Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Florestan]

There are some rather corrupt and vile people in your list

Feel free to name them.

See, now you're just displaying your ignorance of the American system.  This is something Europeans often do.

Perhaps. Even certainly. But displaying ignorance of the European monarchical system is something Americans often do too. You are living proof for this fact.

I should note, though, that as well considered as you think your belief in an antiquated, corrupt system of governance

Corruption ranking, top 10 countries less corrupt (check if in doubt):

1. New Zealand
2-3. Denmark, Finland ex aequo
4. Sweden
5. Singapore
6. Norway
7. The Netherlands
8. Switzerland
9. Canada
10. Luxembourg

7 out of 11 are constitutional monarchies. FWIW the republic of US ranks 24, behind other constitutional monarchies such as Japan, UK and Belgium.

really reflects a tendency of some people to want to have more powerful central government in times of stress.

I plainly reject your insinuation. I am a liberal and a federalist and if it were in my power I would do away with any sort of central government. But in a typically uninformed manner you confuse monarchy with centralism and statism.

In the 1930s, Fascism and Socialism gained ground with a lot of people, including some notable intellectuals.  They were wrong.

As wrong as it gets. But it is noteworthy that Fascists, Nazis and Communists shared a common hatred for monarchy and the bitterest enemies of those collectivist ideologies were aristocrats and peasants who upheld their ancient liberties and their strongest guarantor: the monarchy.

your support for a system of, by, and for the past

My only regret is that I won't be alive to see which state will fail first: the US Republic or the British and Scandinavian monarchies, although I can safely bet it would the former.

is understandable in that context, especially when you consider your part of the world.

I do protest this US-suprematist and racist (for lack of a better term) remark. If you consider you and your fellow Americans that enlightened and superior to us backwards barbarians then make this simple test: ask 10 randomly selected fellow countrymen of yours to tell where Romania is located on the map, what its capital is named and to what linguistic group do its inhabitants belong. If you'll get 3 correct answers out of 10 then I'll gladly acknowledge your superiority. If not, then please stop giving me lessons in politics and civilization.

  Perhaps people in Romania would be better off if ruled by a king or queen.

It is my firm conviction that we would. All our history testifies to it. But I assume it will be too much to ask you to have even a modicum of knowledge about our history, unenlightened and antiquated-thinking barbarians as we are.

  That's too bad.

For you maybe. Fortunately it is not for you, but for the Romanian people to decide, if and when they will have the opportunity.

That's not the case in the US.

Nor did I say it is. Each people should follow its own traditions and what is best for them. I don't buy the idea that there is a single, universal political receipt that would instantly ensure happiness for all people, everywhere, regardless of their historical, social and religious conditions. A US-type republic might work just fine in US, but copy-paste-ing the US constitution has proven an unmitigated disaster for the Latin American states.

[Todd]

Elizabeth Warren's kinda hawt in a school marm way?

I caught the tail end of her speech, and it was the first time I heard her speak.  I was struck by how aurally unpleasant her voice sounds.  I've heard Scott Brown speak before.  I feel sorry for Massachusetts residents bombarded by ads from those two.

Clinton's speech was good, if too long, and while he offered up some dodgy explanations – the whole explanation of what Obama's plan does with the $716 billion of Medicare "cuts", which got little applause (too complicated, I guess), and then his excoriation of Ryan's original plan for the same money, which got a lot of applause – but what struck me most was the oh so real care in his voice when he talked about proposed restructuring of Medicaid: I don't know what those families are going to do.  The broadcast I watched showed some of the audience, and I saw tears welling up, and fearful expressions with hands cupped over mouths.  Good stuff.  Obama is a whole lot smarter than Al Gore was.  In the big election, you bring out the big guns. 

(Perhaps Hillary being out of the country during the convention is just a coincidence.)

I wonder if Clinton would support repealing the 22nd Amendment?

[Todd]

7 out of 11 are constitutional monarchies.

Yes, and this was covered before.  Monarchs today are simply figureheads.  Looks like you confuse symbol and substance. 

So, to be clear, you favor constitutional monarchy so that an elected parliament (presumably, but the specific structure could be different) could then have a king or queen what, dissolve parliament for show?  What, precisely, is the benefit of having a monarch in the modern world?  Why not remove the monarch altogether and just rely on parliament?  You cling to antiquated relics that have no substantive value.  How would more royalty benefit anyone in concrete, substantive terms? 

But I assume it will be too much to ask you to have even a modicum of knowledge about our history, unenlightened and antiquated-thinking barbarians as we are.

Goodness, testy.  I made no statement that Romanians are barbarians, just that there are times of stress.  You even mentioned it before.  In times of stress, some people favor stronger central government.  That's a fact.  You support a dog and pony show.  Got it.

And yes, it is too much to ask to have a modicum of knowledge of Romanian history.  Romania is a small country, of limited strategic importance, and limited economic importance.  Other countries hold far more interest for me. 

I suppose I could also ask you to know a bit more about the actual practice of US politics at the state and local level, but why would you? 

There is no such pretense. The United States is a representative republic and always has been. The use of the word "democratic" is generally one of these things:

In common use, republic and democracy are usually used interchangeably.  Technically incorrect, but people here get it. 

[Brian]

In common use, republic and democracy are usually used interchangeably.  Technically incorrect, but people here get it.

Here as in "this country," not here as in "this thread," I think.

[Todd]

Here as in "this country," not here as in "this thread," I think.

Yes, of course, I forgot to point that out for foreign readers.  As Florestan would write, that's very US-Supremacist and racist of me.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Florestan - was there any sentiment in Romania in favor of restoring the monarchy after communism was overthrown?

Personally, I think Russia should have restored the Tsar (with much more limited powers) after 1991. But they missed the chance, and monarchism is an eccentric position in today's Russia.

Post-Franco Spain, with its restored monarchy, strikes me as a good model for countries coming out of dictatorship.

[Karl Henning]

Fresh in their newly independent era, Estonia enjoyed a Royalist Party. Additionally eccentric, as the only royal rulers were foreign lieges.

[Florestan]

Florestan - was there any sentiment in Romania in favor of restoring the monarchy after communism was overthrown?

Why, Velimir, thank you very much for asking this question which allows me to clarify my position.

Among most part of intelligentsia and a good part of the most educated and historically informed and aware people, yes there was. But the former communist president of that time --- nomina odiosa ---, and his government did everything in their power, including calumny and character assassination to stifle it.The former king, Michael I, is a man of the utmost integrity and of flawless personal life and behavior and also of impeccable political credentials (on August 23rd, 1944, when he was 22, he staged a coup d'etat against the pro-German military dictator Ion Antonescu --- himself not at all a bad or stupid or dishonest man but one possessed of an excessive and pathological pride and sense of honor --- and his ensuing orders were scrupulously obeyed by the Army, a social body that was traditionally monarchical in sentiment and fidelity. And so were most of the social bodies in pre-WWII Romania: peasantry, lower and upper middle class, intelligentsia, they all displayed a strong monarchism. In pre-1945 Romania nobody save the members of the Communist Party of Romania, a section of the Comintern, was republican.)

A brief outline of what was to follow:

- after overthrowing the military dictatorship, HRM Michael I restored the 1923 Constitution, one of the most liberal of its time;

- unfortunately for Romania and for him personally, Stalin occupied militarily our country and Churchill acquiesced to this fait accompli in exchange for Greece being left for the English/US zone. Nevertheless, an Allied (ie US/UK) Control Commission was established.

- subsequently, Stalin dictated that the Kingdom of Romania be abolished and a so-called Popular Republic of Romania be substituted for it;

- but the monarchist sentiment was simply too strong, first and foremost amongst the youth of all classes and political orientations, for such a replacement to take place peacefully;

- since May 1945, the lawful government of Romania had been replaced by a Communist-dominated government at the request of, and by a literally table pounding of, A. J. Vyshinsky (google him); the US/UK Commission, fully aware of this crass violation of the Constitution, uttered not a single word of protestation; it was then clear for Romanians that Stalin was being given free hand in our unfortunate country;

- in 1946 free elections were called for the first time since 1937 (or so the Romanians thought). According to official recordings, The National Peasant Party (an agrarian, christian-democratic party) won 70% of the votes, the National Liberal Party (a bourgeois liberal party) won 20% of the votes while the Communists and their satellite parties won the remaining 10% of the votes. But following Stalin's maxim "it doesn't matter who votes, it only matters who count the votes", the results were reversed by the government and the Communist Party-led coalition was proclaimed winner with 75% of the votes;  the US/UK Commission, fully aware of this crass violation of the freely expressed will of the people, uttered not a single word of protestation; it was then once again clear for Romanians that Stalin was being given free hand in our unfortunate country;

- in protestation against this gross violation of the people's will, HRM MIchael I refused to officially open the fake Parliament with the traditional Crown Address and, furthermore, he went into a monarchical strike, refusing to sign any subsequently passed law or act of government, thus rendering them null and void according to the then  currently Constitution;

- after 1 year, in December 1947, a huge crowd of University and Polytechnic students, high-school pupils and factory workers, all wearing on coats the portrait of the king clipped from banknotes,  gathered in front of the Royal Palace, manifesting and proclaiming their support for the King and our ancient traditions and liberties menaced by Stalin and his Romanian minions; the police intervened, a clash ensued and hundreds of protesters were arrested;

- on December 30, 1947,  the Communist-proxy prime-minister, gun in hand,  presented HRM Michael I with the alternative: abdicate or we will shoot dead those arrested few days before; his conscience forbidding him to illusory save his crown by sacrificing the lives of his subjects, our unfortunate king submitted to sheer force and signed the abdication act that was prepared beforehand by the Communists; thus began his lifelong exile in Switzerland; more than 50 years of fierce Communist propaganda and brutal repression of any monarchist feeling and expression followed; Romania entered the darkest era of its history;

- subsequently, the Romanian elites, be they intellectual, bourgeois,religious,  military or peasant were brutally and constantly persecuted, imprisoned, harassed and/or plainly murdered; the Communists wanted to turn the whole Romanian nation into a formless, mindless, obedient herd and unfortunately they succeeded in not a small manner;

- in 1989 the Communist regime fell: a popular rising was quickly used for, and turned into, a coup d'etat staged and managed by former Communists;

- when, in 1991, HRM Michael I came for a private visit in Romania, with the avowed goal to pray at his fathers' and grandfathers' tomb in the most famous of Romanian monasteries, the former-communist-led government ordered the police to stop him along the road, take him back to the airport and fly him back to Switzerland;

- 1 year after, in 1992, the same president and government, on internal and external pressure, allowed him to openly visit Bucharest; he went to a liturgy in the oldest Bucharest church; I was there and can testify that over a million people greeted him with standing ovations as "His Majesty", "Our King" and "Long Live the King!";

- since then, several governments have succeeded one another and HRM MIchael I was restored in all his previous properties; he now currently resides in Bucharest;

- polls have it that the monarchist restoration is favored by around 15 % of the Romanians; but given the 50-year uninterrupted and brutal propaganda this figure is to be taken cum grano salis.

I hope it is clear now why I am a monarchist: simply because I cannot accept that my country's tradition and history be changed and distorted at the will of one of the most cruel and brutal tyrants the history has ever known. I will always be faithful to the historical Kingdom of Romania and I will always honor the memory of our monarchs. Monarchy in Romania means progress, independence, unity, cultural and scientific advancement and embodies the most prosperous, happy and tranquil era of our history; republic in Romania means communism, slavery, regression, repression, misery, terror and embodies the darkest and poorest era of our history.

So, bottom line: I don't mind Todd having his oligarchic republic,his pretending it's a democratic one notwithstanding; let me have my kingdom, which I never pretended was or should be democratic. 

Post-Franco Spain, with its restored monarchy, strikes me as a good model for countries coming out of dictatorship.

I most certainly agree; but in order to fully appreciate this one must have to have at least a cursory knowledge of the Spanish history --- and I very much doubt this is the case with the most vocal republican here...

[Florestan]

Fresh in their newly independent era, Estonia enjoyed a Royalist Party. Additionally eccentric, as the only royal rulers were foreign lieges.

Well, the Romanian royal house belongs to the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen branch of the Hohenzollerns --- as German in its origin as it gets. But truly I tell you, what Charles I and Ferdinand I did for our country no subsequent Romanian ever did --- on the contrary, they undone it. 

[Todd]

let me have my kingdom, which I never pretended was or should be democratic. 

Well, there you go, the mindset of a reactionary.

[kishnevi]

Well, there you go, the mindset of a reactionary.

A desire to return to the best political system one's country enjoyed in the past century does not qualify as reactionary.

Reactionary, in my view, for a Romanian would be to return to Antonescu or the Communists.

[Florestan]

Well, there you go, the mindset of a reactionary.

Let me ask you one single and simple question: when the US democratically-elected president Woodrow Wilson, by his 14-point proclamation, opened the road for the Kingdom of Romania to lawfully and plebiscite-ly annex 3 provinces formerly belonging to Austria and  Russia, was he a reactionary too?

[Florestan]

A desire to return to the best political system one's country enjoyed in the past century does not qualify as reactionary.

Reactionary, in my view, for a Romanian would be to return to Antonescu or the Communists.

Kudos, my friend! 

[Todd]

Let me ask you one single and simple question: when the US democratically-elected president Woodrow Wilson, by his 14-point proclamation, opened the road for the Kingdom of Romania to lawfully and plebiscite-ly annex 3 provinces formerly belonging to Austria and  Russia, was he a reactionary too?

Wilson was a Progressive dreamer whose desires outstripped his abilities in the foreign policy realm.  As Clemenceu quipped about the vaunted Fourteen Points, "Even God Almighty has only ten."  FDR's framework was and is more admirable. 

One of the great what-ifs of US history, and in this case world history, is what if Wilson had been more solicitous of his Republican adversaries when preparing his plans?  Elihu Root and William Howard Taft, both allies of Henry Cabot Lodge, were internationalists, and had pushed for international arbitration to settle disputes for years, and were not opposed to expanding the concept, with Root even supporting the concept of the League of Nations.  Root had the practical value of having negotiated treaties, too.  It was assumed by at least some that he would be in Wilson's enterouge going to Paris.  But it was not to be.  Lodge then led the opposition to kill the Treaty of Versailles. 

A desire to return to the best political system one's country enjoyed in the past century does not qualify as reactionary.

Returning to a monarchy from the "semi-presidential parliamentary representative democratic republic" now in place is inherently reactionary.  Returning to Communist system would be radical, as well as colossally stupid.  A more sensible course for handling any current travails would be to reform the system as needed.  I don't know Romanian politics, so maybe they are incapable of reforming their system.  That would bode ill for their future whatever system is in place.

What is now the United States used to be subject to the British Crown.  We have travails.  Perhaps we should ask the Queen to take us back?

[Florestan]

Wilson was a Progressive dreamer whose desires outstripped his abilities in the foreign policy realm.  As Clemenceu quipped about the vaunted Fourteen Points, "Even God Almighty has only ten."  FDR's framework was and is more admirable. 

So by your own admittance the ability of a democratically (in the weakest sense) US elected president to judge foreign policy was limited --- and limited in precisely so much important an  issue as foreign affairs. Why should I then make more of his limited wisdom than that of Charles of Austria's or William II of Germany's? After all, those two kings were much more educated and had a much more grasp of the European history than poor Wilson could ever hope to begin to grasp... 

Truth is, you have no idea whatsoever of the European history between 1789 and 1918; you are completely ignorant of the European history in the selfsame time-frame; and you are that blindfolded by the democratic-republican propaganda that you don't even have the honesty to acknowledge the obvious fact that the US republic ranks 24th in the corruption ranking, far behind  ten (10) constitutional monarchies...

Now, if you are proud that every 4 years you, a mere slave, choose your own master, and call it democracy, so be it and suit yourself... I'd rather be the subject of a king, never having chosen a ruler yet living my life as I see fit rather than submitting myself to an illusory will of the people that any demagogue can manipulate...

[Todd]

Now, if you are proud that every 4 years you, a mere slave, choose your own master, and call it democracy, so be it and suit yourself...

It's curious how you failed to address the items I brought up about state and local governments previously, where there is more obvious democratic influence.  It's convenient, and typical of people who fixate on the President in the mistaken belief that he possesses great power and embodies all of American politics.

I'm not quite sure if the royalty you mention were substantially better educated than the former president of Princeton, but ultimately that is irrelevant, as the rest of your first two paragraphs.

Let me ask you a question about the here and now: is there great popular support for reinstating royalty in Romania?  Romania is almost irrelevant - and without the poorly conceived missile shield and inclusion in NATO, it would be essentially irrelevant - so I confess that I don't follow its politics at all. 

[Sammy]

If Romania wants to take the monarch route, who cares?

I'm not sure that Florestan is fully aware of how odious the notion of a monarchy is to the vast majority of American citizens.  In this country, kings and queens are reserved for school proms and other trivial events.

Based on Forestan's comments, seems that Romania can't handle any type of democratic system.  That's a shame.

[Todd]

In this country, kings and queens are reserved for school proms and other trivial events.

Let's not forget the greatest monarchs:



 

[Karl Henning]

A desire to return to the best political system one's country enjoyed in the past century does not qualify as reactionary.

Big +1

[Karl Henning]

I'm not sure that Florestan is fully aware of how odious the notion of a monarchy is to the vast majority of American citizens.  In this country, kings and queens are reserved for school proms and other trivial events.

I'm not sure it's been genuinely odious in living memory. Distant, improbable, a little fabulous, certainly.