Americans wish they lived under a Monarchy. Yes or No?

[tenderfoot]

I'm a YES. Because we wouldn't have to obsess over another country's Royals. We could just stick with 24/7 coverage of ours.

[Meadowoak]

1. No

[Demsrule86]

2. No

[Happy Hoosier]

3. Well, I don't think we should create one....

.... but it wouldn't bother me in the least if, for example, I moved to Canada.

[Turbineguy]

4. King Donald the Buffoon

[Ocelot II]

5. We do, it's just not a hereditary monarchy.

We venerate fame and wealth and glamour and we slobber all over our talentless celebrities. How else could a boorish buffoon like TFG have been elected president? We obsess over our own "royals." At least Britain has a thousand-year tradition; we only have a few decades of Hollywood.

[Walleye]

6. We have celebrity royalty to obsess over. Hollywood

[sop]

7. I know someone looking for the job. And he's already on the news 24/7.

But, is the country ready for Queen Melania?

[303squadron]

8. To hell with a monarchy

We HAD to kick one out a long time ago. Why bother with the stupidity of one now.

[SWBTATTReg]

9. I know that you're being sarcastic as you indicated. But my answer is NO NO NO!

However, we do need to beef up the impeachment process as it pertains to the efforts that we undertook to impeach djt, and one party failed to join us, in removing the obviously tainted ex-president from power.

In failing to protect Democracy in America (only concerned with their republican rule), republicans deserve never to hold the reins of Congress, make law ever again, or hold the Executive Branches of government.

[Emile]

10. No

[crud]

11. I've thought the whole hereditary ruler stuff is total bull

even when I was a kid. I have people in my ancestral tree that did incredible things. Does that make me special? Nope!

[UTUSN]

12. 'muricans wish to live under a Strong Man system.

[Kid Berwyn]

17. "A strong man...on a white horse."

The Plot Against American Democracy That Isn’t Taught in Schools

In an excerpt from Gangsters of Capitalism, Jonathan M. Katz details how the authors of the Depression-era "Business Plot" aimed to take power away from FDR and stop his "socialist" New Deal

BY JONATHAN M. KATZ
Rolling Stone, January 1, 2022

Excerpt…

And now a bond salesman, who worked for Murphy, was pitching Butler on a domestic operation that set off the old veteran’s alarm bells. The bond salesman was Gerald C. MacGuire, a 37-year-old Navy veteran with a head Butler thought looked like a cannonball. MacGuire had been pursuing Butler relentlessly throughout 1933 and 1934, starting with visits to the Butler’s converted farmhouse on Philadelphia’s Main Line. In Newark, where Butler was attending the reunion of a National Guard division, MacGuire showed up at his hotel room and tossed a wad of cash on the bed — $18,000, he said. In early 1934, Butler had received a series of postcards from MacGuire, sent from the hotspots of fascist Europe, including Hitler’s Berlin.

In August 1934, MacGuire called Butler from Philadelphia and asked to meet. Butler suggested an abandoned café at the back of the lobby of the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel.

First MacGuire recounted all he had seen in Europe. He’d learned that Mussolini and Hitler were able to stay in power because they kept soldiers on their payrolls in various ways. “But that setup would not suit us at all,” the businessman opined.

But in France, MacGuire had “found just exactly the organization we’re going to have.” Called the Croix de Feu, or Fiery Cross, it was like a more militant version of the American Legion: an association of French World War veterans and paramilitaries. On Feb. 6, 1934 — six weeks before MacGuire arrived — the Croix de Feu had taken part in a riot of mainly far-right and fascist groups that had tried to storm the French legislature. The insurrection was stopped by police; at least 15 people, mostly rioters, were killed. But in the aftermath, France’s center-left prime minister had been forced to resign in favor of a conservative.

MacGuire had attended a meeting of the Croix de Feu in Paris. It was the sort of “super-organization” he believed Americans could get behind — especially with a beloved war hero like Butler at the helm.

Then he made his proposal: The Marine would lead half a million veterans in a march on Washington, blending the Croix de Feu’s assault on the French legislature with the March on Rome that had put Mussolini’s Fascisti in power in Italy a decade earlier. They would be financed and armed by some of the most powerful corporations in America — including DuPont, the nation’s biggest manufacturer of explosives and synthetic materials.

The purpose of the action was to stop Roosevelt’s New Deal, the president’s program to end the Great Depression, which one of the millionaire du Pont brothers deemed “nothing more or less than the Socialistic doctrine called by another name.” Butler’s veteran army, MacGuire explained, would pressure the president to appoint a new secretary of state, or “secretary of general affairs,” who would take on the executive powers of government. If Roosevelt went along, he would be allowed to remain as a figurehead, like the king of Italy. Otherwise, he would be forced to resign, placing the new super-secretary in the White House.

Butler recognized this immediately as a coup. He knew the people who were allegedly behind it. He had made a life in the overlapping seams of capital and empire, and he knew that the subversion of democracy by force had turned out to be a required part of the job he had chosen. “I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers,” Butler would write a year later. “In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.”

Continues…

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/coup-jan6-fdr-new-deal-business-plot-1276709/

More: https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/28691

[Caliman73]

13. As others have said...

We definitely have some sort of Aristocracy, though it isn't a hereditary, landed nobility. We have an entire multibillion dollar industry dedicated to fawning over rich celebrities and wealthy people in general. We have family political dynasties, we venerate athletes, actors, musicians, etc... beyond just their talents in their given professions.

I actually think that the mentality stems from historical portrayal of aristocracy and monarchy. We call the best musicians, "The king/queen of ... rock/rap/country etc..." The best actors are, "The king/queen of Hollywood", etc...

I have no problem with acknowledging exceptional talents. I think the Prince was one of the most talented musicians in modern history. His style, voice, playing of several instruments, etc... was fascinating. That said, I did not follow his life or care what he thought about politics or other things. I just thought he was a freaking awesome musician. Same way I think that Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, etc... were exceptional basketball players. I might watch a video of them talking about how the practice or approached the game, but outside of that, they are just normal people who poop, pee, etc... No reason to deify them or give any more importance to what their views on religion or philosophy are.

Literal Kings/Queens even less so. They are just the recipients of a hereditary fortune. Nothing exceptional.

[sdfernando]

14. Not only NO...

but FUCKING HELL NO!

Side note: When the founders were forming out government they considered different options to call the President...one of those was actually King. I'm guessing that one was dismissed post haste.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

15. Who would want to live in a monarchist hell-hole like:

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Spain, or Belgium?

*Shudder*

[DFW]

16. I don't care

Many of our best friends live next door in a Monarchy, and they aren't bothered by it one way or the other. Even when it is an oppressive monarchy, I guess the people least likely to be in the monarch's favor just learn to keep out of his way:

[Ocelot II]

18. A country doesn't need a monarchy in order to behave badly.

The US broke away from England because of the perceived oppression of the colonies by George III. "All men are created equal," and all that. But the early wealth and prosperity of the United States was derived to no small degree from the stolen labor of enslaved Africans and the stolen lands of the Indigenous people. Britain officially abolished slavery in 1807, but it took the US nearly another 50 years and a civil war to do it, while the genocide of the Native population continued. While we thump our chests and brag about being the land of the free and the home of the brave for defeating the Nazis in WWII, we also had Vietnam and Iraq, not so very long ago. We still have an antiquated and antidemocratic electoral system that made the election of a wannabe autocrat possible. So maybe instead of harrumphing over the government system of another country - one which has an elected parliament and a powerless, ceremonial monarchy - maybe we should consider the shameful aspects of our own history and try to clean up our own act.

[inthewind21]

23. Bravo

[Conjuay]

19. Not just "no"

but

HELL NO!

[dsc]

20. Honestly separating the roles of head of government and head of state

isn't a bad idea, but that wouldn't necessitate a monarchy. We could do what many parlimentary democracies do and have an appointed or elected person to be head of state.

[Retrograde]

21. Do I get to be queen?

If so, I'm in favor of a monarchy. If not, then we shouldn't have one.

[inthewind21]

22. You mean

like we already do?

[Model35mech]

24. The reactionary response to the UKs monarch's death is getting ridiculous

My family lost members in the Revolution AND the War of 1812

I am not at all sympathetic to such fantasy