Posted on 12/12/2004 8:54:32 AM PST by Land of the Irish
"forced imposition of democracy"??? Are you getting your talking points from International ANSWER? Democracy is precisely allowing the people of a nation to through elections determine their own government. It is not alwayss perfect, but I do think that over time, much bad is corrected by having a popular voice in government. Of course there also need to be agreed human rights protections for individuals against majority rule. As for South America, please name which democratic leaders were "imposed" by the United States and which have torture chambers? Pinochet was a dictator, but he was succeeded by a democratic regime, and it is not clear that the Communist Allende would have left Chile in a position to have a true democracy. And I suppose you think it is a pity that the Sandinistas were democratically ousted from office. And as for Iraq, there is no basis in fact to say that "half the country" has been killed. The groundwork is being laid for democratic elections in January. It is too early to say whether or not the liberation of Iraq will be successful, but the signs are promising.
"The only place I would like to see a monarch is in pictures at a museaum."
Personally I see them in my Catholic Church......great kings - who were sages and saints: Brigid of Sweden, Louis of France, Edward and Edmund of England, Wenceslaus of Bohemia; Lasislaus of Poland, , Karl von Hapsburg of Austria, ......and many, many others.
Case Law?
So true. Too true to argue against. Every last one of the greatest of the greats understood the way things are in regards to social government.
I bet they will have a fundamentalist Islamic dictator within 2 years. How about it? Shall we say $20?
Quit bashing the pope.
Islam is a religion, not a race. Therefore it cannot possibly be racist to oppose the mass immigration of Muslims to Europe. The growth of militant Islam in Europe is certainly not a good thing from a Catholic point of view, and those earlier Catholic regimes would not have allowed it.
As for immigration in general, the real root of the problem is that Europeans, having rejected Catholic morality, are not having enough children to replace themselves. Therefore their civilization is in danger of dying out. It can hardly be un-Catholic to oppose this.
If Europe's population becomes dominated by "Indians and Asians," whatever their religion, the continent and its culture will no longer be European or Western in any meaningful sense. It will simply be an extension of Asian civilization. I have nothing against Asian culture; I simply want European culture to survive too. What's wrong with that? There is nothing in Catholic doctrine that requires civilizations to dissolve themselves in the name of multiculturalism.
Correct, so myself and the other monarchists here are trying to fight those currents - including its most widespread symptom - egalitarian democracy. But you want to classify us as leftists - completely bizarre. I have been called many things in my life, but never a freakin' liberal LOL (in less they meant a "classic liberal", i used to be one of those).
Yeah, that J.R.R. Tolkien sure was some leftist, all right...
Tolkien was, in modern jargon, 'right wing' in that he honoured his monarch and his country and did not believe in the rule of the people; but he opposed democracy simply because he believed that in the end his fellow men would not benefit from it. He once wrote: "I am not a 'democrat', if only because 'humility' and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanise and formalise them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility, but universal bigness and pride, till some Orc gets hold of a Ring of Power -- and then we get and are getting slavery".
"My political beliefs lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy ... Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers." (1943)
I don't see democratic rights as evils, but as goods. They promote freedoms. I see nothing wrong as a matter of my Catholic faith in seeing value in popular government and human rights protections. An autocratic monarchy would not allow the voters to throw the bastards out if there is something seriously wrong, which does sometimes providentially happen in a democracy. A constitutional monarchy is of course a very different story, and not objectionable if it is consistent with a democratic regime and protection of human rights. I would concentrate on specific evils, like abortion. To jettison the entire US Constitution just because of specific evils would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and is the wrong diagnosis for the cause, in my opinion. And in any event, the deposit of faith does not require a specific form of government, and the Catholic Church can and has coexisted with a number of differing forms of governments down through the centuries. Christ himself acknowledged the separate spheres of Church and state by the rendering to Caesar and God statement.
If Europeans go the way of the Hittites, Sumerians or the Wapanogs, so be it. Peoples and civilizations have disappeared before and will continue to do so.
In other words, as a staunch believer in American exceptionalism, I really don't give a damn if French/Japanese/Kurdish culture disappears. I am concerned, however, at the growing influence of Islam, which is a true threat to us here in the USA.
A serious inquiry into the history of the various countries south of the border will very clearly show gross meddling in their internal politics by the US over a period of over 150 years. For very selfish reasons.
Which leaders have the US imposed on those nations? There is a very long laundry list, covering both socialist and "democratic" leaders alike. We play both sides of the fence - and have for a long time. Its called the politics of destabilization. It is very painfully obvious, and cen be readily concluded from am objective reading of history - without prejudice or jingoism.
But I will drop one very not too subtle hint. Ever hear of Haiti? Oh.....of course, we have always operated in the best interest of the Haitian peoples..........with absolutely no concern for the sugar monopolies, and other agricultural, chemical, and other multinational mega-corporations. No.....not one bit(sarcasm intentional).
Or.....ummmm.....that little place called Mexico? Oh no - we never messed with their politics, or did anything at all to precipitate numerous revolutions and counter revolutions. Naturally it makes perfect sense that with their vast reserves of coal, oil, natural gas, uranium,gold, copper, silver, bauxite, tin, that they should be a dirt poor nation for generation after generation. We could not possibly have any hand in this.
Of course we must erase from our memories and books the fact that Mexico had a civilization, and level of lifestyle and wealth prior to 1845 that was becoming on par with European nations.That Mexico had great Cathedrals, libraries, universities, water/sewar works......while the US by contrast at that point was a third rate nation with nothing to compare with Mexico.
With all due respect, J.R.R. Tolkien had the example of the relatively amiable and harmless British royal family in mind. And although he says he is against democracy, he was not against the British constitution, which is a constitutional monarchy with significant democratic aspects. If an autocratic ruler were to become a tyrant, the people's only recourse would be to revolt. Democracy is a much saner and peaceful way for changes in government to be made.
Dear royalcello,
"But if the bad monarchs of history constitute an argument against monarchy, than the bad democratically elected leaders of history constitute an argument against democracy."
But democracy has a few small advantages. First, it is hard to depose a monarch for merely being moderately bad. He's gotta be a real horror to get rid of him. But in a democracy, change is the name of the game. We only have presidents for eight years. Even FDR was president for only about 13 years. It's tough to stay near or at the top of the political heap for an extended period of time.
Second, well-built constitutional republics enshrine gridlock. The American system certainly did. Thus, it's hard to make change quickly (or at least, once was). Thus, as a result, folks have to "live with" the idea of the change for a long time before it happens. And a lot of bad ideas get tossed as a result.
Third, every form of government sucks to some significant degree, but a blessing of an elected government (especially one that has a strong two-party dominance, like the US) is that it is nearly self-legitimating. You don't like the prez? Vote him out! He got elected again? Well, heck, he got the most votes! So, he da' man! This tends to make most folks accept the legitimacy of the government.
It is the argument that says, "You have no one to blame but yourselves for the nincompoops and incompetents you've elected. So shut up, stop rioting, and get back to the grindstones."
My reaons for not getting rid of monarchy where it exists is not because I think it is preferable to constitutional republics. I am against getting rid of monarchy where it exists because it is to make a drastic change to a society that will have many unforeseen, and possibly evil consequences. Monarchies are not so awful, in concept, that it is worth the societally destabilizing effects of getting rid of them. There can be exceptions, but it's a good general rule, I think.
On the other hand, I think a lot of the European nations are too far-gone from monarchy to get it back. A returning monarchy, after nearly a century, or even more, without one, could also be de-stabilizing.
However, I will make an exception in the case of France. France needs all the de-stabilizing it can get.
I think, also, that Italy could be well-served by a return of the House of Savoy. But then, I read of Prince Vito, and I wonder whether he'd really make such a great king.
For much of the world, the problem is that there are whole parts of the world, like North and South America, that have never really had indigenous monarchs. Oh, the Canadians look to QEII as their head of state, but the connection is, by now, a bit tenuous. There was a bit of monarchy in Latin America, but nothing that really arose from the Western Hemispheric experience, or that really stuck.
And then, there are parts of the world with nation-states that never were really governed by a single monarch. And then, I think we were talking about CATHOLIC monarchs, weren't we? I don't think that we need be worried about Catholic monarchs in India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan, etc.
sitetest
That history of interference did not generally lead to democracy (although to the extent the US aided in Bolivarian revolutions, it encouraged at least the forms of democracy, if not the substance), so it is irrelevant to the discussion. The issue is that the South American nations have in the last 30 years basically left military dictatorships behind and adopted democratic constitutional forms of government. That has to be better for the people and the nations concerned, as well as for human rights. Certainly Mexico is better off now with a better functioning democracy than it was in the past. The position of the Church is also better than under the PRI. Haiti may now have a chance with Aristide gone, but it is a very tough case, one of the hardest.
Oh dear; I've just had my citizenship revoked by the great Clemenza! Whatever will I do?
I guess all the Americans who eagerly watched the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953 or the wedding of Charles and Diana in 1981, or who have enthusiastically welcomed various monarchs on their visits to the U.S. are traitors. President Bush must not be a "true American" since he recently hosted the King and Queen of Spain at his ranch. I suppose you would have given them a lecture on the evils of monarchy and the virtues of republicanism?
The New York City mayor Fiorello La Guardia had the same views as you do; he was furious that New Yorkers were interested in the visits of Queen Marie of Romania and the exiled Romanovs in the 1920s. But neither then nor now have all Americans agreed that monarchy is tyranny, though I'll concede that few will identify themselves as monarchists as I do.
Variations on a Theme, Op 45 democratic rights as evils, but as goods
The Church has only very recently adopted the language of rights - She has always rather spoken of duties
An autocratic monarchy would not allow the voters to throw the bastards out if there is something seriously wrong, which does sometimes providentially happen in a democracy
Really? Remind me, when was the last President removed from office? Nixon resigned remember, it is doubtful he would have been convicted of anything. But even if he was that'd be one out of 46. We couldn't even get rid an admitted perjurer - why? Because he was too popular !! How quickly we forget. What was the argument Democrat (and some Republican!) senators use for giving Clinton a pass? Oh ya.. it was "twarting the will of the people".
"Your people sir, are a beast!"
Alexander Hamiliton (I think, might have been Madison)
and is the wrong diagnosis for the cause, in my opinion
And you are entitled to it, lets stop the allegations of disloyalty because our opinion differs.
And in any event, the deposit of faith does not require a specific form of government
A true statement, so shall we retract the statement about being "disloyal" to the Pope?
The fact is Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington were not Doctors of the Church or even saints and the US Constituion is not divinely inspired scripture. It is a flawed document based on the principles of Freemasonry.
Do you have any idea what Tolkien studied? LOL, he was definitely not a "modern" man - he was a master of ancient languages, history and anthropology. He knew exactly what he was endorsing.
Exactly.
The House of Windsor = Welfare Queens with nicer housing projects.
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.