I have "lived" in three monarchies. Life, for most people, most of the time, seems unchanged by what title the head of state has, or how they are selected. As an American, to merely ask a citizen of a monarchy about monarchs gives you have an American perspective. It seems assumed on both sides that without being born in a monarchy, one cannot understand it.
I am unwilling to accept that by birthright, certain individuals are inherently better than myself. This seems like an American idea, that we are all created equal. In reality, Americans are not born equal. Disregarding the near caste system Americans have based on race, the rich and powerful have rich and powerful children. Money is the American caste system, and those born into abject, generational poverty are no more likely to be elected to positions of power, or make millions of dollars, than are the Untouchables of India.
Yet, the American Dream requires us to hope that anyone can be elected president. Barack Obama gives some credibility to this dream, but at the end of the day, the children of the Bush family will always be more influential than the children on the streets of American cities.
A monarchy, like the Indian caste system, is more honest. Only one child in a generation will be the head of the United Kingdom, and that child is the first-born of the king and queen. Despite the exclusivity of this honest system, the British, along with their colonists, will love their Queen, and I will be left with questions.
Beyond my questions of birthrights, I cannot understand it from a perspective of fiscal policy. I am not an economist specializing in monarchies, but without a doubt, in every monarchy there is a starving child, or an underfunded social program. In New Zealand, it seemed that the socialized medicine was going bankrupt, yet the Queen was maintained as head of state, despite having a head of state in the Prime Minister. In Spain, the king made headlines, apparently, when he broke his hip on a hunting safari. The Spainish people are tightening their belts with cruel unemployment rates, but the King takes a publicly funded holiday. Fiscally, this is ludicrous.
What makes the people in these countries believe in their monarchs? In all of my time conversing with subjects of one crown or another, I have heard only one person question the fiscal responsibility of the institution. The rest seem to believe so strongly in the power of the crown, that even discussions of fiscal policy are out of the question. This is not government, but dogma.
Of course, the megalomaniacal early kings did fancy themselves chosen by a deity. How could they not? When one wins the throne through battle, and the church teaches that god chooses our fate, that would indicate divine preference. If, however far removed from the original battle, the national mythology holds the monarchy as chosen by god, then most subjects would continue to believe in the power of the monarchy. I can no more understand the British love of their queen, than I can understand a Christian's or Muslim's love of Jesus or Mohammed, respectively.
Americans are more religious than Iranians, and much more so than European monarchies. While royal subjects have lost the faith, Americans are still wont to believe in the benevolent power of invisible, flying hominids. Americans, even many staunchly anti-tax Americans, are willing to pay extra, optional "taxes" (through tithes or donations) to support an elite, privileged class. About one quarter of Americans identify as Catholics, a religion that, arguably, has its own royalty (though not by birth). Almost four out of five Americans report themselves as Christian, and nearly nine out of ten Americans report being religious in some way. Is religion substituted for monarchy in America?
The curious thing about the belief in religion versus monarchy is that, to my knowledge, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye do not challenge the belief in monarchs. This is not to argue that Bill Nye's Disney shows were secretly supporting a royalist agenda. It is simply curious that tens of millions of people carry out their daily lives believing that Queen Elizabeth II is a better, more entitled human than they are, and their does not seem to be a skeptics society questioning that. The situation is vastly more complex, as Queen Elizabeth does not make a habit of lambasting Nye for arguing positions that the Earth is four billion years old, that evolution is observable, or that the moon does not glow. The fervency of these beliefs is fascinating!
America seems to have a Monarch. It exists in the minds of 90% of us. It endows favors upon some, and hardship on others. It guides political will, acceptance (or not) of scientific thought, education, and social interaction. It has all the hallmarks of other monarchs, including its questionable fiscal policy. When you ask an American about the role of religion, most of us discuss benevolence, the need for social order, political guidance, community service, and pride in something greater than oneself. Americans, like their royal subject peers, never seem to talk about the fiscal nonsense of sending donations to palatial opulence, rather than space programs, education, science, and medicine.
I am unwilling to accept that by birthright, certain individuals are inherently better than myself. This seems like an American idea, that we are all created equal. In reality, Americans are not born equal. Disregarding the near caste system Americans have based on race, the rich and powerful have rich and powerful children. Money is the American caste system, and those born into abject, generational poverty are no more likely to be elected to positions of power, or make millions of dollars, than are the Untouchables of India.
Yet, the American Dream requires us to hope that anyone can be elected president. Barack Obama gives some credibility to this dream, but at the end of the day, the children of the Bush family will always be more influential than the children on the streets of American cities.
A monarchy, like the Indian caste system, is more honest. Only one child in a generation will be the head of the United Kingdom, and that child is the first-born of the king and queen. Despite the exclusivity of this honest system, the British, along with their colonists, will love their Queen, and I will be left with questions.
Beyond my questions of birthrights, I cannot understand it from a perspective of fiscal policy. I am not an economist specializing in monarchies, but without a doubt, in every monarchy there is a starving child, or an underfunded social program. In New Zealand, it seemed that the socialized medicine was going bankrupt, yet the Queen was maintained as head of state, despite having a head of state in the Prime Minister. In Spain, the king made headlines, apparently, when he broke his hip on a hunting safari. The Spainish people are tightening their belts with cruel unemployment rates, but the King takes a publicly funded holiday. Fiscally, this is ludicrous.
What makes the people in these countries believe in their monarchs? In all of my time conversing with subjects of one crown or another, I have heard only one person question the fiscal responsibility of the institution. The rest seem to believe so strongly in the power of the crown, that even discussions of fiscal policy are out of the question. This is not government, but dogma.
Of course, the megalomaniacal early kings did fancy themselves chosen by a deity. How could they not? When one wins the throne through battle, and the church teaches that god chooses our fate, that would indicate divine preference. If, however far removed from the original battle, the national mythology holds the monarchy as chosen by god, then most subjects would continue to believe in the power of the monarchy. I can no more understand the British love of their queen, than I can understand a Christian's or Muslim's love of Jesus or Mohammed, respectively.
Americans are more religious than Iranians, and much more so than European monarchies. While royal subjects have lost the faith, Americans are still wont to believe in the benevolent power of invisible, flying hominids. Americans, even many staunchly anti-tax Americans, are willing to pay extra, optional "taxes" (through tithes or donations) to support an elite, privileged class. About one quarter of Americans identify as Catholics, a religion that, arguably, has its own royalty (though not by birth). Almost four out of five Americans report themselves as Christian, and nearly nine out of ten Americans report being religious in some way. Is religion substituted for monarchy in America?
The curious thing about the belief in religion versus monarchy is that, to my knowledge, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye do not challenge the belief in monarchs. This is not to argue that Bill Nye's Disney shows were secretly supporting a royalist agenda. It is simply curious that tens of millions of people carry out their daily lives believing that Queen Elizabeth II is a better, more entitled human than they are, and their does not seem to be a skeptics society questioning that. The situation is vastly more complex, as Queen Elizabeth does not make a habit of lambasting Nye for arguing positions that the Earth is four billion years old, that evolution is observable, or that the moon does not glow. The fervency of these beliefs is fascinating!
America seems to have a Monarch. It exists in the minds of 90% of us. It endows favors upon some, and hardship on others. It guides political will, acceptance (or not) of scientific thought, education, and social interaction. It has all the hallmarks of other monarchs, including its questionable fiscal policy. When you ask an American about the role of religion, most of us discuss benevolence, the need for social order, political guidance, community service, and pride in something greater than oneself. Americans, like their royal subject peers, never seem to talk about the fiscal nonsense of sending donations to palatial opulence, rather than space programs, education, science, and medicine.
No comments:
Post a Comment