A Mad Monarchist Political Statement

From time to time I have been asked to summarize my political outlook as a whole or my “world view” if you will. Admittedly, this seems silly to me as I have never been shy about voicing my opinion on any subject and reading here everyday would, I think, give anyone a good grasp of my political opinions. I have also never had all that great of an urge to map out what would be my ideal system given that neither my own or anyone else’s ideal system will probably ever come about. However, if it would inform or entertain anyone to read something more than the simple statement that, “I am a monarchist” this, I hope, will serve to answer those who would be interested to know what sort of political system I would prefer. Given that, I will say at the outset, it would be to have no “political system” at all.

I believe in the style of system broadly defined as “traditional authority”. For virtually any country this refers to some form of monarchy. This means that, as a monarchist, I am at heart a theoretical absolutist. That being said, absolutism is not exactly what most people today think it is. I favor absolute monarchy but not arbitrary monarchy nor would I favor any kind of arbitrary authority whatsoever being held by mortal men. The absolutism I favor is that which says the final and ultimate authority of a given country, the basis upon which all civil order is built, must be sacred, inviolable and impossible to remove. To maintain the distinction between absolute and arbitrary there should always be checks and balances and in a society in which traditional authority is paramount this role would be filled by the clergy and nobility for the most part. I am in no way in favor of tyranny and in fact prefer as the ideal government the least government of all. Governments in the High Middle Ages (a rather glorious period to my mind) were positively Lilliputian and often consisted of little more than the king and his court.

I am fully aware that it would require a massive counterrevolution in world political thought for the system I would consider most ideal (at least at this point in my life, my views are subject to change on the finer points and open to persuasion outside the areas of monarchy and religion) to ever come about in this day and age. Ideally I would prefer a “government” that is practically no government at all as modern humanity understands the word. A king, clergy and nobility is all the government I feel should be necessary most of the time with each looking to their own mission. In looking at history, I have never seen parliaments, politicians and political parties do well by any country in the world. All too often we look upon these things as the instruments of liberation whereas in truth they have enslaved the world to a ruling political elite, they have encouraged division, discord, mass politics and the horrors of “total war” in which whole populations are filled with an ideology and hurled en masse at the populations of other countries indoctrinated with a different version. People did not live in nightmarish conditions before the rise of mass politics, all-encompassing taxation or the welfare state. Monarchs looked after the major issues of national interest, the clergy looked after the spiritual welfare of the people and nobles looked after their land. The common folk lived happy self-sufficient lives and were vastly more independent than the citizens of the most liberal democratic republics of today.

Today it is most common around the world for monarchs to play no active role in government at all. I do not believe this should be the case. On principle, I will support any monarchy, no matter how limited, as preferable to no monarchy at all but monarchs should have the power to act. As the saintly Tsar Nicholas II of Russia put it, even if he gave away his power to govern, he could never give away the ultimate responsibility which was his alone. But then, we are asked; how does one guard against tyranny? To my mind, it seems rather simple. Let the monarch be absolute but be self-sufficient and leave little for the government to have to bother with in the first place. If the rights of everyone to that which is justly and legitimately their own would be enforced, there would be no need for much of the government as we know it today. If everyone supported their church there would be little problem for religious institutions to take the place of the social welfare state and, I tend to think, do a better job at it in the process. If private property rights were truly and absolutely upheld, the state would be left with little to do other than to maintain law and order, uphold contracts, carry out relations with foreign nations and defend the country. In these areas, not only could a monarch do the job of an elected or appointed government but a monarch could invariably do them far better.

How is this so? A monarch has a vested interest in maintaining law and order as violence and disorder tends to be detrimental to the survival of any monarchy. This is totally different from elected politicians who often have much to gain by causing division and stirring up civil strife. Provoking a problem and then demanding greater power in order to deal with it is a long established tactic among politicians. In the area of foreign policy, a monarch can maintain a coherent and consistent, long-term strategy in dealing with other countries in a way no temporary political government ever could. We have seen clearly enough in our own time the chaos and ill will that is bred by one government pursuing one foreign policy until the next election at which time that same country, under a new government, pursues the very opposite policy with old allies being tossed aside and the enemy of yesterday being treated as the friend of today. A monarch who is on the throne for life can cultivate real trust among other nations, builds years of experience and can pursue a straight and consistent course. Finally, in the area of defense, it should go without saying that a monarch invariably has stronger support amongst the armed forces than the average politician and, as the country is “their” country, again has a vested interest in defending the country to the very best of their ability against all enemies and will do so in order that they may pass it on to their heirs and successors.

A monarch should have sufficient executive powers to be of best use to the country for without sufficient authority they can neither do good nor repress evil. A monarch should be able to deal with specific situations as they arise without getting a legislature involved which can only pass laws that inevitably become a huge, tangled mess of often redundant or contradictory rules and regulations, always added to and seldom lessened. Considering, however, that the modern world is not about to do without our beloved political talking shop and army of overpaid bureaucrats, if we must have a legislature I would prefer it to be organized in a different way. I would think that something along the lines of the Estates-General of the old Kingdom of France (representing nobility, clergy and commons) or the original Cortes Generales in Leon-Castile or, perhaps, the colleges of the Imperial Diet of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. There would have to be some modifications of course, but some form of representation based on social groups or occupational background would seem to me to be a way in which to discourage the formation of political parties and mass politics. I would deem any form of representation preferable which provides a means of protecting the interests of its constituents without at the same time encouraging the development of political parties. Political parties, in my view, are about the nearest thing to pure poison there is for traditional society.

I will repeat though that if my ideal of absolute commitment to private property and vested rights were put into effect, there would be very little for any elected national assembly to do. Individuals would make their own decisions, manage their own affairs and there would simply be no reason to have a permanent national assembly of any sort. The only justification I can see for having a national assembly is so that the taxpayers can have a voice in how their money is spent. However, in my ideal realm there would be very little, perhaps even only intermittent, taxation in the first place. National assemblies basically sit to decide what to do with the resources of others. If we got rid of the government welfare state, if we reverted to the contractual agreements, private roads and private security forces of the High Middle Ages, the government would have no need for the vast majority of taxes that are collected today and thus no need for huge national assemblies to decide how such taxes are spent.

When it comes to external issues, foreign relations and the like, I would fit into neither the interventionist or isolationist camps. It does make a critical difference though on whether or not a country has a monarch who can carry out a consistent foreign policy throughout his or her lifetime rather than an elected head-of-state who changes with every administration. I would base interaction with foreign countries on the same basic system as those between people domestically, which is to deal with foreign countries based on mutual consent and be open about it. The old colonial empires hold no terror for me but everything should be done openly and honestly. If one country wants protection from another country, they should be prepared to offer something in exchange for that protection. I see nothing sinister about that nor do I see anything underhanded or disreputable in the policy that some once called “sacred egotism” or ‘sacred self-interest’. Arbitrary aggression (it should go without saying) is always to be condemned. This is not the same thing as giving aid to a country against a common enemy who is as much a threat to you as to another people. Nor is it the same as a country taking necessary action when the interests of its people are threatened.

Much of what happens today, in terms of “interests” overseas for countries is economic and is based on the fact that so many countries have indebted themselves to others and then react against the consequences of this. Any country which places itself in the hands of another runs a great risk but any country, the same as any individual, is free to take such risks if they determine that other factors outweigh it. My primary point here is that what is popularly known today as “imperialism” was far more beneficial and even moral than the “humanitarian”, international, social programs of today which shackle people in poverty, stagnate countries, prop up tyrants and drain the resources of one country (or group of countries) while returning nothing of value except perhaps for the small elite which manages the transactions and takes a bit off the top for themselves. Compare this to the past when, even with all their flaws, imperial powers necessarily had (to varying degrees) to develop countries simply as a consequence of pursuing their own goals. I would advocate something similar but simply more openly and insisting that agreements (or contracts) are strictly upheld and adhered to. In some ways this may be the most controversial of my opinions but it has only grown stronger over the years as I have looked into the facts of real world examples. I have no problem with groups of countries, usually with some measure of things in common, banding together for mutual benefit. I have a very big problem with irrational, idealistic international organizations like the United Nations which have done a great deal of harm all over the world and, I will add, I detest the very word “globalism”.

If one country does some favor, some good, gives some benefit to another country, they should not be expected to get nothing in return for this. Charity is a wonderful thing but “charity” which is coerced is not charitable at all and, indeed, destroys the charitable impulse. This applies on the national level as well as on the individual level. When this becomes institutionalized as a program it makes people dependent, causes resentment and does more harm than good, both to those who give the aide as well as those who receive it. Such actions also make people less charitable and less generous because caring for those truly in need is seen as the responsibility of some international organization or the government or some foundation or another. Actual charity is something which should be appreciated but never expected. Of course, aside from the long-term planning and consistency that comes from having a monarch, any government could adopt these kinds of policies if they decided to. The bottom line is that no one should expect free favors in foreign policy and no country should have to apologize to, defer to or subsidize any backward, impoverished, failed country simply for being more successful than they are.

To summarize, while I would oppose arbitrary power being wielded by anyone or anything, I do believe in absolutism. I hold that everyone, from the monarch down to his lowest subject, should be absolute in their position and in all which is justly and legitimately their own. No one should ever have the power to take from anyone anything, whether property or title, earned or legitimately inherited. No mob, no matter how numerous, can or should be able to tell a King that he is no longer King just as the neighbors of one community should not be able to vote to seize the property of the most successful amongst them or that the least successful should be eliminated as a needless burden to society. I hold to the absolutism of independence. A monarch should be absolute and independent in that his position is sacrosanct and inviolable, not that he may do anything to anyone for any reason as he pleases. In the same way, things like “rights” and “freedoms” which most people today talk about are the imaginary, meaningless words tossed around by revolutionary mobs and political assemblies. True freedom cannot come from elections, a political party or a piece of paper but only from independence. The only person who is free is the person who is independent. Such independence is the just reward of whoever achieves it and at the highest level the independence of the monarch is the independence of the nation and neither should have what is rightfully their own subject to the whim of popular opinion.

The agents of the monarch should act to uphold, defend and protect and not to compel or coerce. This means upholding the traditional family as strong family units are demonstrably essential to the wellbeing of any society. It also means upholding the moral code, the “Truth” which should be the heart of any country. Efforts to coerce people into accepting this would be futile but the Truth should nonetheless be defended from attack. One may not agree but while one cannot and should not be prevented from disagreeing, one should be prevented from tearing down. This applies to both the religious and the philosophical spheres. It may sound harsh to modern ears but surely most would agree that demonstrably harmful ideologies such as Nazism or Communism should not be tolerated but that a country must be protected from these dangers which have proven themselves dangerous. Choosing to hold such views is one thing but choosing to spread them or enforce them on others would absolutely not be allowed. To tolerate that which is harmful is surely taking open-mindedness to suicidal levels. Evil can never be tolerated and the good must be defended and any country or society which cannot agree on the difference between the two will not long survive.

I could go into detail about other specific issues but, this is meant to be a basic overview and not a comprehensive list of my thoughts on all current events and, I fear, I have gone on too long already. Obviously, as stated before, one would be hard pressed to take all of the above and find a neat place my views would fit into amongst the current, fashionable ideologies. Also, to repeat, outside of the areas of religion and monarchy (and my support for monarchy comes from religion) I am always open to new thoughts and convincing arguments. My views have modified in many areas over the years and may well again in the future, but at present this is my general point of view. I hope I have at least satisfied the curious and/or provided the casual reader with something of interest or something to consider, whether or not you agree. Indeed, perhaps especially if you do not as my views are certainly not popular or mainstream. That, I think, is putting it rather mildly but, that is why I am … The Mad Monarchist.