I feel I must add something to the post below I had intended to say when I decided to write it but which slipped my mind when I actually got to it. Keeping in mind what I said below I must also point out that I am adamantly opposed to the principle of putting the monarchy up for a vote in a referendum. I object to it (though were it done I certainly would have participated to help effect the end I desired) on principle because I believe in the concept of legitimate authority. To be specific I believe that the Crown is the legitimate authority of Australia and no vote, in which the public can be or can be attempted to be manipulated by a biased media with an agenda and dishonest politicians can legitimately say that H.M. Elizabeth II is not the Queen of Australia. I think that even holding the referendum itself (keeping in mind what I said about it being a credit to the Australian constitution that the government could not decide this on its' own -I'm saying the decision should be beyond all) is a product of the degenerated "fast food" culture of the modern first world. The referendum and the thinking behind it, to a very large extent at least, I think is a symptom of this culture in which everything is viewed in terms of immediate gratification and everything is seen as disposable. So, even something as ancient as the monarchy, can have its existence in Australia subject to the whim of a majority which can decide to retain or discard the Crown if at any moment it fails to please them. To many people today do not appreciate the ancient, mystical nature of the monarchy and view like anything else in their lives, which they can accept or dispose of at will. This very attitude robs monarchy of one of its greatest assets which is the ability to set itself apart and view things dispassionately because it keeps the monarchy in a constant state of crisis-mode for fear that any little thing could be blown out of proportion to cause the public to vote to discard the monarchy as they would any other passing trend which held them fascinated for a time but which they quickly tired of to move on to the next 'latest' thing. The world today is suffering from severe A.D.D. and it pains me that any monarchy should be subject to such whims and fancies. Am I clear?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Addition to the Post Below
I feel I must add something to the post below I had intended to say when I decided to write it but which slipped my mind when I actually got to it. Keeping in mind what I said below I must also point out that I am adamantly opposed to the principle of putting the monarchy up for a vote in a referendum. I object to it (though were it done I certainly would have participated to help effect the end I desired) on principle because I believe in the concept of legitimate authority. To be specific I believe that the Crown is the legitimate authority of Australia and no vote, in which the public can be or can be attempted to be manipulated by a biased media with an agenda and dishonest politicians can legitimately say that H.M. Elizabeth II is not the Queen of Australia. I think that even holding the referendum itself (keeping in mind what I said about it being a credit to the Australian constitution that the government could not decide this on its' own -I'm saying the decision should be beyond all) is a product of the degenerated "fast food" culture of the modern first world. The referendum and the thinking behind it, to a very large extent at least, I think is a symptom of this culture in which everything is viewed in terms of immediate gratification and everything is seen as disposable. So, even something as ancient as the monarchy, can have its existence in Australia subject to the whim of a majority which can decide to retain or discard the Crown if at any moment it fails to please them. To many people today do not appreciate the ancient, mystical nature of the monarchy and view like anything else in their lives, which they can accept or dispose of at will. This very attitude robs monarchy of one of its greatest assets which is the ability to set itself apart and view things dispassionately because it keeps the monarchy in a constant state of crisis-mode for fear that any little thing could be blown out of proportion to cause the public to vote to discard the monarchy as they would any other passing trend which held them fascinated for a time but which they quickly tired of to move on to the next 'latest' thing. The world today is suffering from severe A.D.D. and it pains me that any monarchy should be subject to such whims and fancies. Am I clear?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is why I never liked Republicanism in the first place. Somehow somethign is seen as legitimate because 51% of the population said so, and canbe mad eilligitimate the next time a poll is taken.
ReplyDeleteThere is no external truth, or order. All that matters is what peopel decide int he heat of th emoment base don their own limite dknowledge and raw emotions.
A Republic thrives on discontent, to rslly voters, and despots easily come along.
People often critisise me for my Monarchist sayign that it doesnt allow the peopel to get rid of bad leaders, but it does supply stability.
Besides, beign able to "get rid of " our leaders doeesnt foste rloyalty or duty, it fisters selfishness and a focus only on our own desires, which I find iwll destabilise society.
Zarove, you touch upon an issue that I feel must be addressed.
ReplyDeleteBasically, many a republican says (with a straight face, I might add) that an Australian president/head of state would be a symbol of unity that every Australian could identify with.
Ummm... HELLO! Democracies are competitive. There is one winner, and many losers. How the hell am I supposed to support someone I feel is unable to do the job, and expressed my preference as such at election. Honestly, look at America - they've had half a dozen presidents assasinated, and dozens of senators and congressmen too. Australia? Just one State MP, who was killed by one in his own party! One, as opposed to dozens.
Frankly, the idea of a unifying republic is an oxymoron. It does encourage selfishness and competition, to an unhealthy degree, and ultimately, it becomes a self-destructive force.
Of course, the progressives down here are a little prone to hyperbole, what with comparing our government to Nazis far too often (perhaps a sign of their own intellectual weakness). Then again, the lot of them really are only good at making noise in their ivory towers while the rest of us, bemused, ignore them and get on with our lives.
God save the Queen!
They compare the current Australian Government to NAZi's? do they not know that the NAZI's where republican?
ReplyDeleteIts not llike Hitler was ever crowned King, you know.
That said, I quiet agree. The theory is that, since a King is not elected by the people, he has no connection tot he common man, and thus does not serve their interests, and the common man doesn't feel particularly loyal to the King, and follow only because htye must.
But in a Republic, the Presisent is one of the common man and so can really relate to them, and being chosen by the will f the people, shares the common good will of the people.
But, in most Republics ( Unless Banana republics) the president is elected by between 51% anf 55%. It s rare to see an election go over 65%, and 60% would be called a landslide. That leaves 40 or so percebt who did not vote for the President. We are expeced to beleive they magically aquiecce to the will of the majorit of the voters and simply fall in line after election results are announced, and gather behind hte peoples cosen leader. That doesn't happen in reality.
Look at our current President. Barack Obama enjoins rapidly declining approval ratings, with over half the nation thinking that America is headed int he wrong direction and about 45% now saygn they disaprove of Obamas handlign of the economy, or political agenda in general.
We have protestors in all major cities, sn endless campaign by Cnsrvatives ( Liberals int he Australian mind) to discredit Obama. Abiut half he population do not support him at all.
before him, Bush was notoriously based i the media, and half the population hate him, too.
Yet somehow he is our unifying figue, somehtign s Monarch never could be.
Its just daft.