Why republicans should care about having a king

[billvon]

250 years ago we were pretty sick of having a king. And it wasn't just that a king is pretty much the antithesis of democracy; it was all the other distortions to the economy, to justice, and to freedom that having a king entails.

Elected officials are beholden to their constituents, since they can kick them out of office during the next election cycle. Kings are not - but they still get advice and guidance from their family, advisers, friends and sycophants. The term for this group of people is the "royal court." And in a monarchy, there is no greater power than "having the ear of the king." If you have the ear of the king, you can have your political or business rivals arrested, have laws passed that benefit only your company or church, or have enforcement of laws that might harm you suspended.

And the king needs this court. Even a good king can't manage the all the minutiae of running a kingdom - he needs people to suggest courses of action and even take over management of parts of the kingdom. Good kings will choose good people for this of course, but even good kings get bad advice sometimes.

Thus you can't really have a free economy, or a working justice system, under a king. And it's not just a thumb on the scale - it is a royal foot, leaning on the scale with all his might, with the people who will benefit from that foot whispering in his ear.

In the Americas, the leaders of the growing revolutionary movement saw all this. And just to make that clear, they wrote a document that listed all these injustices so it was clear that they weren't just objecting to a king, they were objecting to the problems the king caused. Namely:

=========
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
===========

The king did not like that document, and we fought a war over it. Fortunately we won.

The recent No Kings protests have gotten Trump and his supporters very upset. They have tried a dozen ways to discredit these protests, including:

-Trump is not a king
-Trump is a king and will literally dump shit on people he disagrees with
-Trump is a victorious king - "Long Live the King!"
-The protests will be violent and dangerous mobs of Antifa
-The protests are so boring no one cares
-The protests are silly
-The protests are a waste of time
-Protesters are all clueless Gen-Zers who don't understand the world
-Protesters are all old people

It's clear Trump supporters are looking for a way both to have a king and make it look like they don't have a king. The reason for this is pretty clear - they want Trump to have the sort of power that a king has, to "own the libs," persecute their enemies and enact their policies by fiat. They see the checks-and-balances of the US Constitution barriers to that power, and are doing all they can to dismantle them.

But republicans should be very careful in their attempts to hand Trump unlimited and unchecked power. Because that power does not go away once the next president comes in - and it will be used.

For example, Trump has officially named Antifa as a terrorist organization, and has used trumped-up charges to arrest his political opponents. (Leticia James for example.)

Consider a future where a different president names the National Rifle Organization as a "terrorist organization arming violent criminals and foreign terrorists" and orders the arrest of its officials.

As another example, Trump is massively expanding the INS, and giving them extraordinary and extrajudicial powers to arrest, detain and deport anyone - including US citizens.

Consider a future where a different president massively expands the ATF, and gives its agents extrajudicial powers to arrest anyone with a suspected illegal weapon, hold them indefinitely and confiscate their weapons. Just until the emergency is over, of course.

Trump has recently placed National Guard troops in cities that have neither needed them nor requested them in order to intimidate them, under the guise of "law and order."

Consider a future where a different president places National Guard troops in Florida, Mississippi and Texas until the gun death problems there are resolved.

So be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yep. *sigh*

 

[Seattle]

250 years ago we were pretty sick of having a king. And it wasn't just that a king is pretty much the antithesis of democracy; it was all the other distortions to the economy, to justice, and to freedom that having a king entails.

Elected officials are beholden to their constituents, since they can kick them out of office during the next election cycle. Kings are not - but they still get advice and guidance from their family, advisers, friends and sycophants. The term for this group of people is the "royal court." And in a monarchy, there is no greater power than "having the ear of the king." If you have the ear of the king, you can have your political or business rivals arrested, have laws passed that benefit only your company or church, or have enforcement of laws that might harm you suspended.

And the king needs this court. Even a good king can't manage the all the minutiae of running a kingdom - he needs people to suggest courses of action and even take over management of parts of the kingdom. Good kings will choose good people for this of course, but even good kings get bad advice sometimes.

Thus you can't really have a free economy, or a working justice system, under a king. And it's not just a thumb on the scale - it is a royal foot, leaning on the scale with all his might, with the people who will benefit from that foot whispering in his ear.

In the Americas, the leaders of the growing revolutionary movement saw all this. And just to make that clear, they wrote a document that listed all these injustices so it was clear that they weren't just objecting to a king, they were objecting to the problems the king caused. Namely:

=========
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
===========

The king did not like that document, and we fought a war over it. Fortunately we won.

The recent No Kings protests have gotten Trump and his supporters very upset. They have tried a dozen ways to discredit these protests, including:

-Trump is not a king
-Trump is a king and will literally dump shit on people he disagrees with
-Trump is a victorious king - "Long Live the King!"
-The protests will be violent and dangerous mobs of Antifa
-The protests are so boring no one cares
-The protests are silly
-The protests are a waste of time
-Protesters are all clueless Gen-Zers who don't understand the world
-Protesters are all old people

It's clear Trump supporters are looking for a way both to have a king and make it look like they don't have a king. The reason for this is pretty clear - they want Trump to have the sort of power that a king has, to "own the libs," persecute their enemies and enact their policies by fiat. They see the checks-and-balances of the US Constitution barriers to that power, and are doing all they can to dismantle them.

But republicans should be very careful in their attempts to hand Trump unlimited and unchecked power. Because that power does not go away once the next president comes in - and it will be used.

For example, Trump has officially named Antifa as a terrorist organization, and has used trumped-up charges to arrest his political opponents. (Leticia James for example.)

Consider a future where a different president names the National Rifle Organization as a "terrorist organization arming violent criminals and foreign terrorists" and orders the arrest of its officials.

As another example, Trump is massively expanding the INS, and giving them extraordinary and extrajudicial powers to arrest, detain and deport anyone - including US citizens.

Consider a future where a different president massively expands the ATF, and gives its agents extrajudicial powers to arrest anyone with a suspected illegal weapon, hold them indefinitely and confiscate their weapons. Just until the emergency is over, of course.

Trump has recently placed National Guard troops in cities that have neither needed them nor requested them in order to intimidate them, under the guise of "law and order."

Consider a future where a different president places National Guard troops in Florida, Mississippi and Texas until the gun death problems there are resolved.

So be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

Yes, we don't want a King. Your argument is reasonable until you discount the possible reply of "He isn't a King". Therefore, what reply is left? As a rant, it's reasonable.

Historically, with a divided nation, Presidents have tended to do as much as possible by Executive order. Obama used drones to kill people in Pakistan.

In political science it's called the Imperial Presidency. That's what they called Nixon. Of course they don't come any more imperial than FDR.

Due to virtue signaling and moralizing, you are right, Progressives as Kings would be even worse. Some will say Progressives aren't Kings, so I guess you can't use that argument.

The solution is probably Classic Liberals or Libertarians. Let's try that approach. It fits in well with your rant don't you think?

 

[TheVat]

New drinking game:

Take a swig every time Seattle uses the words rant, narrative, moralizing, or virtue signaling, to describe someone's post.

 

[Seattle]

New drinking game:

Take a swig every time Seattle uses the words rant, narrative, moralizing, or virtue signaling, to describe someone's post.

I'll play. Can we add orange faced, felon, rapist in chief, unfair, inequality gap, affordable housing, livable wages, tax the rich, the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer, greedy corporations?

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, we don't want a King. Your argument is reasonable until you discount the possible reply of "He isn't a King".

For one who complains when people are too literal, you're being very literal when it suits you. Noone is saying Trump is literally a king. He is, as Jon Stewart phrased it: "king adjacent" and "king-esque" in his desires, behaviour, and expectations.
And no other "imperial president" knew they had immunity from prosecution, that they were, in effect, above the law. When dissenters to that decision by the SCOTUS wrote that it was creating a king above the law, it's worth remembering.
But an actual literal king? No. He merely wishes.

 

[Tiassa]

Yes, we don't want a King. Your argument is reasonable until you discount the possible reply of "He isn't a King". Therefore, what reply is left?

Your argument fails for failing to consider the point of Trump having declared his kingship at least twice in recent days.

And your desperate turnabout similarly fails:

Due to virtue signaling and moralizing, you are right, Progressives as Kings would be even worse. Some will say Progressives aren't Kings, so I guess you can't use that argument.

That is to say, we'll come back to that when a progressive president declares their kingship.

And, you know, since it's just how the moment goes, I suppose we should add:

Can we add orange faced, felon, rapist in chief, unfair, inequality gap, affordable housing, livable wages, tax the rich, the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer, greedy corporations?

I agree that the bit about his orange makeup should be a better-developed joke, but it's also true that Trump should be a better-developed human being, and you are once again undone by your insupportable false equivalence.

 

[Seattle]

For one who complains when people are too literal, you're being very literal when it suits you. Noone is saying Trump is literally a king. He is, as Jon Stewart phrased it: "king adjacent" and "king-esque" in his desires, behaviour, and expectations.
And no other "imperial president" knew they had immunity from prosecution, that they were, in effect, above the law. When dissenters to that decision by the SCOTUS wrote that it was creating a king above the law, it's worth remembering.
But an actual literal king? No. He merely wishes.

OK, so we are worrying about "what he wishes"? OK. Go ahead and worry, I guess.

 

[Seattle]

Your argument fails for failing to consider the point of Trump having declared his kingship at least twice in recent days.

And your desperate turnabout similarly fails:



That is to say, we'll come back to that when a progressive president declares their kingship.

And, you know, since it's just how the moment goes, I suppose we should add:



I agree that the bit about his orange makeup should be a better-developed joke, but it's also true that Trump should be a better-developed human being, and you are once again undone by your insupportable false equivalence.

To the one, sure, to the other, I'm not. To wit, yes, he should be a better-developed human being. He is what he is.

 

[Sarkus]

OK, so we are worrying about "what he wishes"? OK. Go ahead and worry, I guess.

He's the one person people should worry about what he wishes for, as, with the SCOTUS behind him, and Congress seemingly unwilling to curb his desires, he is in the position that wishes can become reality. The direction of travel in what he has enacted is also pretty much parallel to what would be required for him to obtain the powers of a king rather than of the President as envisaged by the Constitution.
But, sure, don't be worried at all. And if the storm hits, at least be content that you saw the clouds gathering while doing nothing.

 

[Seattle]

He's the one person people should worry about what he wishes for, as, with the SCOTUS behind him, and Congress seemingly unwilling to curb his desires, he is in the position that wishes can become reality. The direction of travel in what he has enacted is also pretty much parallel to what would be required for him to obtain the powers of a king rather than of the President as envisaged by the Constitution.
But, sure, don't be worried at all. And if the storm hits, at least be content that you saw the clouds gathering while doing nothing.

Calling him the orange faced President daily would be "doing something"? Were your parents this worried about FDR becoming a King?

 

[Pinball1970]

Calling him the orange faced President daily would be "doing something"? Were your parents this worried about FDR becoming a King?

You must admit that he is acting like one at home an abroad. All the executive orders or should I say Royal decrees at home, then alienating and bullying alis abroad.
Presiding over peace plans in ongoing international conflicts like a Regal arbiter of truth and power.
I think he sees himself more as a Caesar/Emperor than a President or king.

 

[Sarkus]

Calling him the orange faced President daily would be "doing something"?

Again, calling him the Turnip, or the Orange Buffoon, is an add-on. It is not, as you seem to be suggesting, either call him orange or something else. One is quite capable, if one so desires, of calling him a rapist, calling him a fraud, a 32-count felon, while also doing everything else one wishes with regard his term.

Were your parents this worried about FDR becoming a King?

My parents weren't born until after he died.
My parents were then only given news via the limited coverage that international news correspondents could muster. We barely raised an eye over Watergate until it's consequences became understood.
It hasn't been until the internet age that us foreigners can really get to grips with what's been going on in the US, and can keep tabs on the details.

 

[(Q)]

It's hilarious watching the Conservatives (fascists, nazis) here get so triggered when their crime boss gets called out. I wonder if they can tell us all how they will thrive in the new fascist America? Have they not heard of the night of the long knives? Stupid Conservatives.

 

[billvon]

Yes, we don't want a King. Your argument is reasonable until you discount the possible reply of "He isn't a King".

Sure, that's a possible reply. But since he is 1) doing many of the things that we called out the king doing in 1776, 2) he has posted several pictures of himself as a king, and 3) he has posted pictures of himself with the caption "LONG LIVE THE KING" then any argument that he's not trying to be a king pretty much fail.

Obama used drones to kill people in Pakistan.

An excellent whataboutism! I hear he also painted basketball court lines on the tennis court at the White House, which is exactly like demolishing the east wing of the White House after vowing to not do that.

Progressives as Kings would be even worse.

I prefer no kings at all, myself. Perhaps we should be working towards that, instead of being an apologist for someone clearly and visibly trying to be a king.

 

[billvon]

I wonder if they can tell us all how they will thrive in the new fascist America? Have they not heard of the night of the long knives? Stupid Conservatives.

Conservative farmers and air traffic controllers are already finding out.

 

[Seattle]

Again, calling him the Turnip, or the Orange Buffoon, is an add-on. It is not, as you seem to be suggesting, either call him orange or something else. One is quite capable, if one so desires, of calling him a rapist, calling him a fraud, a 32-count felon, while also doing everything else one wishes with regard his term.

My parents weren't born until after he died.
My parents were then only given news via the limited coverage that international news correspondents could muster. We barely raised an eye over Watergate until it's consequences became understood.
It hasn't been until the internet age that us foreigners can really get to grips with what's been going on in the US, and can keep tabs on the details.

Making up for lost time I guess?

 

[Seattle]

Sure, that's a possible reply. But since he is 1) doing many of the things that we called out the king doing in 1776, 2) he has posted several pictures of himself as a king, and 3) he has posted pictures of himself with the caption "LONG LIVE THE KING" then any argument that he's not trying to be a king pretty much fail.



An excellent whataboutism! I hear he also painted basketball court lines on the tennis court at the White House, which is exactly like demolishing the east wing of the White House after vowing to not do that.



I prefer no kings at all, myself. Perhaps we should be working towards that, instead of being an apologist for someone clearly and visibly trying to be a king.

I'm not an apologist for Trump. I prefer no Kings, I think Trump is just pushing the buttons of his critics. It's working apparently.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not an apologist for Trump. I prefer no Kings, I think Trump is just pushing the buttons of his critics. It's working apparently.

Here's an interesting fact: 100% of authoritarians in power have "just pushed the buttons of their critics". Unfortunately history is full of people who laughed it off - right up until they were silenced by the results of their own inaction.

 

[Seattle]

Here's an interesting fact: 100% of authoritarians in power have "just pushed the buttons of their critics". Unfortunately history is full of people who laughed it off - right up until they were silenced by the results of their own inaction.

Economics have predicted 10 of the last 2 recessions. It's easy to panic I guess.