The NDP's view on monarchy
Comments
That said, I don't care how rational and Voltairean one is, there is no mistaking that the USA is as much of a religion as any other faith out there.
Yes. Note the present term "IS."
It's not what America WAS.
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
In other words, there was no desire among the Founders to export American culture.
They also abhorred perpetual war because they feared it would turn the President into a despot (like Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama) and that it would destroy liberty at home as in the (Un)Patriot(ic) Act, Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, GTMO and other overseas gulags, etc.
That is the vast chasm of difference between us.
I KNOW that the monarchy is largely irrelevant, and from a practical perspective has little or no effect on your system of government.
What I am arguing about is the SYMBOLIC, philosophical, moral and meta-theoretical implications of the monarchy in Canada.
First, think about what monarchy IS at a conceptual, moral, meta-theory level.
Then consider this, when the Canadian government kow-tows to, recognizes, honors, celebrates, pays homage to etc., the British crown/monarchy, this at a SYMBOLIC level is the moral equivalent of recognizing, honoring, celebrating, paying homage to etc., Thanksgiving or (Christopher) Columbus Day, for instance.
Does this make any sense, or am I out to lunch on this?
I would say you are sort of right (since I agree it is largely irrelevant as well). On the other hand its mechanics are pretty deeply ingrained in our system of government and laws, and it is a tradition.
So while I agree with you on that level, I think your seeing it as an affront to liberty and sovereignty is kind of over the top. It just doesn't work that way.
While you are in part right, I think some of it might also come from your country's mythology - the notion that you were born fighting a tyrant (although you were actually fighting parliament, and aided by a monarch who ruled over a far less democratic system , though he wasn't a tyrant either).
But I certainly give you that our conception of the monarchy is a myth. But then again, we all have them - and not just overt symbols like flags. The whole individual liberty myth in the states is good in some ways - but it has seriously fucked up a lot of things in your country, and looking from the outside it seems just as absurd and warped as you must think the monarchy seems.
(now I hope I am explaining myself properly)
And I should add, that I'm not sure if you have noticed, but your presidents get far more royal treatment than our prime ministers. We have nothing to compare with your inaguration days, I wouldn't quite say it's royalty envy, but...
Land hunger? I highly doubt that, maybe if the war started today.
American farmers in the northern border states casted covetous eyes on the farms of their British North American (Canadian) neighbors.
If the war started today, it would be water, oil and strategic minerals and resources.
With a sellout like Herr Harper in office, he'll give these resources away. War won't be necessary.
The whole individual liberty myth in the states is good in some ways - but it has seriously fucked up a lot of things in your country,...
That is the fundamental difference between America and Canada.
A reading of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights informs the reader that the Founders had an individualist, liberal, mechanistic view of society that was popular at the time.
These documents revolve around the primacy or even supremacy of the indivual and individual rights and liberties. The great fear was the expansion of government powers, rights, liberties at the expense of individual rights and liberties. If rights and liberties were to be curtailed, it would be the government's. If rights and liberties were to be expanded, it would be the individual's.
I see it in myself. Depending on the issue, I sometimes have a libertarian paranoia of a bloated and despotic government attempting to usurp individual rights. Rights I will fight to the death to preserve.
Even today, by and large, as an individual, you are on your own. It's up to YOU to sink or swim.
The problem this has caused can be seen in the degree of privatized healthcare: Where a corporation's right to earn a profit is greater than a person's right to access to healthcare, a reasonable standard for a healthy and fulfilling life and even the right to life itself.
Values like healthcare, childcare, a national stardard for education, a reasonable wage, adequate social security, pensions, etc., are not RIGHTS but COMMODITIES to be bought and sold on the marketplace for the highest price they will bring.
This is Economic Darwinism where 'Survival of the Fittest' is 'Survival of the Richest.'
Why do so many Americans accept this and not fight it?
Because many Americans have been sold on the myth of the "American Dream."
Everyone has the "same" opportunity to be rich and successful. All you have to do is work hard, make the right choices and have faith in yourself and "the system."
A reading of the Canadian Constitution (at some point) the reader comes across the passage that states something like this: "It is the responsibility of government to provide peace, order and good governance."
The authors of this document had a collectivist, "social" or group and organic view of society. In America, the rights of individuals need to be protected from the government. In Canada, government has a duty to protect the welfare of its people.
Canada has things like universal healthcare, a national standard of education for your children, a national pension.
These social "goods" did not come from the British monarch.
They came from (previous) Canadian governments.
You should deeply cherish these political values and "social goods."
This is something as Canadians, you should be deeply proud of.
I can tell you, they are the envy of many intelligent/learned/switched-on Americans.
NEVER take these things for granted.
Every society has its good and bad aspects, whether it be Canada or America or wherever.
It deeply sorrows me when people misunderstand and think that I wish Canada to become like the United States.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I have no desire for this to ever happen,
but Herr Harper might.
Value these social "goods" your society has created and do all that you can to prevent anyone from taking them away.
Last I heard, 1% of your ruling elite makes as much money in a year as 45% of your citizenry. Nice egalitarian system you've convinced yourself you have.
Suck-er.
That's had.
You talked about the intent of the Founders.
In their time America was a pre-capitalist society.
The intentions of the Founders were good.
It was not their intent for America to become an oligarchic despotism.
As you know, we live in a world where things become corrupted.
Peoples' intents may originally be good.
Sadly, in time they may (usually are) corrupted.
However, that is no excuse to accept things the way they are.
In fact, it may serve as a means to inspire us to strive for improvement.
Frmsldr, your views on monarchy and its role in Canada have been put forward time and time again, with the only result being conflict and name-calling.
We get it. Some agree, some don't. Repeatedly stating your position, and beligerantly I might add, isn't discourse - it's bullying.
Move on or move out.
Geez, quoting Bugs Bunny is now considered a low-brow form of discourse?
I suppose I can take being called a hypocrite, a child, told that the fact I don't share his opinion means I am a slave, and being told in very insulting terms that our country is not a real country and that our entire political structure is a humiliation.
I don't judge Frmrsldr for his views on the issue of the monarchy, nor for the fact that he is American. But it does explain his lack of insight, It is also pretty ironic being told by the elephant in the bed how we are doing it all wrong (speaking of Trudeau).
I can also overlook that he doesn't seem to appreciate the symbolism of having our head of state personally sign the document transferring Canada's administration from an Act of the British Parliament to one of the Canadian Parliament. Virtually all other legislation is just rubber stamped by the governor general, not enacted by crawling on hands and knees for Her Majesty's permission.
Although coming from a country where their flag, their eagle, political imagery and pictures of their presidents are EVERYWHERE you;d think he would have an appreciation for symbolism, because the Americans wear it on their sleeve more than most nations. And believe me, looking at it from the outside, it can seem just as ridiculous and superficial as I am sure you think our national symbols are.
But then again, it doesn't matter what I think about it; what matters is that those symbols mean something to Americans. I might remind him that it is no different with our institutions.
And as for the intentions of your founding fathers being good, evidently not in all things. THeir ideals were not so perfect that they didn't overlook the institution of slavery and bury it until it had to be settled by war. And the political differences between John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton (among others) is evidence that some of them had their own agendas, and they were certainly not all of one mind about the course of your country.
And of course, your electoral college which (again, like our governor general) may work just fine, but it is still technically an undemocratic act of faith) ...wIth the difference that there have been more people in your system hwo have abused the privilege.
I don't mean to mis-judge the founders of the U.S. because I know they probably did the best that they could under the circumstances; but what they produced was far from perfect, and not all of it was of good or wise intent.
But as for this discussion, I don't see it going much further because we are clearly - again - at an impasse.
I hardly think that's a fair comment, given that the the USA is the manifestation of divine revelation as revealed to the founding fathers.
Was the American Revolution Fought to Save Slavery?
Beligerent adj. 1, waging war; as, beligerent nations; 2, warlike; as, belliegerent words: - n. a nation or person at war; as, the belligerents laid down their arms.
Provide a quote from this thread to show me where I was belligerent or warlike so I may amend my errors.
If I'm banned from posting on this thread it probably will kill the debate.
No one learns anything from others always agreeing with them.
Nor from people disagreeing with them or objecting to their condescension apparently
I'm somewhat dismayed that my arguments are not understood as analogies and that what I'm criticizing is the philosophy, meta-theory and ethical issues of monarchy.
When I discuss democracy, egalitarianism, sovereignty, "nation-statehood", liberty, etc., I am not referring to specific examples.
I am not talking about the American-ness, Canadian-ness or British-ness of democracy, egalitarianism, sovereignty, "nation-statehood", liberty, etc.,
I am discussing these ideals as universal values.
My arguments against "monarchy" are in the same vein as other babblers arguing against the celebrating/observing/paying homage to Thanksgiving or (Christopher) Columbus Day.
By my understanding, a key philosophical cornerstone, or political and moral value of rabble is opposition to colonialism/imperialism.
Or have I got that wrong?
Believe me, the more I learn about Canadian politics, the more I learn how little I know about it.
If I wasn't learning anything on babble, I wouldn't come here.
LOL.
When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution the Federalist Papers, etc., it was during what was called "The Age of Enlightnement."
They were influenced by contemporary Enlightenment thinkers.
This was a time when rational and logical thinking and discourse were pre-eminent.
The majority of the Founders were agnostic, believed that one's personal-private religious views shouldn't enter the public domain of politics.
They weren't very "religious" about their religion.
A religious revival occurred in the 19th Century:
The notion of Manifest Destiny (if religious overtones are thrown into it) came into being circa 1820.
The Mormons forming their own community in Utah.
The religious fanaddict John Brown murdering pro slavery persons in the name of god.
It wasn't until Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush when a U.S. President's personal religious views became a matter of public concern.
Frmrsldr, I don't mind talking with you at all. in practical or theoretical terms,
I just think if this is indeed a theoretical argument, it might be good to dial back the rhetoric about us being slaves, and not having a real country, because neither is true.
I know there are plenty of Canadians who are strongly anti-monarchist, some for different reasons than yours.
But I would venture to say that even for most of them it is hardly a burning political issue. If there is one thing I would like you to understand it is that in practical terms the monarchy is largely irrelevant, and has virtually no effect whatsoever on our system of government.
It is a tradition, no different than the many traditions you have in your country. You don't have to like it, but I think it would be better if you looked at it in its proper perspective.
(edit)
cross-posted with you Frmrsldr
I think al-Q was making a joke about how some revisionists see the founding of your country.
Though I don't think the everything inspired by the Enlightenment was that progressive, and although it was not religious, it certainly had its own version of fanaticism.
Jefferson's declaration that the tree of liberty needed regular feedings of blood is all the more hypocritical given that the closest he got to the war effort was running away from Monticello when British troops were approaching.
For all Jefferson's talk of tyrants, it was John Adams who did the work of negotiating with the French monarch and Dutch financiers to bankroll the revolution. - And negotiating with British Generals.
Again, I know your country was born in a difficult time and with competing interests, but I think a lot of the problems you still have to day - specifically to do with the tension between federalism, states rights, and individual liberty - come from your first revolutions - the war, and Jefferson's later political one.
The notion of Manifest Destiny came before 1820, I would think about 1810 or so if not earlier.
Remember that little war of aggression against the British and her colonies' in 1812?
@ Todrick
Washington actually sent an ill-fated expedition to try and foment revolution in Quebec, and shortly thereafter Ben Franklin went to Montreal with a printing press, and a similar mission. Franklin left, but the press stayed and was eventually used to start the Montreal Gazette.
@ Smith W
Thanks, I was not aware of the printing press. I will look for more information on this subject.
I was going to say something snarky, but 6079 Smith W made a rational comment about my post before I could.
That said, I don't care how rational and Voltairean one is, there is no mistaking that the USA is as much of a religion as any other faith out there.
Two thoughts:
It's one of those great "What if?" moments of history:
What if the British won and slavery in America was abolished?
The emotional side of me wishes it had happened.
The rational-logical side tells me that British defeat was inevitable.
As I said in the above post, the time of the American Revolutionary War of Independence was during "The Age of Enlightenment."
Logic and reason informed most Americans that slavery would soon pass because it was morally wrong and freed wage earning workers and/or technology in the form of farm machinery would continue to sustain the profitability of an agrarian economy after emancipation.
Why then, did slavery persist?
I would venture that it is the same reason why people become emotional and defensive about the continued existence of the monarchy in Canada:
They are/were ingrained habits. Slaveholders and monarchists convince(d) themselves that their political/cultural practices are/were like a house of cards. Yank away the slavery/monarchy card and the whole house comes crashing down.
That didn't happen when slavery was abolished. It's not going to happen when the monarchy is abolished. But try to convince people of this at the time. It's not very easy, is it?
The reason why British defeat was inevitable is the Independence War was an anti-colonialist guerrilla war. The track record in anti-colonialist/anti-imperialist wars for the colonial/imperial power or for the "Visitors Team" is not very good.
The ploy on the part of the British to cause the slaves to insurrect and support them in their war effort by promising them freedom was something the British never seriously intented to do. They knew from the start it was doomed to failure. They resorted to it out of desperation and spite: Their only real aim was to inflict as much harm, chaos and damage as they could.
Imagine what would have happened if the British had "won." How would they be able to establish peace, law and order and governance under such circumstances?
The Americans would simply have continued the fight into America's vast hinterland. Britain would have found itself at perpetual war. Britain did not have the human and financial resources to oversee such a "victory." Such a "victory"/perpetual guerrilla war would have financially destroyed and thus ended the British Empire right then and there.
This attempt to free and arm the slaves is the same tactic the American Empire is employing in Iraq and Afghanistan with its policy of arming, training and financing militias to fight against their fellow country people insurgents.
That is why this ploy is largely a "No sale" among those concerned.
They'd have looked to what the United Empire Loyalists had created in Upper and Lower Canada and thought, " Ah, so that's how one creates 'Peace, Order and Good Government!'"
Not just habit. A lot of people made a lot of money off of slavery , and not just slave owners. Plenty in the north profited from the triangle trade as well.
I agree with you that change was inevitable. Hard to say if British defeat was inevitable, or indeed if the U.S. had gotten into a war with France if they would have prevailed. There are too many factors - one major one being France's support of the U.S. effort as part of its war with Britain. So I agree something was likely to change simply because your colonies were distinct cultures. But I don't think the way things turned out was inevitable at all.
And comparing slavery to monarchism as just "habits"? I dunno about that, or that John Brown comment. I care less about his religious fanaticism than his "guerilla" efforts, flawed though they were.
And al-Q:
Sorry. Feel free to be snarky.
That is the vast chasm of difference between us.
I KNOW that the monarchy is largely irrelevant, and from a practical perspective has little or no effect on your system of government.
What I am arguing about is the SYMBOLIC, philosophical, moral and meta-theoretical implications of the monarchy in Canada.
First, think about what monarchy IS at a conceptual, moral, meta-theory level.
Then consider this, when the Canadian government kow-tows to, recognizes, honors, celebrates, pays homage to etc., the British crown/monarchy, this at a SYMBOLIC level is the moral equivalent of recognizing, honoring, celebrating, paying homage to etc., Thanksgiving or (Christopher) Columbus Day, for instance.
Does this make any sense, or am I out to lunch on this?
Jefferson found inspiration for this from passages of John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government."
Amen brother. I agree with you entirely.