Articulate and forceful stuff from Paine, naturally. And it would be difficult to take great umbrage with it, were we indeed discussing a system of *government*. The monarch does not govern, and has not for some time. A valid criticism of the contemporary French, perhaps. I would submit in that regard that the modern United States is more akin to Paine’s hated monarchy than Britain, frozen in time as its constitution is in the eighteenth century.
I’m afraid it is a style of governing - the Crown in Parliament is what gives our MPs such overweening power! Paine is eminently adaptable, worry not!
As for the US - we could discuss the constitution at length. But I’ll just say one major problem with US politics in the eyes of many is that the President is too…monarchical. That the office’s powers have expanded way beyond what they were meant to encompass. This isn’t a compliment to the monarchical system, in whatever guise, nor a rebuke to republicanism - quite the opposite, in fact…
On the Crown in Parliament... I'm not sure it is fair to entirely lay blame for our over-mighty legislature at the feet of the Crown. We could adopt a republican system, have a written constitution, and still a tyrannical legislature could amend or abolish it. You make a good case for a sovereign with more authority to block such things, and an upper house filled with grumpy, hereditary peers, rather than cronies or slick politicians. Convention, custom, respect, and restraint are surely the best (perhaps only) guardians of liberty?
Except that it is exactly the Crown in Parliament which gives the legislature/executive/whatever it is such immense and opaque power in the first place!
More broadly, no republican is arguing that republics are perfect - Paine himself wrote about the dangers of republics, too. But on the whole the principle is preferable. And yes, that does mean guarding against the slide into tyranny, but that is always the case, and a republican citizenry is better equipped in this than a population of subjects, whose rights are contingent upon a grubby, bloody, historical compromise, usurpation, and invasion…
Anyway - I don’t think our current system is particularly good at preventing tyranny, ensuring stability, or any of the rest of it. But that doesn’t mean I’m blindly saying ‘make us a republic’ and everything will be fixed - far from it. Part of the task of creating a republic is making oneself fit for it, and remaining fit for it. Citizens, not subjects. So no, my argument doesn’t lend itself to any lordly houses or (strong or weak) unelected sovereigns - these are the problems to begin with!
I simply enjoy rabble-rousing and disrupting your Substack... ;)
For my own part, I rather think compromise often leads to better solutions than enlightened design, but we can leave that to one side.
... We may have inadvertently hit upon a point of agreement. I'm reminded of the E. German government, who lamented that the people had let them down and they ought to elect a new one. I think we both agree that the problem here is actually the *general public*! It's about having a people who value liberty and who are fit for it. Any political system can be corrupted if it is allowed to be so. People, as they say, get the government they deserve...
I wouldn’t quite put it the way you do - I think the form of government matters a lot, not just the general public, and I’d prefer a republic to a monarchy any day, regardless. But these are intertwined things to an extent - how much does monarchy make people servile vs how much does servility make monarchy an alluring form? - so, yes, I’m broadly with you here!
You’re lucky I’m a free speech-loving republican and not Her Majesty’s police, or I could have you arrested, you know ;)
Articulate and forceful stuff from Paine, naturally. And it would be difficult to take great umbrage with it, were we indeed discussing a system of *government*. The monarch does not govern, and has not for some time. A valid criticism of the contemporary French, perhaps. I would submit in that regard that the modern United States is more akin to Paine’s hated monarchy than Britain, frozen in time as its constitution is in the eighteenth century.
I’m afraid it is a style of governing - the Crown in Parliament is what gives our MPs such overweening power! Paine is eminently adaptable, worry not!
As for the US - we could discuss the constitution at length. But I’ll just say one major problem with US politics in the eyes of many is that the President is too…monarchical. That the office’s powers have expanded way beyond what they were meant to encompass. This isn’t a compliment to the monarchical system, in whatever guise, nor a rebuke to republicanism - quite the opposite, in fact…
On the Crown in Parliament... I'm not sure it is fair to entirely lay blame for our over-mighty legislature at the feet of the Crown. We could adopt a republican system, have a written constitution, and still a tyrannical legislature could amend or abolish it. You make a good case for a sovereign with more authority to block such things, and an upper house filled with grumpy, hereditary peers, rather than cronies or slick politicians. Convention, custom, respect, and restraint are surely the best (perhaps only) guardians of liberty?
I can see we could go around and around on this again! You meddlesome monarchists ;)
Except that it is exactly the Crown in Parliament which gives the legislature/executive/whatever it is such immense and opaque power in the first place!
More broadly, no republican is arguing that republics are perfect - Paine himself wrote about the dangers of republics, too. But on the whole the principle is preferable. And yes, that does mean guarding against the slide into tyranny, but that is always the case, and a republican citizenry is better equipped in this than a population of subjects, whose rights are contingent upon a grubby, bloody, historical compromise, usurpation, and invasion…
Anyway - I don’t think our current system is particularly good at preventing tyranny, ensuring stability, or any of the rest of it. But that doesn’t mean I’m blindly saying ‘make us a republic’ and everything will be fixed - far from it. Part of the task of creating a republic is making oneself fit for it, and remaining fit for it. Citizens, not subjects. So no, my argument doesn’t lend itself to any lordly houses or (strong or weak) unelected sovereigns - these are the problems to begin with!
I simply enjoy rabble-rousing and disrupting your Substack... ;)
For my own part, I rather think compromise often leads to better solutions than enlightened design, but we can leave that to one side.
... We may have inadvertently hit upon a point of agreement. I'm reminded of the E. German government, who lamented that the people had let them down and they ought to elect a new one. I think we both agree that the problem here is actually the *general public*! It's about having a people who value liberty and who are fit for it. Any political system can be corrupted if it is allowed to be so. People, as they say, get the government they deserve...
I wouldn’t quite put it the way you do - I think the form of government matters a lot, not just the general public, and I’d prefer a republic to a monarchy any day, regardless. But these are intertwined things to an extent - how much does monarchy make people servile vs how much does servility make monarchy an alluring form? - so, yes, I’m broadly with you here!
You’re lucky I’m a free speech-loving republican and not Her Majesty’s police, or I could have you arrested, you know ;)