The Queen of England came and went, and most of the comment was about her hats and how to curtsey to her. A pity.
The Queen is by far and away the best Head of State in the world. She has been at the job since 1953, conscientious and uncomplaining. She has met and talked to a regiment of presidents and prime ministers, is extraordinarily well-informed, and has good judgement on world affairs.
One ignores her at ones peril, if one is lucky enough to deal with her.
I am no particular monarchist, just a pragmatist. Party political heads of state, who are supposed to represent all their peoples can never, in my personal opinion, be as effective as non-political people of real stature who can attract the loyalty of all the people, not just the partisans. This is why Britain is so stable and why there is always a back-stop in the wings to prevent abuse of power. She is called The Queen.
Britain is lucky to have her, and they are unlikely to get such a good head of state ever again. Much better than all these republican contrivances!
Even extreme nationalists in the US must, in their quieter, reflective moments , (if they have such) wish for a non-party-political head of state half as good as Elizabeth.But of course, those of germanic persuasion and tradition, following every arcane word written by the Founding Fathers as if it was delivered from mythical heaven, couldn’t entertain changes to a document that has attained such biblical importance. Serious, as opposed to peripheral changes, seem beyond the imagination of the literalists.
I maintain that, since Epicureans aspire to the quiet life, they should all support a non-political head of state based on the role of good Queen Elizabeth, thus mitigating the chronic, toxic divisions in modern-day America and making life more pleasant. It won’t happen, of course. Sensible, pragmatic ideas are a hard sell, nowhere harder than among the Epicureans who are also libertarians.
What would an epicurean do, however, if the monarxh were not “good”? And who defines good? For instance, if the monarch imposed a 98% income tax, would the epicurean actually revolt? Or in order to achieve happiness, would the epicurean simply accept his/her fate?.
Robert said: “Party political heads of state, who are supposed to represent all their peoples can never, in my personal opinion, be as effective as non-political people of real stature who can attract the loyalty of all the people, not just the partisans.”
==================
We (the royal “We” of course) have to face the raw, first, basic fact: people see things differently and we have to figure out how to settle those differences. That’s what politics is about.
If the Queen and non-political heads of state are “effective” it’s because we define “effective” very gently. They do not have to do the heavy lifting of competing for votes in a democracy. Nor do they have to abase themselves and ask for money to finance a radio spot at election time. But how “effective” can the Queen and non-pols be? they have no POWER to formulate the public POLICIES which have to accommodate 300 million souls.
Of course, if the Queen ran against George Bush for the presidency, she’d win in a landslide. Lassie would too, probably.
Welcome back, Mickey. Good to have your comment!
Well, of course, you are quite right. It’s hard to get rid of the bad ones. But the sort of monarch I am talking about is a figurehead who cannot impose anything, let alone a 98% tax. A good figurehead exerts influence by reason of longevity in the job, watching the successes and the failures, understanding the history (the queen knew the history of the British fiasco in Iraq back in the 1920’s, which is why she is said to have vigorously opposed the invasion, albeit to no effect), and discussing and debating issues based upon experience. I think it is a useful institution, mainly because the queen has no power – in other words, Bush and Blair, and people like them surround themselves with sycophants who are afraid to tell it as it is. Thus policy is made in a self-sustaining bubble. No one can sack the queen, who can say what she thinks, as long as she has the facts, which she has to have under the constitution. This is incredibly valuable, although the power-hungry would resist it, always knowing better.
As for epicureans, I would rather accept my fate knowing that there was someone out there telling the truth to power, than accepting my fate under a president with an attitude and a tin ear. Does this make sense?
Good epicureans content themselves with walking Lassie.
Well, for the Queen to get all the relevant facts on policy issues would wayyyyy cut down on her ceremonial duties. It’s hard enough for non-royal beings just to keep up. No more jaunts to Jamestown for Her Majesty, she’s at her laptop in Balmoral studying, studying, studying.
As you say, Robert, the Queen remembered the Iraq tragedy of the 1920s and opposed Blair’s policy, “albeit to no effect.” But even dog-walking Epicureans (I loved that observation) live in a world of “EFFECTS.” (I can capitalize when I want, it’s Mother’s Day — another corporate racket, of course. Grumble, grumble. Can good Epicureans grumble?)