Is America turning into a Monarchy?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Anttech
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Turning
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perception of American politics as resembling a monarchy, particularly in the context of political dynasties such as the Bushes and Clintons. Participants explore the implications of having multiple presidents from the same families and the broader cultural and political dynamics at play, including the influence of wealth and social connections in governance.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note the pattern of political leadership in the U.S. being dominated by a few families, suggesting a resemblance to monarchy.
  • Others argue that while there are political families, the U.S. does not operate under autocratic rule and has mechanisms like the 25th Amendment and Congressional powers that prevent such a shift.
  • There is a discussion about the historical presence of political families in the U.S., with references to past presidents from similar backgrounds, including Adams and Roosevelt.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the notion that humble beginnings guarantee empathy for the less fortunate, citing examples of individuals who have become disconnected from their roots.
  • Several posts highlight the backgrounds of various presidents, noting that many have come from privileged or middle-class origins rather than humble beginnings.
  • There is mention of the cultural dynamics in American politics, where nepotism and connections may lead to less qualified individuals being favored for positions.
  • Participants discuss the historical context of figures like Andrew Jackson and the implications of their actions, reflecting on the complexities of their legacies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether America is becoming a monarchy, with some asserting that political dynasties are problematic while others defend the democratic mechanisms in place. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these political trends.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the backgrounds of presidents and the nature of political power in the U.S. are based on historical interpretations and personal opinions, which may vary widely among participants.

  • #31
drankin said:
:smile:
I'm curious, who would be the "invaders" to bring this about?

Tibet?:bugeye:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
baywax said:
Tibet?:bugeye:

That's not funny, man! Those Tibetans don't mess around.
 
  • #33
drankin said:
:smile:
I'm curious, who would be the "invaders" to bring this about?
I thought Mexico had already seized a couple of states :wink:

(thats for Edward lol)

As for the question in the OP - Not in a million years.
 
  • #34
Art said:
I thought Mexico had already seized a couple of states :wink:

(thats for Edward lol)

Yep, at least California.
 
  • #35
Art said:
As for the question in the OP - Not in a million years.

Considering how the President treated the English monarch recently; mistakenly dating her last visit to have taken place in 1776, I'd say there is no way, in a million years, that the US could find the composure and restraint to support and abide by the rule of a monarchy. However, the US govt is well on its way to mimicing the operations of a Monarchy.
 
  • #36
Anttech said:
George Bush 89-93
Bill Clinton 93-03
George w Bush 01--09
Hilary Clinton?? 09--

See a pattern?


To me this is against all of what a Democracy should be about...

Yes, the pattern is a swing from one ideology to another and back again...politics.

All these people were ELECTED by the people and that IS what a democracy is all about.
 
  • #37
BoomBoom said:
Yes, the pattern is a swing from one ideology to another and back again...politics.

All these people were ELECTED by the people and that IS what a democracy is all about.

oh don't be so simplistic. Just because there are formal democratic structures doesn't guarantee it's what 'democracy is all about'. Iraq had formal democratic structures, I don't think anyone would actually argue Saddam was a democratic leader.
 
  • #38
in the US we have the right hand vs the left hand, but few see they are attached to the same corporate body where all the money and power comes from. Democracy is the people up, the US is the government imposing from the top down and in general the rule by ghosts who's will is difficult to override by the living. In many casing disregarding the desire of the people all together. By giving people the ILLUSION of a say, it makes it very difficult for the masses to conspire and revolt... which is why the gov't gets so upset when fewer and fewer people are voting... they understand that many of them are arming.
 
  • #39
Democracy exist to elect presidents, senators, etc. But factions exist to make financial decisions of a community or corporation. IF you take the factions away, you take away people's loans, credit cards, house, car, etc. Everything else aside, monarchies are just traditional style plays for the public's amusement. Bush isn't exactly a Rockefeller then again it is not exactly a peanut farmer.
 

Similar threads

News What is the impact of Russia and China's growing influence in Latin America?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
News Who is George Tenet and why is he resigning from the CIA?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
News What is the Potential Outcome of the Growing Disparity in America?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
28K
ECONOMICS: It's stupid to be afraid (Lee Kuan Yew to Der Spiegel)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K