Discussion about this post

User's avatar
freelearner's avatar

It occurs to me that one aspect of inherited power as in monarchical systems is that occasionally you get someone whose sole drive was not power, but something else; the reluctant ruler, if you will. The phrase "power corrupts" may have been applicable in older centuries but today, corruption is a prerequisite to power. Quite literally. To name one small example -- Eric Holder covered up the FBI murder of an innocent man mistaken for John Doe #2 from the Oklahoma City Bombing, which was a messy coverup including the murder of a whistleblower police officer, and as a result, Holder ascended. From Deputy Attorney General to Attorney General. Possibly, in the days when people simply ascended to roles by birthright, we occasionally, by accident, got good people in positions of power. An odd and uncomfortable thought.

Phil Davis's avatar

Some kings weren't too bad, as you have posted, John. The American Revolution was a stake through the heart of absolute monarchies and the beginning of republicanism that swept through the globe. Republics have indeed predated the American Revolution, but not to the extent that they were spawned after our successful revolution.

The problem with a representative constitutional republic is that its representatives are for sale 24/7 to the highest bidder. At least with monarchies, kings were difficult to bribe.

The extent of corruption in a republic like ours is overwhelming, and as more truth is revealed, it's becoming harder not to be enraged. I've always wondered whether a hybrid monarchy would be a better way to govern than using a representative system.

15 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?