Why do we have elections? Why not go back to having a King?

[Richard 23]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Then why do we have elections? Why not go back to having a King?

The problem with regal dictators, or monarchies, is that they are not very responsive to their subjects. That's fine for the king at first, but when things start getting unbearable for his subjects they throw bread riots or break and burn things. Or they drop like flies when disease flares up. All sorts of unpleasantries occured in the good old days.

Quelling the riots through violent repression was sometimes effective, but the subjects tended to hold a grudge and they came back in larger numbers cyclically as things got too miserable for the proles again.

Gradually some in the west came to the conclusion that if only they could get a sense of when things started to go sour but before they flared out of control, they could toss a few sheckles at the problem and make it go away.

What they eventually came up after a bit of experimentation with was brilliant, they called it elections. Give the people a chance to vent periodically so each venting is small and direct that venting in an organized and productive direction. Give them a couple of choices on various things which don't impact the status quo much if at all and let the people think they're making independent choices. Of course the elites pick all of the choices so none of them upset the apple cart. People feel like they have a stake in things, especially if you educate them with upper class values that support the status quo, so they're less likely to burn it all down. Voting is essentially giving consent (of the governed). Teach them to read so they can receive daily exposure to the status quo message. Call it a "free" press. The status quo (upper class) are the ones with the loudest voices in the marketplace of ideas, so only the safe messages get to the masses. This is persuasion, or the manufacturing of consent.

"Right" and "left" for instance. We learn these positions through the marketplace of ideas. It constrains mainstream thought between these supposed polar opposites to a subset of possibilities, those that reinforce the status quo. Really there's all sorts of possibilities that people scarcely give much thought to. Because everything's already known, that's what it seems like anyway. It's the unseen control, persuasion. It's imperfect but it sure beats violent repression!

Polls have shown a number of things that the people want, many are scarcely discussed by politicians. Because many of those things don't benefit the status quo and politicans are paid for by...you know who. They instead tell the people what they're supposed to want as if it's what they actually want. Politicians, especially in presidential elections, don't clarify their positions, they obfuscate, just like any television ad for cars or weight loss. Shit, you don't want to tell them the truth, you tell them something to feel good about or feel scared of or mad at.

If you think politicians campaign clearly, what was Kerry's position on the Iraq war, solving terrorism, health care, drug war? Damn if I know. Could've been anyone. Bush's Social Security plan. Hmmm. Broken, fix it, personal. Yeah. Kerry upon not winning: preserve the status quo, don't get mad, don't break stuff.

So that's why we don't go back to kings. Periodic "democracy" is much more effective, easier to control. We still have royalty, but they dress differently and we have a larger pool of royal families to choose from. But all of our politicians at the federal level, you must've noticed, they're mostly if not all, millionaires. It's good to be the king!

[rmnunez]

Gringoes cannot "go back" to having a king, they never had one (those were Britons).

Monarchical systems do offer some advantages; the rulers have been bred for generations to develop the finest qualities, they serve as emblematic rallying points at times of crisis, they help assure an orderly transition in constitutional monarchies and their own process of succession is practically infalible. Unless the king is some sort of despotic absolutist with no concern for his compatriots, its not such a bad idea at all, and there are adequate safeguards now to preclude absolutist despots from their excesses.