From: jimruttshow8596
This article explores the nature of political power and governmental systems in the United States, drawing on discussions about democracy, monarchy, and underlying power dynamics.
Critiques of American Democracy
The current American system of representative democracy is seen by some as facing significant challenges and operating primarily on symbolic rather than objective realities [00:03:35]. A core critique suggests that the traditional goal of democracy—to have a government that works well and delivers what the people want [00:05:59]—is not being met.
Symbolic vs. Actual Power
A significant point of contention is whether democracy actually controls the state [00:09:49]. It’s argued that if democracy is not fully in control, then the primary goal of any political force should be to gain and hold more power, rather than just using the power it ostensibly possesses [00:10:03]. The idea that democracy itself holds absolute power is considered a foundational, unexamined assumption [00:11:14].
The Illusion of Political Influence
The public’s sense of power in a democracy is largely emotional and symbolic [00:07:49]. Losing the right to vote, for instance, is perceived as a loss of personal power rather than a reduction in collective wisdom or governmental efficacy [00:08:08]. This human power drive, a neglected aspect of human psychology, is a key element that democracy feeds [00:08:53].
Legislative and Executive Branches
It is suggested that the US government, particularly in Washington D.C., operates as if it primarily has a legislative branch, with the executive branch barely existing in its traditional sense [00:13:48]. Agencies are micro-managed by detailed policy and budget outlined in “laws” (bills), which are seen as more bureaucratic than legislative [00:14:03]. The White House, it’s claimed, could be removed without significantly altering the system [00:14:45].
Politicians in Congress, especially those newly elected, have little actual power due to seniority rules [00:17:10]. Their primary job becomes fundraising, as elections are often determined by the ability to buy advertising [00:17:40]. Legislation is often drafted by lobbyists or activists, not by elected officials or their staff [00:16:38]. This leads to the conclusion that the “steering linkage” between the public and government is largely disconnected [00:19:31].
The Paradox of “Depoliticizing” Government
There is a perceived contradiction in calling democracy good but “politicizing” government bad [00:20:41]. The term “politicize” having negative connotations dates back to the early Progressive Era, which sought to disconnect the wires from voters to power while making them feel their votes still mattered [00:21:05]. This “depoliticization” effectively removes power from the people [01:10:44].
Power Dynamics and Societal Condition
The core of American Constitutional Debate is understood as a cold civil war between “team red” and “team blue” [01:15:13]. Elections are simply a means for people to declare their allegiance in this conflict [01:15:11]. “Team blue” is seen as acting like a coherent team, while “team red” is still under the illusion of a “Norman Rockwell world” where individual action in local meetings can effect change [01:15:20]. This is framed as a contest between naivete and Machiavellianism, with the latter always winning [01:15:47].
Loyalty and Atomization
A crucial aspect of political power is loyalty [00:36:12]. The French historian Hippolyte Taine noted that during the French Revolution, the French people could not revolt against a tyrannical minority because they were “as atomized as the dust on the roads of France,” with “not one man in France who can command the unconditional loyalty of a hundred Frenchmen” [00:35:41]. This atomization, or lack of deep-seated loyalty, is seen as a key feature of contemporary American society, where “not one American in this country who can command the unconditional loyalty of five Americans, even just their family” [00:36:00].
Apathy and Fear
Most people in the US are fundamentally apathetic and disengaged from politics, only caring because they fear the “other side” [01:15:08], or “just want to grill” without interference [01:11:44]. This political polarization in the United States is driven by a collective sense of fear [01:23:41]. If this fear were removed, it is suggested, universal apathy would prevail, leading people to question why they have the current “crazy system” at all [01:29:10].
The Case for Monarchy
The argument for monarchy arises from the observation that the US already lives “in the ruins of a monarchy that decayed into an oligarchy” [01:26:31], with the turning point cited as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency in 1933, when he “essentially becomes a monarch” [01:25:54].
Monarchy as a “Natural” System
Monarchy is presented as the “natural system of government for a fundamentally apathetic and disengaged population who just wants to grill” [01:28:06]. This system, it is argued, can devise peace by eliminating the “microwave” that agitates factional conflict—that is, the political system that allows parties to harm each other [01:32:19]. When fear dissipates and efficient government takes hold, chaos and ruin are reversed, leading to a sense of awakening from a nightmare [01:30:10].
The “Solid Democracy” Thought Experiment
To transition to a monarchy, a concept called “solid democracy” is proposed as a thought experiment. This would transform disorganized democratic power into a concentrated force [00:26:07]. Participants would delegate their political power to a single leader or structure, making their vote irrevocable for a period (e.g., four years), or even for life [00:28:03]. This absolute delegation, including participation in the political process, cuts individuals out of the loop, effectively “firing the arrow” of their power to the leadership [00:39:09].
This concentrated power would dominate primary elections, which have low turnout [00:43:48], and would create a bloc in the House of Representatives with extremely tight party discipline [00:45:03]. The goal of this bloc would not be policy returns, but to acquire more power [00:45:25]. Ultimately, the logical conclusion of “solid democracy” is the construction of a monarchy [01:12:27].
Historical Precedents for Monarchy
Historical examples are cited to support the idea of monarchy:
- Caesar and Augustus: The rise of Caesar was not due to an evil person destroying a republic, but because the Roman Republic had devolved into civil war [01:14:46]. Caesar, and later Augustus, unified the state by governing all of Rome rather than just one faction, thereby ending centuries of internal conflict [01:21:56]. Politics, in this view, “just disappears” after the Caesars [01:21:53].
- Napoleon: Similarly, Napoleon’s rise marked a transition where the “last force of democracy” coalesced behind a single, decisive force [01:14:11].
- Salazar (Portugal): Salazar is cited as a 20th-century dictator who was an economics professor [01:44:28] and, like Franco, “liquidated the fascists” and communists to establish a new, peaceful state [01:44:47].
- Deng Xiaoping (China): Deng Xiaoping is considered the “greatest political leader of the 20th century” for taking the absolute power established by Mao and using it for the good of China [01:46:02].
It is argued that modern dictators like Hitler and Stalin are anomalies, representing attempts at monarchy within a global “oligarchic empire” [01:46:32]. A peaceful transition to monarchy, particularly if it originates from the center of power, is envisioned as a “joyous” relaxation, akin to the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe [01:47:03], where change occurred without widespread violence and officials were retired rather than purged [01:47:23].
Consolidation of wealth and power in corporations and government and Institutional bias and influence in political parties
The concentration of power in the US today lies with “oligarchical networks” that control public policy [01:25:27]. These networks view themselves as “custodians of the public good” rather than representatives [01:25:35]. The European Union is cited as an example of an “undemocratic democracy” where an unelected European Commission holds ultimate power, having progressed to the “final stage of oligarchy” [01:34:40]. This suggests that populations have already accepted delegating their power and not getting it back, with life remaining “fine” [01:35:53].
Conclusion
The debate on the evolution and future of societal governance in the USA, encompassing topics like political ideologies and shifts and complex systems and societal evolution, suggests that current political problems stem from game-theoretic outcomes of existing institutional structures in the absence of a strong foreign adversary [01:40:05]. While the current system is acknowledged as “broken,” the proposed solution of monarchy remains a point of skepticism, with the historical track record of benevolent monarchs being difficult to maintain, especially given challenges of succession and power transfer in organizations [01:05:04].