Historical filth- The case against hereditary monarcy

[Ecthy]

moominparatrooper, why don't you just admit you're a damned right wing baby eater?

[moomin]

As a German, you should be alive to the fact that all us Swedes eat babies, irregardless of political persuasion:
Bet Kindchen, bet, morgen kommt der Schwed!

[Stefu]

If there are problems with democracy in Sweden they have everything to do with the fact that the Social Democrats have been in the government for the last 80 years almost continuosly

Hey, don't forget you've had... what, 8-10 years of rule by other parties inbetween?

Sweden, that great experiment in democracy.

Shouldn't Moderaterna just change their name to "Loyal Opposition"?

[moomin]

They did that years ago. What do you recon "moderaterna" means?

Anyway, and on topic, how comes Uri Kekkonen never made king? "King Uri" would've been nice, and he sure *was* a king in the full medieval sense of the word.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper


That strawman is downright bizzare, you know. Our king earns his keep in sales - according to those who should know, the industry dudes who have him heading Swedish delegations all over the globe. But I think it's a wee bit much to expect from the man to singlehandedly make up for socialist government polices, a crushing tax burden and a ever more expensive welfare state and then bemoan we can't compete with countries where these conditions don't exist.

To rewind slightly, in your preceding post you suggest that having a king provides a comparative commercial advantage over republics. I reply that the US, France and Germany don't appear to be struggling for want of a monarchy.

Where's the straw man in that?

[Stefu]

Anyway, and on topic, how comes Uri Kekkonen never made king? "King Uri" would've been nice, and he sure *was* a king in the full medieval sense of the word.

Urho!

Do you think that UKK would have been satisfied with mere kingship? That would have been *so* far beneath him.

Tage Erlander was a PM about as long as Urho Kekkonen was a president, anyhow, and probably had less danger of dethronement.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Stefu
Urho!

I humbly apologize. No slight intended. So "Uri" is the Swedish version, eh? Seem's like another point to add to Urho's royal ambitions, in accordance to your own namemapping thread!

Do you think that UKK would have been satisfied with mere kingship? That would have been *so* far beneath him.

I dunno. Perhaps Emperor would do? "U. Kekkonen, Emperor by Divine Right of Finland, Soviet Karelia and Ã…land". Ho ho ho!

Tage Erlander was a PM about as long as Urho Kekkonen was a president, anyhow, and probably had less danger of dethronement.

I dunno. While the SocDems were firmly in the seat during all his years, there was always a possibility of a party coup - and I don't believe ol' Uhro ever needed to worry too much about that, right?

[Ned]

It seems obvious, does it not, that Europe's constitutional monarchies are a central obstacle to establishing a strong elected president in the US pattern. To the extent that a president with the whole exective power is "better" than a PM elected by paliament, the constitutional monarchies of Europe actually impose a very high cost.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy


To rewind slightly, in your preceding post you suggest that having a king provides a comparative commercial advantage over republics. I reply that the US, France and Germany don't appear to be struggling for want of a monarchy.

Where's the straw man in that?

Oh, I think it's certainly strawmanish enough to completely overlook the other factors that make an indutrialized economy successful and concentrate entirly on the presence or absencse of the king, in a context suggesting I used the argument to support the idea that the Swedish industry stands and falls with Carl XVI. My argument was that our king doesn't exactly drain any money from our collective pockets - it's the other way, if anything - and had nothing whatsoever to do with the overall viability of Sweden to compete on the world markets - with or without the king.

Anyhow, our royals are quite ok. You being a Brit, I can see where you're coming from; seems to me your royals deliver a lot less for a freckin' load more money. But perhaps you should also consider who'd be your president if you had one. My money is on Rupert Murdoch. Hmm... perhaps there's some merit to your idea after all!

[Ecthy]

Swedes never got slapped on their wrists for their war crimes in the 30 years war. And then neither did Austrians.

[moomin]

But Ned, a lot of us consider the strong American presidential institution as a deterrent to travel down that road. I personally think the presidency is one of the things that are quite wrong with America, and I'm frankly not an ardent America-basher.

If for some reason I felt the need to replace the king, an US, French or Finnish-style president is the last thing I'd like have. I so prefer the "weak" continental presidents they have in countries like Germany, Austria and Italy.

[Ecthy]

Our president is supposed to be weak. But they always exploit the little power they have to an extreme extent

[Stefu]

Uri. Geez. It's not like his magical powers were limited to spoon-bending.

There's this old joke, one of many about Urho. Urho met with Soviet leaders like Brezhnev many times during his presidency. They usually went for some huntin', saunain', drinkin', stuff like that.

One time, when they were particularily drunk, Brezhnev said: "Urho, Urho. What do you say, how about I give Vyborg and Karelia and all that to Finland?"

Kekkonen replied: "Why, Leonid, that's a fine idea."

They drunk some more, and Brezhnev said "Urho, Urho. We are all brothers, aren't we? So how about we drop the border completely and unify Finland and Soviet Union into one great big nation?"

Kekkonen thought about it and said: "Why, Leonid, that's even better an idea. But don't you think I'm bit too old to lead a nation so big?"

And Kekkonen had his moments of insecurity. His first election in 1956 was 151-149 in electoral college. In 1961, Social Democrats and Coalition were planning to nominate a candidate to win Kekkonen, but Soviets intervened and the candidate dropped out. After that, it was pretty much Kekkonen Kekkonen Kekkonen, with pretty much only the perpetual populist Veikko Vennamo and maybe a few other loonies opposing him.

Kekkonen is the proof that occasionally a democratic nation can benefit from a strong man bending the concepts of democracy etc., as long as it isn't made a habit.

[Stefu]

Finnish president is also relatively powerless, for understandable, bald and bespectacled historic reason.

I think a relatively strong presidency is beneficial to democracy. Parliamentary system always has the danger of becoming an elected dictatorship. Strong presidency only has that danger occasionally.

[mindseye]

Laz, thanks for re-posting the Eunuchs issue. Now I wanna see the litany of Popes!!!! Please oblige!