Why Hate Monarchs?

Widespread panic set in this summer when the party of King Simeon II won a majority in Bulgaria's recent elections. There were ominous warnings about this being the first East European state to take a step toward restoring monarchical figures to power. So many people associate democracy with freedom and monarchy with tyranny that any attempt to revisit pre-democratic systems of government is regarded as evil.

Sheer nonsense. Freedom was nurtured in Europe under the decentralized monarchies of feudalism, which served as the political basis of decentralized federalism in the US. Unlike our own presidents, who are experts in passing the buck, the monarch tends to take personal responsibility for the fate of his domain. Upending a personal tyranny is much easier because you know whom to blame and whom to overthrow. The classical-liberal tradition was never hostile to monarchs as such; it was government power they opposed, and where the monarch restrained the state, he won their favor.

America has never had a monarch. In fact, we were born as a nation in revolt against one, which accounts for Americans' latent suspicion of anyone who calls himself king. The generation that brought us the American revolution against Britain set up, not a democracy, but a republic under the rule of law with a government so small it was barely noticeable. There was no king, but there was no president in the sense in which we know him today.

We've lived with mass democracy so long that the following is easy to forget: the democratic age, as it is known, began only at the turn of the century. It was imposed on Europe by force at the will of Woodrow Wilson. He was a social democrat and an imperialist but not a stupid man. He was caught up in the Progressive Era-fantasy that governments could manage society from the top down with the aid of science and lots of wishful thinking. He railed against monarchy and for democracy because he believed democracy would achieve this goal, which it sadly did.

Democracy in its purest sense should mean nothing but a peaceful transition of political officeholders. That is the sense in which Ludwig von Mises favored the idea: as an alternative to violent revolution. But democracy, as the system has been applied in this century, has come to mean something else. The democratic state is supposed to embody the people's will-or the "general will," in Rousseau's phrase. Hans-Hermann Hoppe calls this democracy "the god that failed."

Democracy has turned out to be not majority rule but rule by well-organized and well-connected minority groups who steal from the majority. It has also spawned exactly what Woodrow Wilson desired most: autocratic and centrally consolidated government. It is not a coincidence that government has grown as the franchise has been extended: more and more groups have been given the opportunity to help themselves to the liberty and property of others.

Twentieth_century democracy has made everyone's property vulnerable to public confiscation. Kings of old would have been overthrown in short order if they had tried to grab 40 percent of people's earnings, or told them how big to make their toilet tanks, or determined how schools taught every subject. One reason we put up with it now is the myth that says we are governing ourselves. That is why we turn a blind eye to petty tyrannies in our midst as well as to war atrocities when they are imposed by "our" government.

Given the history of democracy, why are so many alarmed at the idea of the restoration of monarchies in Europe? Surely, the monarchies will serve these countries better than communism has. What's more, democracy since 1990 has meant the dictatorship of the IMF and the World Bank. In Bulgaria, it has meant "painful" transitions that involve increasing taxes and corrupting partial privatization schemes.

What's more, Simeon II is not some ermine-clad despot-in-waiting. He was exiled in 1946 after the communists took over. He has lived in Madrid, working in business during all these dark years; he returned to his country only recently after sensing massive public demand. His advisers on economics are mostly American economists working in investment houses, people who understand that the IMF's advice needs to be taken with a cup of salt.

As an aristocrat who speaks every European language, he is in a position to help solve the deep ethnic troubles that afflict Bulgaria and to begin to provide something like juridical continuity to stabilize the country after decades of chaos. Certainly he may fail. But he is no more likely to fail than another coalition government made of communists, IMF tools, and other looters.

The US government says that every country should have a president and a democracy. In fact, the US might go to war against anyone who disagrees. In response, let me recommend the remarkable new collection of original scholarly articles collected in Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, edited by John V. Denson. It shows that the reputation of this institution is wildly overblown: every president since Lincoln has exercised despotic power, particularly in wartime. The anti-federalists warned us that this institution was trouble waiting to happen; how right they were.

In so many ways, this book is a history-making volume because it is the first full-scale revision of the executive state. What a contrast with the usual presidential history, which calls the worst of them great and the best of them ineffective. In 800 pages, the authors turn convention on its head and shatter thousands of civics-text myths about our "commander in chief."

Presidents and kings should be feared no less than any government should be feared. But history suggests we often have less to fear from monarchs than we do from democratically elected tyrants or from pillaging multitudes acting in the name of the public interest.

Countries in Eastern Europe have suffered under fascism, communism, and, more recently, rule by the IMF and World Bank in the name of democracy. Restoring their lost kings rectifies a historical wrong and provides a glimmer of hope. In a few years, people will either yell "Hail Simeon II" or "to Hell with Simeon II," but at least the people will know that someone is taking responsibility.

A rare case where I agree with Rockwell, amazing, he managed not to bash Bush by name for one whole day! Seriously, though, I do view the overt destruction of the European monarchies in 1919 to have been a poorly thought out plan. In my view, the destruction of the House of Hapsburg, in particular, played a massive role not only in the creation of the conditions which led to WW2, but also, the creation of the many, small, weak nation states, based mostly on nostalgia, which Stalin rolled into unopposed during 1944 and 45. Look at all the pain and destruction brought on by the naivete of the "Democratic" men who architected the Treaty of Versailles.

"The problem with monarchies has nothing to do with individual monarchs, who may be good or bad. The problem with monarchies lies in succession. A good monarch can be a fantastic ruler but history shows that they will inevitably be succeeded by a bad monarch and a bad monarch is essentially a despot, which is about the worst form of government possible"

a) dont confuse the limited Catholic monarchies of Christendom with the absolutist, Protestant varities of Renassiance Europe, they were two different animals. The old Catholic monarchs didn't have the power to be despots, they simply had very little say over the day to day lives of their subjects. This is pre- the managerial state apparatus that we are under now. Catholic monarchies operated by the principle of subsidiarity (decentralization of power)

A lowly bureaucrat at the IRS has more power over your life than any Catholic monarch in the history of Christendom ever did over his subjects.

b) I'd rather have a chance of a saint for a King than be guaranteed only the most ruthless, devious and corrupt will ever rise to power.

Democracy, sir is the worst form of government, every political philsopher taught that for 2000 years, the last 500 have proved it beyond all doubt.

And that's why the founders didn't give us a democracy and gave us a republic, instead. In fact, I was surprised while watching an educational civics program on PBS one morning a few years ago that they actually admitted that pure democracy is a disaster -- essentially organized mob rule.

I'm willing to believe that you could define a monarchal system that is superior to our republic, but there are two problems standing between that system and what we have.

The biggest is that you need to get from here to there. In other words, you need a way to transform the government from what we have into what you want without getting a disaster, instead. The US Revolution is fairly freakish in that it wasn't a disaster like, say, the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution. Monarchies are build on a tradition. Traditions are developed over time, often from learning by making mistakes. How do you create that monarchal tradition out of a republic without going through, for example, the entire Roman experience from Republic through Constantine and the collapse of the Empire that led to the Catholic monarchies that you seem to favor?

The second problem is that government rarely remain the way we plan them to. Our republic certainly isn't what the founders had in mind in many ways and a game I sometimes play is to start reading a bit of the Constitution until I find a part where our current form of government violates it, either in spirit or actuality. Monarchies have the same problem. Remember that many of those Protestant monarchies didn't start out Protestant. And also don't forget the corruption that theocratic power causes in religious organizations.

Of course I also think you are under-rating the power of Catholic monarchs to be both powerful and naughty. Take a look at Philip Le Bel, as a good example of a powerful Catholic monarchy that literally abused the papacy and everyone else that stood in his way. One could also look at the Battle of Hastings and the unwarranted excommunication of Harold as a good example of a powerful noble (William) abusing the Church's authority to attain personal power.

And that's why the founders didn't give us a democracy and gave us a republic, instead

The Republic they gave us lasted barely 70 years.

Of course there are those that abuse any system however abuse does not negate use.

You are correct on the fact that an organic Catholic monarchy would be near impossible to set up, in fact almost by definition they are unplanned, natural systems built on tradition and common law. They are not created by constitutions and revolutions but rather by the social Kingship of Christ. We live in an apostate and heretical age. For example I was discussing the virtue of humility with a group the other day, I tried to point them towards the concept of obedience but what the majority of the group decided was it meant "no one is better than anyone else" - which pretty much sums up the spirit of the times.People don't even know what words like humility, obedience, fealty and loyalty mean.

It is interesting tho how , as you aptly describe, the monarchies did come into being. As the result of the collapse of a corrupt, overly centralized state. That particular circumstance could and likely will re-occur when the managerial liberal states collapse under their own weight and immorality. I get so fed up with the nationalistic prattle - "May God continue to Bless America" (as GW is fond of closing his speeches with) - How about may God forgive America.

And also don't forget the corruption that theocratic power causes in religious organizations.

I am more concerned with the unchecked power of the state over it's people - which is not bound by an obedience to a higher law than the "will of the people". The history of western societies is the balance between the Church and the State, only in Christendom do you see that balance achieved to any great degree. There were as many times when it was the state that checked the power of the Church as there was the other way around.

Was it perfect? Of course not, no such thing in a fallen world, but they weren't murdering 4000 children per day for profit.

There is one society on Earth against which "even the gates of Hell shall not prevail" , when the current liberal system comes crashing down - next week, next year or 100 years from now - She'll be there to pick up the pieces, again.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.