Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
goxfiles

Hillary Clinton for President?

Recommended Posts

There's been a lot of speculation abound about whether former First Lady, Secretary of State and Senator Hillary Clinton will run for America's de facto highest office, the Presidency, in 2016.

For example, just recently, she said that she wanted an office with "fewer corners", a clear reference to the Oval Office:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/politics/clinton-daily-show/

Obviously any Clinton campaign would be plagued with talks about her husband, "Slick Willy", and his philandering and escapades. But what do you guys think? Will Clinton run? Can she win? Please try to keep this civil.

Edited by goxfiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest JAG

The democrats should have elected her in 08.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The democrats should have elected her in 08.

 

Amen.

 

(Wait... James and I are agreeing on something?! PRAISE THE LORD ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She and Bill are my fave powercouple. It would be weird to have a female president, but we could do a hell of a lot worse.

 

Not that I'm going to vote. Viva el Rey!

Edited by Iuppiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Amen.

 

(Wait... James and I are agreeing on something?! PRAISE THE LORD ;) )

 

I actually tried voting for her but they wouldn't give me an absentee ballot - said I had to vote my first time in my actually county (I was away at college).  She was the most qualified candidate that year, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am done voting for liars. 

 

That's the spirit! Vote monarchy, because monarchs don't need to lie to stay in power! :D

 

*scurries back into AWOLness*

Edited by Iuppiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the spirit! Vote monarchy, because monarchs don't need to lie to stay in power! :D

 

*scurries back into AWOLness*

 

King John begs to differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is the last president you guys.

GIVE IT A REST.

 

*reminds himself that this is one of the reasons he is AWOL and scuttles away*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the spirit! Vote monarchy, because monarchs don't need to lie to stay in power! :D

 

*scurries back into AWOLness*

 

If you are gracious enough to temporarily retract your leave of absence, what is the ideology behind the advantages of a monarchy?

 

The way I understand government structure is that it's goal is to allow for the least possible amount of power in hands of corruptible peoples. The problem with a single ruler (I don't know if you're advocating a constitutional monarchy) is that his corruption cannot be countered except by revolution. And the problem with a pure democracy is that the majority rule is also subject to corruption and discrimination. So the goal of having a representational government is to allow a sort of double-security mechanism against corruption; the "elite" representatives are, in principle, more likely to be well versed in matters of justice and reason, whereas if they are corrupt, the voters are able to remove them.

 

And I suppose that is irrelevant if you're supporting a constitutional monarchy, but I question what advantage does that have? The power structure is still representational. Why is there any reason to argue for it over a "republic", or any other representative government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Why is there any reason to argue for it over a "republic", or any other representative government?

 

To be a political hipster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are gracious enough to temporarily retract your leave of absence, what is the ideology behind the advantages of a monarchy?

 

The way I understand government structure is that it's goal is to allow for the least possible amount of power in hands of corruptible peoples. The problem with a single ruler (I don't know if you're advocating a constitutional monarchy) is that his corruption cannot be countered except by revolution. And the problem with a pure democracy is that the majority rule is also subject to corruption and discrimination. So the goal of having a representational government is to allow a sort of double-security mechanism against corruption; the "elite" representatives are, in principle, more likely to be well versed in matters of justice and reason, whereas if they are corrupt, the voters are able to remove them.

 

And I suppose that is irrelevant if you're supporting a constitutional monarchy, but I question what advantage does that have? The power structure is still representational. Why is there any reason to argue for it over a "republic", or any other representative government?

 

To be fair, an unpolitical head of state is a bonus. Of course, that can come without a monarchy, but it's certainly favourable in the eyes of some. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be a political hipster?

I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, an unpolitical head of state is a bonus. Of course, that can come without a monarchy, but it's certainly favourable in the eyes of some. 

 

It seems that would create just as much problems as it would have advantages. And both dis/advantages would essentially be an amplified version of the dis/advantages of having a president as a figurehead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for her. I'd prefer her over Obama I'm sure, but I really don't like the idea of such a major politician being in office. She's a career politician, has nothing but more speeches and no real substance to offer. Also I'm surprised no one has mentioned Benghazi yet. Truly a pretty serious screw up for her in my opinion. Not so much the mistake, but the act of of covering / lying about it after word just made it worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are gracious enough to temporarily retract your leave of absence, what is the ideology behind the advantages of a monarchy?

 

 

I'm not a monarchist, but here are a few of the attractive things behind relatively weak monarchies:

 

1) Monarchs rely more on tradition than popular trends for a power-base, which means that a weak monarch tends towards more stable (traditional) policies than a democratic government.

 

2) You are much more likely to have an educated and informed monarch than educated and informed voters.

 

3) Monarchs can respond to crises much more decisively than democratic bodies.

 

4) Monarchs have much more symbolic power than an office that gets recycled every four years.

 

5) Monarchs tend to be good for building unity around policies. They can placate conservative classes of people through revolutionary periods because monarchs are an unshakeable conservative symbol. Mr. Burke is much more likely to support radical educational reform if King George assures him that it will all be OK in the end. President George has no such unifying touch. In fact, popularly elected officials tend to alienate that vast slab of people who "lost."

 

6) This also means that monarchs are much more effective than elected officials at spear-heading reform.

 

--

 

I have nothing to say in support of autocratic, strong monarchs. Dictatorship is a very bad form of government. The data is unequivocal on this point. Autocrats will kill big bird, and they won't even say sorry.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be a political hipster?

 

 

I think so.

 

I'm glad you could both find it within yourselves to be asinine; especially you JAG. Lord knows that you couldn't be allowed to let your smug self-superiority fall into abeyance. The day I am able to say "I was a Monarchist before it was cool." is the day I drop dead of happiness, because monarchies will be cool again after a century of global republicanism.

 

As for you, Pineapple, although Yves -as is his fashion- has listed several excellent points, I will re-post what I said in response to AFA's query in a different thread:

 

I'll do bulleted points followed by recommended reading:

  • Constitutional monarchies provide a symbol of unity over partisanship
  • Constitutional monarchies provide stability in times of turmoil
  • Constitutional monarchies provide effective override to government stagnation; embodied in Royal prerogatives
  • Constitutional monarchies provide a link to the past and to the history of the nation
  • Constitutional monarchies provide tourist attractions and, in the more popular ones, can bring in tens of thousands in revenue
  • Constitutional monarchies provide an effective guarantor of democracy and liberty in the form of a nonpartisan monarch
  • Constitutional monarchies provide a significantly less expensive government, with the expenses of, say. Francois Hollande far outstripping those of Her Majesty the Queen

As for the recommended reading:

 

http://royaltymonarchy.blogspot.com/  - The blog of a friend of mine who is an ardent Monarchist

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/  - Probably the premier Monarchist blog out there, absolutely brimming with good content

http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/ - More of a cultural and aesthetic blog than monarchist specifically, but very much within a sympathetic worldview

 

I have not read these personally myself, but they have been recommended to me on the issue of constitutional monarchy:

 

Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France - The first part of this includes a defence of the traditional understanding of the British monarchy

Bagehot's The English Constitution - This is the classic account of how the British constitutional monarchy operates

Vernon Bogdanor's The Monarchy and the Constitution - This is the best contemporary account of the British monarchy, from an Oxford professor of constitutional law

 

For a better understanding of enlightened despotism, I recommend looking in the "Mirrors for Princes" genre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_for_princes

 

I'll also add that I personally take into account the defenses of monarchy (sometimes explicitly, sometimes not) in Papal documents such as DiuturnumMirari VosImmortale Dei, and others.

Edited by Iuppiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×