Why Monarchism?

The simple answer: because it works. There is a reason that the most historically dominant form of government is monarchy. We are at an interesting point in history however in that there are more republics than principalities, but if history is any sort of an indicator that cannot remain so. Democracies always commit suicide. It’s an inescapable result of self rule.

Democracies devolve into tyrannies. The prudently setup republic will last for hundreds of years (Supposedly the average length is 200 years, but I haven’t done the research myself http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html). The Republic of Sparta lasted for 800 years until it was destroyed by the Romans. The republic of Rome lasted for nearly 500 years. In contrast the First French Republic lasted 12 years, and most of that time was spent under what was basically different forms of dictatorship.

The financial woes that the world is facing is a direct result of the unusually large number of democracies in the world. Special interests have taken over, and because elected officials make policy and craft budgets, they ensure money goes to who will get them re-elected. In the US at least, this takes the form of so called ‘pork spending’ and giving special deals to campaign contributors. Those officials who aren’t elected, such as the federal reserve board and the various “czars” are simply agents of the flippant will of those who are elected by the fickle majority. The only interests of these bureaucrats is to stay bureaucrats, and will thus say whatever pleases the president’s and/or congress’ ear.

Moral and social decay have all but damned us to inevitable rule by tyrants. Every philosopher who is acquainted with history from Plato and Aristotle to Jefferson and Adams knows the fundamental weakness of truly democratic systems is the moral decay of the masses. The only thing that is truly taboo in the modern west is questioning the morality of that which is reprehensible. Whatever your personal position is  you cannot deny that there are few social standards these days. Curse words are now a staple of conversation and comedy. Chivalry is, as the saying goes, “dead”. 40-50 percent of marriages end will end in divorce if the current trends continue (http://www.divorcerate.org/). Religion has become a mockery as idolatry and intellectual perversion and heresy have become rampant. Order is shunned for the “new”, tradition is thrown away in favor of “innovation”, and that which is beautiful despised for that which is “modern”. There is of course nothing new, innovative or modern about many of the social ideas to which I am referring, only that which is old, backwards and corrupt.

Monarchy is currently unrealistic, but will not remain so. The only alternative is Dictatorship and tyranny, which are the only other outcomes of the profuse lack of cultural and moral code. You needn’t look further than the news, even as the west naively hails the “arab spring”, unrest is growing in our own corner of the globe. Riots in London, strikes in Greece, “occupy wall street” are all results of inefficient government. Unless a great man should rise up and restore each of these republics and force the law makers to bring it to a resolution, political crisis and upheaval must ensue. Whenever this has happened, authoritarian government arise. Partially through ambition, but mostly through necessity. Society cannot function without discipline. Such discipline must either be self discipline or government imposed discipline. In the face of such chaos and prospects for despotic dictatorship, monarchy is the chance for maintaining freedom and preeminence in the geopolitical order.

A constitutional, limited but albeit powerful monarchy could be the best answer to the challenge we face. Such a one would be less likely to become corrupt than the elected officials in the status quo, because he would have less incentive to be so. There is no other choice for our officials other than to be corrupt because they must ensure re-election, which of course can only come from massive campaign contributions. A monarch would also be far better prepared than an elected official, because unlike a president a hereditary monarch will have spent his entire life preparing to fill his role. Kings are nearly always instructed by the brightest minds of their day and are thus more likely to be effective rulers. A king would also have more power to deal with problems as they arise, unlike our congress who can’t seem to agree on anything at the moment.

Of course the arguments against a king are numerous. But what must be remembered is that democracy always destroys itself, and then falls into dictatorship. Monarchy is preferable to dictatorship, even a benevolent dictatorship. This is because monarchy can perpetuate itself, while dictatorships struggle to do so as they are almost always either far left or far right and shun the very idea of monarchy (at least on its face), and by definition answer to no one. A monarch in contrast may be held accountable by another governmental body.

We must of course support our great republic, for it truly the greatest government in the world. But it is unraveling, and either the republic must be restored or it will eventually fall. What happens to the greatest country on earth after that should be a matter that concerns us.

On the forms of government

Machiavelli famously said that “all governments…are either principalities or republics”. This is true, but not as helpful in distinguishing different types of governing powers. I prefer the classical model (Machiavelli also used it) which says there are six forms of government, three of them good and three of them bad. The three negative government forms are the inverse of the the three positive forms, such that one advantageous form may easily turn to its corresponding detrimental form. The healthy forms are monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Their unhealthy opposites are tyranny, oligarchy and anarchy (respectively). This is perhaps not a perfect system of classification, but it is useful.

The United States is a republic in which the government is a system of checks and balances between these systems. The constitution intended to mix all three forms of beneficial government to prevent any of them turning sour. The House was to be closest to the people and, along with the election of the president (and later the Senate) was to bring democracy. The Senate was to fulfill the role of the aristocracy, as at the beginning senators were not popularly elected but appointed by their state legislature. This role of the aristocracy (though in practice now it is arguably an oligarchy) is now fulfilled by both the senate and the big money, by which I mean large business, wealthy CEOs and the like. The role of  the monarch was given to the executive branch which the US called the president. The courts were to enforce the law of the house, senate and presidency.

This system of checks and balances are what has maintained freedom in America for over two hundred years. Both plebeian and patrician must struggle within this system, that struggle taking place in the context of free government.


This blog is dedicated to writing the thoughts, meditations and ruminations of Hortensius Romulus. I would not venture to conjecture that I have all of the answers, and am open to the possibility that I have none whatsoever. My purpose here is to broaden the scope of both my mind, and that of my readers to the end that we may discover truth and right action. If I achieve nothing else here other than giving greater clarity to my own mind it will be enough.

The general subject matter that I shall deal with will be matters pertaining to statecraft, economics, war, diplomacy and all issues dealing with principalities and republics. You may find some things that I say offensive, questionable, controversial and archaic. I ask that you take it in the spirit in which it is written, to broaden the debate beyond what is customary and to encourage actual thought, which is, has and always will be extremely rare. But perhaps someone, somewhere will benefit from these writings. And if not, then at least I will have gained something from them.

Sincerely yours,

Hortensius Romulus.