The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 9)

THE AMERICAN MONARCHY br> Re: Marina Malenic's Dynasty : /p>

Monarchy is the more natural form of government, it is republicanism that is an artificiality. As an Indian-born republican who became a monarchist after coming to America and being converted by an American, I say Ms. Malenic is wrong when she says "...and few would argue that we are the worse for it."

There are two types of monarchists in America:

1. Those who still regard the king of England as the king of America. How else do you explain the huge interest in the British royalty in America?

2. Those who regard the American presidency as a monarchy in the Hamiltonian tradition.

The challenge in America has always been to construct a Hamiltonian state in a people with an increasingly Jeffersonian mindset. The current state of George Bush is pure Hamiltonian.

The only way the loyalty of the American people to W. during Iraq war can be explained by the monarchical principle that it doesn't matter what hundreds of howling fools think about the necessity of war; it only matters what the man sitting in the oval office does. "Trust me and I will not fail you" says Bush like a wise king. When Clinton had sex in the oval office, the conservatives were aghast that "the throne" may be desecrated that way.

"When great men like us exist, why do we need the useless monarch?" wondered Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison, forgetting that it was a monarch sitting in the far away England and seemingly unconnected that made their greatness possible. Absence of king explains why there were no Washingtons and Jeffersons in second-generation America but England continued to have great men for much of nineteenth century. But the Hamiltonian state on a Jeffersonian people proved a better model for conservatism and thwarting leftism than a monarchy.

p>I hope conservatives revert to their true monarchical roots. br> -- Rajiv

topics:
Education, Islam, Law, Iraq, NATO, Communism, Conservatism