The Case for an American Monarchy, Seriously

Commentary

I know, I know. No real American takes monarchy seriously.

It is in the DNA of the American people to despise monarchy, to look down on those who gained their positions through birth not by merit, and to cherish government “by the people.” This has been the case since the nation’s birth on July 4, 1776, when colonists fought successfully to end the rule of the British King George III. Americans went on to create a country expressly without a king and with a federal government of limited and balanced powers, all guaranteed by a clear social contract, the U.S. Constitution. The people were to wield sovereign power, not a single, flawed human being who may become a tyrant. 

No one would deny the above facts. But, let us acknowledge that they are rooted only in a very particular period, the last 250 years. Meanwhile, monarchy’s benefit to America and its history is also deeply rooted. Consider these examples: 

Christopher Columbus heroically served the Spanish monarchy and put the Americas on the map for Europeans, who began traveling there immediately and eventually formed colonies. From the Mayflower Compact of 1620 until 1776, America has over 150 years of history loyal to and supported by the British monarchy. 

When the relationship between that monarchy and the colonists turned sour, the colonists turned to another monarchy. It was the financial and military support of the French monarchy, under King Louis XVI, that was vital to the patriot victory in the Revolutionary War. 

In the 20th century, it was the British monarchy that stood firm on the front lines in Europe against the tyranny of America’s enemies: the National Socialists (Nazis) of Germany during World War II and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It is also worth noting that both those mass murdering ideologies, Nazism and Communism, opposed the institution of monarchy. 

In the 21st century, Japan, which still has a monarchy, continues to be a staunch U.S. ally in countering the regional dominance of the Chinese Communist Party. 

All of the monarchies mentioned above have existed for thousands of years. 

The Missing American Role

Next, let us look at another set of facts in the here and now. The current U.S. debt is about $38 trillion. Let me write that out for you: $38,000,000,000,000. That comes out to about $110,000 per man, woman, and child. As can be seen on USDebtClock.org, the debt goes up every moment of every day. There is no sign of change in sight, as neither Democrats nor Republicans can solve this cancerous growth. Both political parties want to ensure their candidates get re-elected. To get votes, they must spend money on health care, social programs, industrial subsidies, infrastructure, pet projects, etc. 

Everything we know from free market principles tells us that this is an unhealthy trend. The more the government gets involved, the worse the problems. For instance, someone on food stamps is likely better off without food stamps in the long run. They are better off suffering in the short term, toughening up and getting a job, or else receiving private community care that is closely monitored and makes them more accountable. Yet, the people on food stamps will not vote for a candidate who advocates this and most people couldn’t bring themselves to vote for someone who will bring such obvious suffering to others. Thus, the status quo carries on. It is a flaw in democracy as old as the “bread and circuses” used to appease voters in the Roman Republic.

The benefit of a monarch with political power is that such difficult choices can be made by the king or queen. The monarch cannot be voted out. This benefits everyone in the long term. People are forced to become self-sufficient and the debt goes down. 

Also, the monarch is above political parties. He represents the state. As French King Louis XIV said, “L’État, c’est moi”—“I am the state.” The monarch is not done after four to eight years and naturally has every reason to be a good steward of the country, not a party. The monarch will pass on the nation to an heir, likely a blood relation. Therefore, the monarch must do everything in his power to ensure that the country is in good shape, politically stable, and financially sound. This, arguably, is the position that the U.S. government is currently lacking.

The Key to Understanding Monarchy

The aversion to an American monarchy is rooted in the tyrannical behavior of monarchs in history. American history textbooks point to taxation without representation under King George III, which led to the Revolution.

In fact, this policy was originally the work of the British Parliament and King George III opposed it, as pointed out by historian Eric Nelson, writer of “The Royalist Revolution,” in a Harvard University Press video. The dissatisfied colonists originally saw themselves as monarchists who were against Parliament. “They wanted more monarchy, not less,” Nelson says. At this point in history, the British monarchy had already been through two revolutions, one in which the British monarch’s head was chopped off. A century later, King George III’s powers were significantly limited and he had no choice but to acquiesce to Parliament, oppose the American rebels, and thus draw their ire.

Probably due to such details being left out in history textbooks, the monarch has become synonymous with a dictator in the modern imagination. “What is the difference really,” a teen today might ask, “between North Korea’s Kim Jung-Un and a monarch?” The totalitarian, decadent, and malicious Kim Jong Un is the grandson of the communist founder of modern North Korea, Kim Il Sung. It seems as if the current Kim might as well be called a king. 

However, there is a very important distinction between monarchy and a modern dictator like Kim. The key difference is morality grounded in spirituality. North Korea is officially atheist and religions are severely persecuted there. 

Historically, the monarch is tied to spiritual beliefs and represents the moral order. Even today, King Charles III is technically the head of the Anglican religion; the Emperor of Japan, Naruhito, is similarly the head of Shintoism. These monarchs’ political and religious positions are mostly symbolic, but they were not always so. They show the important moral and spiritual role that was attached to the position of monarchs throughout history. Monarchs had great power, but they also had a huge amount of responsibility as standard-bearers of the moral order.

In France, a related idea was known as noblesse oblige. One who is given noble or royal power was obliged to be generous and compassionate to those who did not have a noble rank. This was, for the most part, the norm, not the clichéd portrayal of snobby and mean aristocrats in cultural depictions today. The award-winning 1952 movie Roman Holiday is a good example of noblesse oblige, featuring Audrey Hepburn as a teenage princess who must improve her moral character to meet the high demands of her royal position. In general, traditional, spiritually grounded royalty such as Hepburn portrayed is a moral good, not a moral evil. 

An American Moral Leader

In America, a monarch could be associated with the ideal of having faith in a great and good Creator and the ideal of striving to be spiritually and morally good. These are simple but powerful beliefs rooted in America’s civic foundation and in its Founding Fathers, who wrote of the “Creator” and “divine Providence” in the Declaration of Independence. George Washington also wrote in his famous Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Second president John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” 

An American monarch would re-align the nation with these values. Additionally, such a monarch who is not associated with a political party but instead the general moral order of the country would solve many problems now facing the nation. The high degree of nauseating, cookie-cutter partisanship now plaguing us would immediately be brought down to more rational levels if the chief executive of the country were not in a party. In fact, George Washington was not in a political party and opposed their formation. Also, the monarch could take common sense moral positions—for example there are only two genders and illegal immigrants should be deported—and there would be no threat to such a position being reversed in four years. In foreign policy, we can see that Russia strategically attacked Ukraine twice (in 2014 and 2022) when a political party was in control of the United States that it knew would not challenge it; a monarch would close such foreign policy gaps that can be exploited by America’s adversaries and competitors. 

Potentially, most of the U.S. Constitution would remain the same, but some parts naturally would be altered to replace the position of the president with a king or queen and their hereditary line. 

The American monarch would face the same restrictions as a president. For instance, just like a president, the king could veto laws but could be overridden by a two-thirds majority of Congress. If he breaks the law, he could be removed from his position just as a president can be removed. If no suitable heir is available, a new monarch and family line would be elected. 

The Roman Republic became more prosperous and stable when it became a monarchy. A similar transition may benefit America. Looking at these facts and the possibilities for a stronger and more stable America heading into the new millennium, any real American should take monarchy at least a little more seriously. 

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.