UK is a monarchy.

[kentonio]

It's okay that Britain still vests power in an unelected royal family because America has elected presidents with the same last name three (3) times!

It's not about 'okay', given that we pretty much universally don't give a monkeys what Americans think about how we run our country. It is however more than a little funny to be lectured on family based leadership by a country that was recently discussing whether the third Bush should consider a run for the Presidency, and whether he would beat the second Clinton to the job.

I guess they're both lucky that the Kennedy dynasty are running out of prominent family members to run, although let's not write off Joseph P. Kennedy III just yet, he may only be a congressman so far and therefore only in one of the 536 most important elected roles in the United States, but he's got that smile and that name and he could yet make it all the way to the top.

[MikeH]

"We don't care what you think"

If you are resorting to the Texas defence it's not an indication you have a strong position.

Recent revelations like the black spider letters are a problem and we shouldn't ignore them. Neither system is faultless, but comparing UK Monarchy to the US Presidency as the only two models is a bit of a strawman. If we were to become a republic there are much better models to copy than the US model.

[Lorizael]

You can't effectively argue that the presidency has a dynastic tendency in the United States. Despite all the discussion, it's happened 3 times. You can certainly argue that the US treats the presidents royally, and I'd agree that's a problem. You can also argue that other positions in the government do have dynastic tendencies, and that's a much bigger problem in my opinion. (And one I've discussed here before.) But I don't know what to do about it.

The decision a son makes to follow in his father's footsteps, for example, is a pretty common one regardless of the profession. It's what people do. The decision of the electorate to empower the family member of a politician, on the other hand, is a different matter. You could say, oh last name is a useful heuristic for gauging education, intelligence, etc., but that's not how people are really making their decisions. Instead it's a gut feeling based on misplaced trust and distorted memories.

I honestly don't know what to do about that, or if there's anything to be done about it. But it's not really the same thing as a royal family. The first Kennedy got himself into a position of power by appealing to the people. The first of a royal line gets into a position of power by having a bigger stick.

[Dr Strangelove]

Depends if you believe that leaders are born or made. Prospective monarchs spend their entire lives being trained for the role.

Of course America loves a monarch just as much as anyone else, which is why you keep electing members of the same families to the highest jobs in the land. I wonder what the odds actually are that several immediate family members would just happen to be the most suitable candidates out of 300 million people for a particular job?

Sure, look how Tsar Nichols II turned out.
"We don't need rifles for every soldier!"

[Colon™]

I think India has it much worse when it comes to dynastic tendencies. Bush the Younger never got elevated to presidential candidate the way the Nehrus are deemed to have a birthright to lead Congress Party and India. Both W. and Jeb actually were quite competent governors.

[Ben Kenobi]

I honestly don't know what to do about that, or if there's anything to be done about it. But it's not really the same thing as a royal family. The first Kennedy got himself into a position of power by appealing to the people. The first of a royal line gets into a position of power by having a bigger stick.

Which explains why we have the descendents of the Electress Sophia on the throne today? They were chosen because back then bigotry was an acceptable prejudice to choose your supreme leader.

[Asher]

I don't understand this thread.

Do Americans not know that the UK and Canada are constitutional monarchies?

[PLATO]

I find your face highly suspect.

The whole "inbred" thing gets to you, doesn't it?

Your secret is safe with us.

[PLATO]

Foreign Policy:

1.) Trained from birth with personal relationships with most world leaders

2.) Community Organizer in South Chicago

You are hiring for the job of Foreign Policy Leader...you receive two resumes.....

[The Mad Monk]

**** kings, **** queens. Put em all up against the wall.



Stab them with the spear of justice!

I get the spear, but why is he holding a giant dildo?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't understand this thread.

Do Americans not know that the UK and Canada are constitutional monarchies?

Sava started the thread. He was likely high.

[Sava]

Sava started the thread. He was likely high.

Not once in 2013!

[Ben Kenobi]

So go back to Canada.

I vastly prefer living under the wise and benevolent rule of Rick Perry, Lord of Texas.

[Sava]

Prospective monarchs spend their entire lives being trained for the role.

No. They are the epitome of entitlement. They get handed the job. They never work a day in their lives.

At least elected officials need to work for their job. And if they suck? We can vote them out.

Either I'm getting counter-trolled or a disturbing amount of people approve of a monarchy.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are the stupidest human alive. You are so dumb that you should interview people for Fox News.

Fox News, as a successful business is well compensated. It would be a significant step up in pay.