taken from women, and being given back to men in a reversal of the Feminist Movement of the 1970s.

Republicans don't believe in systemic issues. They believe that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed regardless of what point they started. This is why they love capitalism so much. It acts as some sort of great filter in which only those who deserve power can make it to the top. It's also why they hate social policies; they think that helping people who can't help themselves changes the hierarchy in a negative way by giving people who don't "deserve" power, power. Of course, we know that just because you have money and power doesn't mean you earned it fair and square, and even if Republicans believe it, it wouldn't change anything because it wouldn't change how they want to distribute power.

In short, Republican policies, including abortion, leave the average American with less money, less protection, less education, worse health, less opportunity, fewer rights, and less freedom. This is NOT a side effect. This is the point. Regardless of what Republicans will tell you about "inalienable rights" and how everyone is equal, in reality, they believe that some people and groups are more deserving of rights than others, and the group that deserves rights the most are the ones "that will do the best with them." To Republicans, this group consists of the wealthy, the powerful, and the white — the mega-rich, the CEOs of large companies, gun owners and Christians.

So, who do Republicans think deserve power and give it to? People who look and think like them. This, however, begs the question: Who do they want to take it from?

Related Content

Facebook Comments