Friday, October 29, 2010

Mad Rant: Obama's No King

Recently, in an interview with Univision aimed at getting Hispanics to vote for Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections Obama reminded us all that he is not a king. Frankly Mr. President, I don’t think being mistaken for royalty is a big problem for you. Some very illustrative evidence of this is that interview itself along with another interview done just prior on the radio show of Al Sharpton aimed at getting Blacks to vote for Democrats. Of course, the fact that Obama feels the need to address these two usually very loyal Democrat voting blocs tells you something about the state of his administration but that’s another story. To get back to the point; why does Obama feel it necessary to remind the people that he is not a monarch or lament the fact that he is a mere president rather than a king? Let’s have a look shall we…

The Democrats and probably a great many Republics see Hispanics in the U.S. as single-issue voters. They call it “immigration reform” but the honest truth is that they mean amnesty for illegal aliens. They want no penalties for crossing the border illegally, no one penalized or deported for breaking immigration laws and for all those currently in the country illegally to become full citizens, which would make it easier for them to vote Democrat. That is just the truth, they think that is the only thing Hispanics care about and they assume voting trends will not change. If you think voting trends have nothing to do with it you are kidding yourself. If most Mexican-Americans (the largest immigrant community by far) were voting Republican the Democrats would have the Great Wall of China built across the southern border and Republicans would be calling them “undocumented” immigrants instead of Democrats. When he was running for office, as usual, Obama tried to have it both ways. He said he was against amnesty but favored “comprehensive immigration reform” -which means amnesty. Many Republicans have used the same double-talk. However, half-way through his term Obama has yet to lift a finger on the border/immigration issue and his only explanation to Hispanic voters was that he is not a king and cannot do whatever he wants. In other words, if only he had total dictatorial power he could keep all his promises but he is being thwarted by the limitations on his authority.

One thing this shows the persistent image of royal prestige. Despite the fact that there are few kings left in the world and most of them have little to no power at all the symbol of a king, the very title itself, still seems to connote power and authority. That, in itself, says something about the symbolic importance of monarchy. However, even in the modern sense, Obama is still correct: he is no king. The interviews he has been giving prove that as did his subsequent words in that same interview in which he urged Hispanics to vote for Democrats in order to reward their friends and “punish” their “enemies”. Can anyone imagine the Kings of Spain, Norway, Sweden or the Belgians speaking in such terms? A king is supposed to stand for national unity, the shared history and values of a nation and, though they certainly do not have the power of Louis XIV, be the personification of their countries. Obama, the most prominent president in the world, is doing the exact opposite. Giving separate messages to ethnic and racial communities, dividing the country between certain groups of Americans and calling other Americans the enemy.

Do such feelings exist in monarchies today? Certainly, that is a sad truth but a truth nonetheless. Does the King of the Belgians tend to be more popular in one part of the country than in another? Yes. Are there areas in Spain where King Juan Carlos is more unpopular than in the rest of the country? Yes. As we have recently seen, amongst the subjects of Queen Elizabeth II in Northern Ireland there is one group that is quite fond of her and another group that largely opposes her. These are facts and will tend to be the case in any country that has at least some level of diversity or historical differences. Is the Queen as popular in Quebec as she is in other parts of Canada? Obviously not. However, when the Queen last visited Canada she spoke French as well as English in her official speeches (and she speaks French quite well). Does the King of Spain refer to the more troublesome parts of Spain as ‘the enemy’? Of course he does not because he sees himself, as he must, as the King of all of Spain and for all Spaniards and not just certain parts. In Belgium such an attitude would be unthinkable and for those who do regard their fellow countrymen as enemies the King will not even deal with them.

Obama, by his actions, has inadvertently provided us with a very valuable lesson about the benefits of having a king rather than a president. Modern kings and queens, in the west certainly, hold themselves aloof from politics for this very reason; to avoid partisanship, to take no sides and to represent the nation as a whole rather than one party, faction or school of thought. However, even in the past when kings held actual political power they did not view their subjects in such a way. As has often been discussed here, monarchs view their people as extensions of their family with the king and queen as father and mother of the national family. As such, even when factions disagreed with them or even outright opposed them they were usually not inclined to view them as enemies. Even monarchs like King Charles I of Britain or King Louis XVI who were attacked by their own people did not seek their destruction but preferred to bring them to their senses as easily as possible. Even after his downfall, Tsar Nicholas II still considered the Russian communists as his own people. Politicians, on the other hand, thrive on division, disunity and playing one faction off against another. It is why republics are fundamentally unhealthy and another reason for being a ... Mad Monarchist.


  1. It’s often used as an insult you know… people saying Obama is acting like a King, or thinks h is a King. King Barrack Obama and Queen Nancy Pelosi. It seems American Conservatives are so use to the ideas that Monarchy is evil that the terms are Slur words, and of course were equally applied to Bush, Chaney, and Gingritch in their terms, only by the Liberals, and it seems that its all too common an insult.

    But, your right of course, the president’s remarks prove a point far too many ignore these days: Republics can never unify us, for they are based upon competition between factions and thrive on controversy and division in the masses to enliven them.

    Samuel Adams called this the “Animated Contest of Liberty”, but while I certainly agree that its an Animated Contest, I have yet to see any actual Liberty flourishing as a Result, and rather see only increased bureaucracy and ever diminishing Rights, wherever Republicanism is tried, and yes this includes America.

    I have also seen this in Tea Party Advocates or Conservatives in General, as much a I have in Liberals, that one side see’s the other as “The Enemy”, and not just the enemy of their own political parties, but as the Enemies of the Nation. I have literally seen people of one faction claiming others of another faction are not “Real Americans”, or act as if America must defeat the Liberals or the Conservatives, depending on who is talking, as if the difference in Political Ideology means that the other person is not really a part of the same Nationaliry but working as an enemy of the State and all it holds as principles.

    But then, that’s what happens in Republics, peoples are divided.

    Indeed, you have even pointed out the strongest argument for Monarchy, in that it treats a people as a Family, in which the King sits on the Throne as Chief Patriarch. In a republic, this is not so, the President merely presides over a Government, in which only slightly over half the voters chose, and which will now be imposed on all, even the slightly less than half that voted against it, and will now feel oppressed.

    Indeed, even in a Monarchy where the King or Queen is not Popular, you don’t’ see this strong a divide. Do any of the Catalonians think Juan Carlos is the personification of evil, and a man who intentionally wants to destroy Spain? Is so that the Nationalists In Ulster View Queen Elizabeth as someone who is not properly Queen and who simply stole her Throne? While they may say she should not have Authority over Ulster, none argue she’s not really Queen or that she works actively to Enslave anyone. Meanwhile, we heard this about Obama, an his republican Party predecessor Bush.

    Republics do not see us as a Family, they stress the “Rugged Individualism’ and later degenerate into a communistic (classical definition, not Marxist) mentality (Which did give rise to Marx) in which people are seen as simply part of a greater Whole.

    Where Monarchy views all members of Society as part of a Family, Republics see all people as simply part of a machine, and sometimes as an enemy in the camp.

  2. It’s the Ontological basis of Monarchy VS Republicanism that leads to this, and I think that it would be worth exploring not simply Monarchy VS Republicanism, but the Underlying Philosophical assumptions that undergird them. It s my belief that Monarchy is base don the Natural order, of Family and society being an extension of a Unified Familial Structure, where everyone has a Place at the Table, which thrives in tradition, whilst Republicanism is based upon the idea of all men being equal but also separate, and of society itself being a conglomerate of interests in competition. The Egalitarian Principles that undergird modern Democratic Thinking demands we treat all as Equals, but it also demands that all things be made subject to the will of the Majority. Individuality is necessarily subservient to communal interests, and Tradition, Family, and Cooperation become less emphasised than self interest, and later communal good as determined by Majority Vote.

    If you look at the 250 year or so History of Modern Democracy, you will see that most nations that Adopted it tend to also adopt a rather poor view of Family. It is also in our Democratic Age in which we see Skyrocketing Divorce rates, an increase in permissive sexuality, and an alienation of society from familial Ideals. At its most extreme, we see the complete renunciation of Family Ties in Philosophical systems of Governance, such as in Communism in which land is not owned and is instead administered by the People, and thus cannot be inherited.

    America of course allows Inheritance, though taxed heavily, but even so America itself is unusual, though even here Familial Ideals are being eroded, and it is part of our shared Mythos that we must grow up and abandon our Families Ideals to be ourselves.

    Yet that Individuality we are told to express must still be subsumed by the Will of a Faceless Crowd and whatever they determine should be True. It is not our Family and our Traditions we should follow, it’s the ever-changing Zeitgeist, which never seems to settle. We should bow to the Will of the People, and not the voices of the Past or our own Blood.

    I find this the chief cause of Republicanism, the need for constant change, the need for Validation by sheer Numbers, and the need to endlessly divide society in order to secure Power.

    It seems a Philosophy of Greed that leads nonetheless to personal Annihilation, whilst Monarchy is a Philosophy of Obedience which leads in the end to self fulfilment.

  3. These liberal freaks never stop to amaze me.
    On one side, they always stressed that kings are bad men, tyrants, despots, undemocratic, blah blah blah. However, on the other side we all know whose planes weren’t grounded right after a plane “crashed” into the twin towers.
    So you hate kings, but at the same you also busy kissing a king’s ass, just because this king’s ass spurts oil and gas.
    How duplicitous are these shits anyway????
    Conclusion: liberal republican are nothing more than duplicitous janus, a traitor, a suck up, ultimately … a judas.

  4. I find it interesting how the media and government officials use the words "king" and "Czar" to describe our politicians. You know that just about everyone in the country (after seeing what Obama and others are doing) will equate those words to something negative - and I'll go out on a limb and say that is exactly the intent. I just found a web site that calls out US politicians as extremist Communist Czars and un American. Now tell me why anyone who seems to be a right minded individual, who dislikes Communists, would use the word Czar in that same sentence. My answer is simple: They are also victims of sales and marketing, which is the most powerful weapon of mass destruction ever devised. And you can quote me on that.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...