/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

This is a very foolish post. Most European democracies aren't much better than the United States and sometimes a by-product of it. A democracy like Germany is rather a product of its defeat, and France's democracy has been the root of all its problems ever since. They are no better than the US when it comes to money and votes, I'm sure. Both are built on political conceit.

>electorate has children

Not really. Sometimes the voting age limit allows children to vote. Other members of a society are not parents. They have their families, but not all families share the same status. A royal family is responsible to its sovereign office and normal families have other professions. A royal family resembles that right and honor between all families, but not all families are really meaningful. Ordinary people are ordinary people. The status of monarchs is their responsibility that they hold alone for the sake of their nations.

>So why believe that monarchies will tend to care more about the future

Because not everyone shares a common ancestral bond. The closest is race/ethnicity. The royal households have their history and ancestors to thank. If another family gains prestige and rises to the that status, they have become responsible for their history and their future. A royal household grooms the child for that profession like a professional father grooms his kid for his profession.

>the electorate has children as well as the monarch

The electorate also choose to have abortions from time to time. This would be controversial in a royal circle, I'm sure. They don't have the same responsibility of monarchs who have to provide an heir. They have that liberty.

>invest in education, protect the environment, and run budget surpluses

The EU doesn't have a healthy economic relationship, and these points are somewhat valid. However, they are no more powerful and before those European democracies existed there were already strong imperial powerhouses that innovated in education, industry, and science. Those European democracies are just a humiliation.

>America that doesn't care about these things

Thank goodness we have Merkel, Hollande, Macron, Theresa May, Tony Blair to save the day! More boring statesmen in their suits and ties. They get to take a nice rented out office and leave. Unlike monarchs are live for their nation and often share a history through their direct ancestors. Unlike monarchs who wear regalia and uniforms of service, emblems of their nations. Unlike monarchs who resemble their national character and have sovereignty, the character that consists with their very crowns and people. When people are sovereign, nobody really is. You get that clique of statesmen in boring ties and suits with tiny flag pins.

>the electorate

I don't think kindly of egalitarianism. It produces mediocrity.

>>3222

A monarchist judges a government unlike a republican. Our gauge for success is not looking for the best thrifty budget plans or a great meritocracy. The monarchy is the leadership of a royal family, and a democracy is the leadership of statesmen who rely on civic policies and votes. Those citizens primarily concern about civic interests and political dilemmas. The democratic formula doesn't consist of families, just the ticket ballot of voters whoever they may be. That is all. That is the end of it. At the end of the day, people are ordinary people. I'm not saying the general populace doesn't have an incentive to take care of their own, but democracies easily push that narrative aside with whatever pandering they bring to the public to receive those votes. Democracy doesn't prioritize that structure of the family like a monarchy does because a monarchy is that structure and a democracy is not. A statesman has a stolid civic duty to perform on behalf of his party, whereas the monarch has a paternal duty to perform on behalf of his household. It should be a piece of cake; why is this complicated for you? This is the essential root – and the citizens do have a natural incentive to care for their young, but democracy is not that type of system where a family is the central root of government. It is civic interests rather than paternal interests. So, what does the farmer want? What does the rich man want? These competing interests. But really an assembly of landowners typically represents the democracy, who speak on behalf of some "people". A royal family appeals to the essential core of what people ought to want and ought to stand for, whereas the statesmen works on behalf of his ideologues and partisans. Partisanship is frankly doing its best to keep people from being ordinary people, so I doubt it resembles a better formula.

>some monarchs don't have children

Huge incentive to have an heir. What exactly do you think a monarchy is? It isn't a republic.

>most of what you write isn't related to the argument

Because the argument is pointless. Why should monarchists care what these European democracies are compared to the US democracy? It has little to do with monarchies besides that question you posed about the electorate and their children. – Which we all believe find inspiration within the monarchy to raise their children – the monarchy is an uplifted model of this. The monarchy is the family that these electorate consist with.

>you stress the alleged extra-powerful connection between a monarch and his nation

Because sovereignty. The monarch is sovereign and the family is the household that takes that mantle of sovereignty. A people and a sovereignty consist together. The crown of a nation is its sovereign source of justice, order, and unity because there is a people and then there is a sovereignty. Both exist with each other. A people form with a sovereignty. You concern yourself with the electorate as the "nation", but the sovereignty brings the ethnic name, the system of laws and government, the military, and the history of that land. A people earn their status as a certain people through their sovereign status…

>>3232

>Parties could in theory try to skew people

They do. They push people to vote without thinking. Sometimes through sheer propaganda campaigns against their enemy candidate. Sometimes the political parties televise it and accuse their candidate without much of an argument. The ideal is to gather all the votes to gain power and get as many tickets into the ballet box.

>changing people's minds is very hard

Yeah, and it frankly doesn't matter what anyone really thinks. It's just a charade.

>Accusing the other party of being irresponsible, unconcerned with debt they're leaving to grandkids, etc.

Nah, that's just another tactic and long-term strategy. Often the parties who do that go on to make their own debts anyways once they seize power.

>voters exist in families

Listen, I'm not denying this. But a democracy isn't structurally incorporating this. A democracy doesn't always appeal to this. There is a foresight between generations, but also resentment between generations through the voting block. Against old generations. Against boomers. Against millennial generations. Against two spheres of the household thanks to men vs woman politics considering what tension exists with feminism. Yes, this system has whacked apart this structure through the conceit of either member to have power. And then you have other politicized events that foster rebellion among members of the public to support weird causes…

>>3232

A hereditary monarchy is the transfer of power from father to son, and a democracy is a popularity contest. Which system has foresight for the future? A popularity contest is the full display of how entertains the ideals of the crowd, and the generational cycle within a monarchy is their tradition. That tradition is the wisdom of generations to continue with their offspring, as the people do themselves. But how does a popularity contest reveal diligence and commitment to that tradition? Majority rule is a fanciful idea until the majority starts collapsing on each other about who should carry their mantle, then half the country delves against the other half. Then their ideals become paramount more than their tradition. Ideology and its framework misleads people from this common wisdom. Teaches them to become anything but a people, but rather a different kind of people – a different kind of partisan – a different kind of idealist – a different kind of person. Loyalty to a party is ill-begotten misery for a populace over the other party, whose electorate equally resent that party. These ideological games aren't a service to any people…

>democracy

Democracy is erratic like the ideology it uses. Ideals drift away and back. Ideals are like personal thoughts; remembered and forgotten! The worst part about democracy is its totalitarian-leaning as a monarchy has its authoritarian-leaning. The ideals and demand for the will of the people leads to totalitarian antics to rule the minds and will of people as a total. This is the authority of the government to swindle you and control you for their democratic zeal.