NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9149798
The royalty trap

http://www.economist.com/images/20070512/D1907US0.jpg

Americans have a dangerous fondness for monarchy

IN 1776 John Adams remarked with pride, at the height of the revolution, that “idolatry to monarchs, and servility to aristocratical pride, was never so totally eradicated from so many minds in so short a time.” This week Americans competed with each other to prove their second president wrong—and nowhere more so than in Washington, DC.

I thought that was a great little story. So, do you reckon he's right? Is there a danger of American top-level politics becoming more and more a game for family dynasties, with a de facto exclusion for many others?

Why do you think it is that a few families are so dominant?

few hundred years too late no?

http://img.search.com/thumb/f/fa/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.gif/450px-Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.gif

also I'm told Prince Philip is a prick in person, who enjoys Hockey! :eek:

few hundred years too late no?

http://img.search.com/thumb/f/fa/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.gif/450px-Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.gif


I hate that distortion of the origanally anti Tsar picture. It firstly makes the absurd claim that the Chuch has any real power, in a real capitalist country. It also goes even crazier when it implies that the majority of people in capitalism are poor labourers, which is complete rubbish as well.

I hate that distortion of the origanally anti Tsar picture. It firstly makes the absurd claim that the Chuch has any real power, in a real capitalist country. It also goes even crazier when it implies that the majority of people in capitalism are poor labourers, which is complete rubbish as well.

applies well to America though doesn't it ;)

edit: 3 threads in a row from 1-3 all with me as last poster :(

applies well to America though doesn't it ;)

edit: 3 threads all with me as last poster :(

hmmm, maybe.

I hate that distortion of the origanally anti Tsar picture. It firstly makes the absurd claim that the Chuch has any real power, in a real capitalist country. It also goes even crazier when it implies that the majority of people in capitalism are poor labourers, which is complete rubbish as well.

It's propaganda, your not supposed to think about it, your just supposed to believe it.

No, I don't think that the US will become a de facto monarchy. What the article misses is that Americans have a tendency to react badly to any better-than-you bit, which if we start trading Bushes for Clintons, would quickly happen. Yeah, there's a few political families, but honestly they really are in the minority in the face of most elected positions.

hmmm, maybe.

all you need to do is change the rich to say "we enrich your lives" and have art killing lawyers at some point :D

I hope Hillary Clinton wins next election and Jeb Bush wins the one after that, solely because Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush looks extremely suspicious.

It's propaganda, your not supposed to think about it, your just supposed to believe it.

thats the spirit! ;) :D

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/csl1147l.jpg

few hundred years too late no?

http://img.search.com/thumb/f/fa/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.gif/450px-Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.gif

also I'm told Prince Philip is a prick in person, who enjoys Hockey! :eek:

one of my best friends has that in his house :p

Political families exist in the US because you need to be rich to run a successful campaign for the presidency nowadays, and I would suspect for Congress as well. Plus I imagine that once you have a politician in your rich family your family becomes more politically minded and/or ambitious

What the article misses is that Americans have a tendency to react badly to any better-than-you bit

The irony of that is that the whole world collectively views the States as one humongous "better-than-you bit".

Any system has its elites. It's just that it's particularly visible with Mrs. Clinton and 43. Considering the power that the various branches of government wield, we may as well be living in a dictatorship. I'm not quite sure that George III was worse than what we've devolved into.

Any system has its elites. It’s just that it’s particularly visible with Mrs. Clinton and 43. Considering the power that the various branches of government wield, we may as well be living in a dictatorship. I’m not quite sure that George III was worse than what we’ve devolved into.
We could all play a nice game of Establishment of the Industrial Proletariat!

You will need:


1 oppressed peasant class
1 collapsed economy
1 outdated monarchy
1 bug-eyed revolutionary leader
3-8 rifles
1 D6
Pen & paper


2-100,000,000 players

Suitable Ages 4+

America and monarchy?! It can't be!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! (http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/darth-tragedy/darth-no.wav)

Interesting... I'll just object to the 'to catch a few mumbled words of wisdom from the oracle himself, Prince Philip'... I'm really hoping that was tongue in cheek, and also 'Even Britain has expelled most of its aristocrats from the House of Lords'. So before this Britain had been a bastion of rule by family dynasties?

before this Britain had been a bastion of rule by family dynasties?
Errm... the Windsors?

We could all play a nice game of Establishment of the Industrial Proletariat!

You will need:


1 oppressed peasant class
1 collapsed economy
1 outdated monarchy
1 bug-eyed revolutionary leader
3-8 rifles
1 D6
Pen & paper


2-100,000,000 players

Suitable Ages 4+

Are you calling me a communist? Because, with my Economic Rating of 10 according to Political Compass, that would be beyond ironic. That would be steelic or titaniumic.

Are you calling me a communist?

oh if only revolution ended in such fun

and using your compass results as a status symbol is the stupidest thing I've ever heard

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9149798


I thought that was a great little story. So, do you reckon he's right? Is there a danger of American top-level politics becoming more and more a game for family dynasties, with a de facto exclusion for many others?

Why do you think it is that a few families are so dominant?

Interesting.

People everywhere try to concentrate power for themselves and their families and friends, it is as natural a part of human behavior as anything could be, deeply rooted in our brains.

oh if only revolution ended in such fun

and using your compass results as a status symbol is the stupidest thing I've ever heard

In Kingdom of American, Revolution ends you!

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9149798


I thought that was a great little story. So, do you reckon he's right? Is there a danger of American top-level politics becoming more and more a game for family dynasties, with a de facto exclusion for many others?

Why do you think it is that a few families are so dominant?

what families are those?

having the son follow the father so closely isnt proof that the bush family dominates anything. no more than having robert kennedy run for president in '68 meant that the kennedies were dominating US politics.

So before this Britain had been a bastion of rule by family dynasties? In the past most certainly. As well as the royal family of the Windsor’s, Hanoverians, Stuarts etc there have been important aristocratic families such as the Percy’s. Also there were several important industrial families that weren’t nobility to start with but have gained such titles such as the Armstrong’s.

Monarchy is fun :)

Considering the power that the various branches of government wield, we may as well be living in a dictatorship.
Dictatorship:
A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator.


Dictator:
In modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state.

So the three branches of government are actually one autocratic ruler with supreme power over the state? Do Pokemon really exist?

Dictatorship:
A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator.

I beleive he meant Bush as the dictator and the branches power representing ministry of truth, ministry of peace, ministry of plenty, ministry of love etc

In the past most certainly. As well as the royal family of the Windsor’s, Hanoverians, Stuarts etc there have been important aristocratic families such as the Percy’s. Also there were several important industrial families that weren’t nobility to start with but have gained such titles such as the Armstrong’s.

The misuse of apostrophes here makes me sad :(

Dictatorship:
A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator.


Dictator:
In modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state.

So the three branches of government are actually one autocratic ruler with supreme power over the state? Do Pokemon really exist?

Um... It's doubtful.

Um... It's doubtful.

NO! Have hope young one!

NO! Have hope young one!

I guess I should point out that that was from the majority's mono-universal view.

However, with alternate realities come alternate physics...

I guess I should point out that that was from the majority's mono-universal view.

However, with alternate realities come alternate physics...

...but but but my hope :(

The irony of that is that the whole world collectively views the States as one humongous "better-than-you bit".
True, but then again the American Better-than-you is nominally due to the notion of "I worked harder than you". It's better than you because of my family of birth that REALLY gets knee-jerk reactions.

Which is why every president canidate does his or her utmost to appear as plain folkie as he or she can.

You Americans have the crazy King George I already. :p

He's going senile already.

Where's that graphic of Mecha-Nixon?

I beleive he meant Bush as the dictator and the branches power representing ministry of truth, ministry of peace, ministry of plenty, ministry of love etc

Exactly.

Dictatorship:
A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator.


Dictator:
In modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state.

So the three branches of government are actually one autocratic ruler with supreme power over the state? Do Pokemon really exist?

No real dictatorship works with just one individual with absolute power. They all have to have their elite that helps them out, like Hitler had Goebbels and the gang. It's all the same government, after all.

oh if only revolution ended in such fun

and using your compass results as a status symbol is the stupidest thing I've ever heard

I was using it in reference to the idea that calling me a communist when I'm the furthest thing from it is mind-boggling.