The primary problem I have w/ the notion of royalty is that it embeds the notion that people belong to superior and inferior classes that are impenetrable. That's as disgusting,as demeaning to aspiration as the same aspect of slavery.
There is a perfectly good mechanism - deadlock. What exactly do you imagine should happen when large groups of the population dispute the valid role of government ? It may feed the normative biases of some to see that repeal of Obamacare has been attempted repeatedly - but what exactly does they expect when a large fraction, perhaps a majority, don't want it - at least as currently constituted. Thank goodness we don't have efficient effective government.
I can see advantages/disadvantages both ways. The US system tends to create presidents with a lot of sway over the legislature early-on in their terms, and are nearly powerless in the last years. The fixed term length is not a plus IMO I wish we had some sort of vote of no confidence schema to precipitate a change.
I see, but consider the selection of the president - we have the whole dynastic thing going on here - Adams, Harrisons, Roosevelts, Bushs, perhaps two Clintons, and a lot of repeat-runners like Romney - it's unbelievable how small is the selection pool in reality.
The election system here makes the selection process more like a horse race - everyone choosing from among only those considered possible winners rather than voting their interests honestly. We see many/most ppl prefer candidate A, but vote for B b/c they believe A can't win (a self-fulfilling prophesy, but partly manufactured by the press & party hype).
The US Constitution intended to make the president a relatively weak office, but we've developed this amazing imperial presidency concept. When the Pres went to Africa they reassigned aircraft carriers and squadrons of fighter jets. When PM travels - I imagine he's considered fairly expendable by comparison and rightly so. I think a lot of Americans would elect a king if they could - they worship these hacks and fools so.
There is a perfectly good mechanism - deadlock. What exactly do you imagine should happen when large groups of the population dispute the valid role of government ? It may feed the normative biases of some to see that repeal of Obamacare has been attempted repeatedly - but what exactly does they expect when a large fraction, perhaps a majority, don't want it - at least as currently constituted. Thank goodness we don't have efficient effective government.
I can see advantages/disadvantages both ways. The US system tends to create presidents with a lot of sway over the legislature early-on in their terms, and are nearly powerless in the last years. The fixed term length is not a plus IMO I wish we had some sort of vote of no confidence schema to precipitate a change.
I see, but consider the selection of the president - we have the whole dynastic thing going on here - Adams, Harrisons, Roosevelts, Bushs, perhaps two Clintons, and a lot of repeat-runners like Romney - it's unbelievable how small is the selection pool in reality.
The election system here makes the selection process more like a horse race - everyone choosing from among only those considered possible winners rather than voting their interests honestly. We see many/most ppl prefer candidate A, but vote for B b/c they believe A can't win (a self-fulfilling prophesy, but partly manufactured by the press & party hype).
The US Constitution intended to make the president a relatively weak office, but we've developed this amazing imperial presidency concept. When the Pres went to Africa they reassigned aircraft carriers and squadrons of fighter jets. When PM travels - I imagine he's considered fairly expendable by comparison and rightly so. I think a lot of Americans would elect a king if they could - they worship these hacks and fools so.
Last edited:
