Monarchists

[a completely inoffensive name]

The public, in all cases, carries no effective power or influence at all. It only awards it to a restrict elite based on the tenets of "representativity", but factually of course this means the same old powerful families, or whoever has the most money or political ambition, or whoever acts in the name of their lobby, as the true commanders of the state. Obama is not much different from the others in that he is only yet another product of the Democratic Party, and from the corrupt Illinois machine to boot.

The problem with Democracy vs. Monarchy, though, is that Monarchy or most authoritarian regimes do not put up a nebula of catchphrases and idealism to act as smoke and mirrors vs. the true nature of its regime. And the true nature is that unless you can put up with several hundred million dollars in campaign donations and all the pervasive influence from behind the curtains to rise up the traditional ladders of power and influence, you're never going to be elected president or to even have a voice on how the country should be ran directly or indirectly. Occasionally, if you act like a radical or sound like one, the media might pay attention to you temporarily, but that's about it.


The measure of political rights is always proportional to how much wealth you have. Realizing it, the difference between a modern suffrage democracy and the old power apparels falls apart together with the illusions; the main difference between it and a Monarchy is that power among the Monarchical elites behind the throne meant landed wealth more than wealth in movable properties, while today it is the opposite.

******** the public has no power or influence. Tell that to the Progressives of the early 1900s.

The issue of needing lots of money to run is not an inherent one of Democracy but is just an issue that needs reform within the United States. If proper reform were given towards campaign elections and donations there would be no need for millions of dollars and everyone willing to run would be allowed full access on television debates etc...

All the problems you are listing can be attributed not to Democracy in general but the two party system in America, heck any party system which manipulates the system to require millions of dollars from a party to run. The two parties are also the ones shutting out any other opinions from being spoken.

Was Lincoln a rich man? Not particularly. How did he become president? And of course the oligarchy that controls Democracy allowed Progressive taxation to amended into the US Constitution because paying much more money was "all part of the plan"?

The accountability of an oligarch is only towards the cadre that supports him. Large scandals only come down to the greater mass when the otherwise solid power elites are temporarily shattered and divided, then it becomes a convenient tool to throw against the ruling "party" in the name of the opposition. In most cases, the situation never changes radically.

Again, ******** read "all the presidents men" before you spew nonsense again. Two guys investigated probably the strongest and toughest political group the presidency has seen in a long time and brought it down.

It's rather the romantic idealism of the Monarch figure and of the aristocratic one vs. that of the perfectly self-conscious, well educated and engaged people. Both are myths, and both have little to do with ideological constructs or the illusions frequently nurtured for or against them. Still, the monarch has a level of aloofness and detachment that can serve him well if he is competent, while the great party leader or president can be little more than a pawn of the special interests that aided him into power at first and which are subject to changing whims and pressure of these same groups and the great mass that is always influenced by them. A Monarch might not completely avert these problems completely, but he has a far better control of the situation regardless of his competence due to the greater effective powers attributed to him, therefore allowing him greater care of the situation all by itself.

Ultimately, both systems do work. It is admittedly more comfortable to live in a state that imposes little restrictions and demands less of its citizens, but it is by no means the "best". What is wrong, is the notion that "Democracy" is a government that actually empowers the great mass equally and is an actual guarantee of the capabilities of every people it rules over.

Oh gee what a brilliant insight, a monarch with the power to kill anyone he doesn't like has a better hold on the special interests group that helped him come to power.

"Thanks for helping me in usurping the throne, now bow down to me and do what I say or you all will be killed!" Is it supposed to make me feel as if he really cares about the general public when the obvious course for any monarch coming to power is to threaten those who helped him come to power with death lest he fears they take him out?

It is actually easier to be President than a Monarch, I never denied this. However this not even is a valid assurance of the merits of new rulers or of the election process as a whole. All you have to do, is to enter a big party, lick their boots loyally, shatter all notions of an independent "plan" or ideal towards the improvement of the country, or at least leave it second to the needs of your party bosses and lobbyists, and you will raise high.

And there you go, you have assumed that with Democracy comes political parties when that is false. Without political parties much of what you say would not be true.

Let history be the judge, monarchies have been around since the beginning of nations, why is that once Democracy began spreading across the world did we see vast improvements in peoples lives? Less wars? If Democracy can not be claimed to be the "better" of the two, then why did the world decided to move towards it in the first place? Why have they not switched back to monarchies?