Any perusal of man’s 5600 years of history will quickly show that the most common form of government has been monarchy. One man rule seems to be the default position in every land and in every age. A fascination with democracy, republics and parliaments is a very recent thing. I am not even sure that it is a good thing, though it might be the best that man can accomplish. Well we remember Churchill’s quip that “democracy is the worst form of government ever devised by man, except for all the others.”
And nowhere in the Bible does Christ entreat us to enter into His republic. He is a King, and He lives in a Kingdom. If man is commanded to emulate Heaven as much as he can, then the logical choice for him would be to set up kingdoms on earth. That has not worked out well, but it is not for lack of trying.
Those ancient Hebrews certainly tried. They debated whether or not to elect a king over their 12 tribes. Everyone had a king in those days, and those Jews wanted to be hip and modern. But old Yahweh warned them of such foolishness.
This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons…He will take your daughters…he will take the best of your fields…He will take a tenth of your grain…he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep…And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves…(1 Samuel 8: 1 – 18)
It is a bit distressing to read how God warned His people that kings would take a tenth of everything. Evidently such an amount was seen by God to be tantamount to theft. Alas, we modern sophisticates, we who wallow in democracy and republican virtue, have allowed our own government to take 40 percent of our wealth. And we call ourselves ‘free.’
But the Jews, who were indeed free, were a stiff-necked people, and they got their king. The end result was civil war and near extinction.
Let us not be too hard on the ancient Israelites. After all, one of their kings was David, and he is mentioned more times in the Bible than anyone else except for Christ. David was ‘a man after God’s own heart.’ Such a phrase would beef up anyone’s resume I would wager. We must remember, though, that David was a king, and like most such he practiced murder and adultery.
It was not only the Hebrews who traded in their natural freedom for security under kings. The Romans did likewise. When one thinks of Rome one conjures up a host of odd-ball Roman emperors, but the first emperor only appeared 500 years after Rome’s beginnings. The truth is that Republican Rome had an ingrained hatred of anything smacking of monarchy. Even the word for king—rex—was anathema.
Between 509 BC and 30 BC Rome was governed by a senate, a group of aristocrats whose abilities and temperaments had nothing in common with the pompous and preening asses of our own senate. But as if proving that monarchy is the normal mode of human governance, the Romans elected two consuls—let us call these guys ‘little kings’—to command the legions. Their terms were for a year only, thereby confirming the distrust of kingship.
When things really hit the fan, however, the Romans tossed aside this delicate balancing act and appointed a dictator for six months. He was a rex in everything but name, and could do pretty much as he liked—including putting to death other Romans.
All this began to break down around 100 BC, and like those ancient Hebrews 1000 years before, the ancient Romans came to plead for a king. Caesar came. He claimed the title of dictator pretty much for life, and that was that. Rome was a monarchy until her end 1500 years later.
And it was monarchs who ruled the world—barring the odd Hanseatic League and Venetian Republic—until a bunch of Americans crowded into that room in Philadelphia in 1787. We forget that they were there to review the Articles of Confederation because that government had no executive authority—it had no place for even a limited monarchy. They brought along with them a thorough knowledge of the ancient world and of the Old Testament. They knew the attractions and the problems of monarchy. What they created was a magnificent balancing act that included—surprise, surprise—a place for monarchy. That place is called ‘the presidency.’
And so accustomed to kings were our Founders that ‘His Elective Highness’ was one of the titles considered when addressing the president. Imagine for a moment having to refer to a concupiscent and mendacious creature like Clinton in such a manner. We owe Washington for adopting the simple ‘Mister President’ as his title. We owe him much more as well. He could have become the first king of America if he had so desired.
And many there were who desired it. Washington’s foe George III said that if Washington did not seize the kingship, he would be ‘the greatest man in the world.’ So close did the US come to reverting to the common practice of monarchy. It really depended upon the whim of one man.
The Founders put in place things to limit the power of the presidency—in reality, to prevent it from devolving into monarchy. These were the Senate, which represented an aristocratic element; and the House, where the hoi-polloi rabble could feel they had a voice in government. Obviously the Senate was meant to ape early Roman practice, while the House was a genuflection to Athens of old.
We moderns gush over those ancient Greeks while forgetting that the pure democracy of Athens was slavery based, addicted to internecine violence and homoerotic pornography, and perished in an orgy of violence after a few decades.
Over the ensuing 200-odd years our Republic is slowly reverting to the usual type of rule seen in history. That is, we are reverting to monarchy. The presidency of today would be seen as monarchial in everything but name to the Founders. Their great distrust of a king was based on his untrammeled power to wage war. This is why they gave only to Congress the power to declare war. This was a great idea, except they made the president the commander-in-chief of all armed forces.
We can understand the power of the US president when we recall that in all our history Congress has declared war only 5 times—and not since World War II—yet our nation has been involved in military conflict more than 200 times. Louis XIV would certainly approve—and stand in awe—of the US president’s war making ability.
I am not complaining about all of this, mind you. I am merely pointing out some history.
The American people are certainly coming around to thinking of the president as a nearly all-powerful monarch. Witness all the things they believe he has the power to deliver—health care, good schools, retirement, housing, cheap gas, cheaper college, clean air, high incomes, low unemployment and on and on. Really, such things would test the abilities of the most competent emperor of Rome.
Our modern infatuation with republican democracy will dissolve if the US ever declines to such an extent that her power scarcely reaches from sea to shining sea. We forget that most if not all of the democracies of the world depend upon the US. When she goes the way of Republican Rome so will they. The world will revert back into its customary rule by pharaohs, czars, dictators and other types of monarchs.
Those freedom loving sorts still among us today should enjoy their liberty while they can.
10 Comments;
Mike,
Great post! I loved your comment about people expecting our “King” to solve every problem in the country! As Bruce has pointed out in his blog, Obama has something for everyone on his website. The candidates leave no promise unmade. I, for one, want them to promise to LEAVE US ALONE! As much as McCain makes me groan on his immigration and global warming positions, at least he refused to say what “rich” was yesterday when he said it didn’t matter because he wasn’t going to raise taxes. If only, if only!
Dear Kathy:
The wish for government to leave us alone seems so quaint, so old fashioned. Government these days is impossible to avoid. Its influence and noisome throngs have inserted themselves in every aspect of our lives. They are like cobwebs.
For example: The California Supreme Court ruled that government can force physicians to artificially inseminate lesbians even though such a procedure violates those physicians’ religious views. This, then, has become the true mandate of government: to force all its citizens into one mode of thought, of thinking, of action.
There is one response to such fanaticism. It is amply described in the 2nd Amendment.
Interesting post.
My own view is that monarchy is not a feasible system of government in the modern age.
Unfortunately the reason for this is not a belief that rulers have an adherence to any separation of powers theory. Instead the reason is that the modern state is that big and regulates that many things that it is always going to have to be a big collection of politicians rather than a small collection or an individual.
When it comes to monarchy, and continuing a bit on the communism theme which was touched on in another thread, there is a strange irony that in the 20th century the most monarchical regimes were the very extreme communist ones. I am thinking of China under Chairman Mao, Romania under Ceaucsceau, or North Korea. I don’t have a well worked out political theory for this, but I think it is something to do with rebelling against God. Those that wish to become the most systematic atheists end up creating states with a god-emperor.
If this idea is correct then it suggests that the more secular a population is, the more it will wish for the state to become god for it. This is why the vast expansion of state powers has coincided with a fall off in religious belief. In the old days people prayed for food, work, good weather etc., now they ask the state to provide it.
Scipio writes:
The American people are certainly coming around to thinking of the president as a nearly all-powerful monarch. Witness all the things they believe he has the power to deliver—health care, good schools, retirement, housing, cheap gas, cheaper college, clean air, high incomes, low unemployment and on and on. Really, such things would test the abilities of the most competent emperor of Rome.
There is a general public passivity in modern democracies which has been encouraged by lefty-liberalism. The upshot is that people not only believe the government will provide but that it ought to provide goods and perform services way beyond the “night watchman” duties of the minimal state. Self-sufficiency and self respect have been exchanged for a mess of dependency pottage. Many people have come to expect that their entire lives, from the cradle to the grave, should supported by government agencies.
Robert Nozick’s analysis of the role of government in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, is worth studying. Nozick argues that the responsibility of the state should be limited to the duty of protecting citizens against foreign enemies, the control of crime by the police, and the administration of courts of law. Outside these limits, education, welfare, social security, and so forth should be provided by private institutions in a free market.
From what I can recall, he doesn’t directly compare the powers of the President to the authority of a monarch. But he attacks bureaucracy and defends individual liberty on moral grounds.
(A “meaty” post, Scipio; plenty of “beef” in it.)
“The American people are certainly coming around to thinking of the president as a nearly all-powerful monarch.”
These are the Americans who have become lazy and refuse to fight or struggle. If these Americans populated the East during the 1800s the West would never have been discovered. As long as a person can get a job and the only rule is to show up everyday and they never have to really apply themselves to keep the job you have the threat of monarchs. As long as Americans can get a check for sitting on their bottoms there is the threat of a monarch.
But these Americans should be very careful what they ask for. “The One” of hope and change that would give 845 billion of Americans money to “feed the poor of the world “has a half brother living in a slum in Kenya on less then a dollar a day.Does that sound like a monarch that cares or does he only care when others do the hard work of giving?
And look at how he left Chicago.Organized chaos and still failing.
There is a glimmer of hope that comes from the dont go movement which sprang up from an after adjournment meeting of Republicans.In a week this went from a few to many and is still growing.There are still signs of democracy in America just dont expect our lame stream media to report about it.
http://dontgomovement.com/
Dear David:
What we term ‘the modern age’—and I use that phrase myself—has a shifty sort of definition. The Middle Ages folks called themselves ‘the moderns,’ as did the Renaissance Italians. It might be true that most governments today cannot be termed ‘monarchial’ but more than half of humanity still lives under monarchy. Those nations might not be called that, but the function rather than the form is the thing. Putin acts just like a Czar, for example, and ‘wields power so that he can wield power.’ Much of Africa is really one man rule, as is most of Islam and Asia.
Your point of ‘rebelling against God’ is a telling one. I find it to be exactly the case. The Christian is told to rely upon God and family and community. Once the ties that bind those together dissolve—and the state works constantly to dissolve them—the only remaining succor is government. As more come to rely upon the state, it will grow to accommodate the various demands made upon it. Eventually most people will in fact be functionaries of the state. That is what Britain did to her health care system. It forced all doctors to be state employees. Something similar is being attempted here.
The point of state worship is to have everyone under its dominion. Thus—as you pointed out—the most vicious atheist regimes are also the most God hating. For He is seen as a competitor, as are His children. These must therefore either be cleansed of Christianity or killed. China and North Korea treat Christianity just as the USSR and Romania did—as did 2nd century Rome. Persecution, torture, imprisonment and murder are the standard methods god-emperors use to rid themselves of competition.
I find your statement that “the more secular a population is, the more it will wish for the state to become god” to be as true as anything in history. There is a reason why the Democrat Party is the party of the state—and of abortion, sodomy, euthanasia and their like. Not much Christianity there.
Dear Alex:
I had heard of Nozick, but your discussion of his philosophy has made me a fan. I have placed the book in my Amazon cue.
The minimalist state is the one most respecting of liberty, but it requires a watchful citizenry. The natural function of a state is to increase its size and power. In that process other areas of civil society—religion and the family—that might challenge the state’s prerogatives are subsumed into the state.
Liberty cannot depend upon a bunch of cleverly written pieces of paper however venerable, for a lawless man will simply ignore them. A Clinton could claim to be upholding the Constitution while tearing it to shreds. Lawless men can only be deterred by force. Thus, the beauty and necessity of the 2nd Amendment.
You are right that leftist programs create passivity in the citizenry who relies upon them. That is their point. They also degrade men and turn them into serfs. Those most dependent upon the state—see Indian reservations—-are also the most degraded.
Our state has far exceeded any boundaries imagined by the Founders. Its claims upon us never cease. And they will never cease until it has authority over us from conception to death. We are well upon our road to serfdom.
Dear Mike:
You have hit upon a telling point, that the people who settled the American West have little in common with so many Americans of today. Imagine the typical government employee or Obama supporter as sitting in a Conestoga Wagon and heading out to Oregon in 1850. Absurd.
One who survives off government money is nothing more than a ward of the state—a fancy term for a serf. He has surrendered to the state all authority over his life, like a prisoner does when he enters the jailhouse. There as well all sustenance is provided—food, housing, clothing, entertainment. The prisoner might even be allowed to vote for his warden, giving the man an illusion of freedom.
Obama wants to feed the world, does he? He will find its appetites a tad voracious. If he wants he can move to Kenya and start a farm, and maybe give his brother a job.
I will check out the website and see where it goes over time.
I often use that passage in 1 Samuel 8 to describe the condition and direction of our country. I’ve always found two things pertinent to our situation. Israel asked for a king ‘such as all the other nations have.’ I don’t see any nation around the world that I would want to emulate.
The key passage is God saying to Samuel ‘…it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.’ Bad move.
Such people will opt for anything but God. He have a lot of those here, too.
Dear Steve:
Excellent. Who should America emulate? It is the rest of the world that should be emulating America. This basic statement of American exceptionalism is completely lost on Democrats. They wish to ape dying and post-Christian Europe, with whom they share much.
The Democrats are in rebellion against God. Their policies are objectively anti-Christian. From the Ten Commandments in public to prayer in schools to abortion on demand to support for sodomy to a fawning worship of the Moloch state, the Democrats work themselves into a frenzy to spit in the face of Christ.