Didn’t We Fight a Revolution to Rid Ourselves of This Royal Family—and Its American Imitators?

Didn’t We Fight a Revolution to Rid Ourselves of This Royal Family—and Its American Imitators?

Didn’t We Fight a Revolution to Rid Ourselves of This Royal Family—and Its American Imitators?

The whole point of the American experiment was to rid ourselves of royalism. So how did we end up with so many monarchical governors?

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

I’m a republican.

So, while I certainly wish the formr Miss Middleton and Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor all the best on the occasion of their nuptials, I am rather hoping not to hear a whole lot more from them.

Like Tom Paine, I have always been of the view that: “Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.”

Paine held to the true republican principle that kings, kaisers and czars were not the equals of citizens but uniquely dim-witted inferiors who did more harm than good to the countries they attempted to govern.

In Common Sense, his call for an American revolution against not just King George III but the fabricated notion of a “divine right of kings.” Paine wrote: “[It] is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent. Selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed in the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.”

After Americans did revolt, the sincere republicans among the founding circle endeavored to assure that America would not replace the abuses of monarchs with the abuses of presidents or governors. “An elective despotism is not what we fought for,” observed Thomas Jefferson, who argued that “the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

Unfortunately, the system of checks and balances only prevents an “elective despotism” when branches of government are controlled by different factions. When one man holds the top job and his minions occupy supposedly separate stations of public power, the monarchy is recreated under the guise of democracy. While elections may be held, the victors become what James Madison most feared “a king for four years.”

That’s why the drafters of the Constitution included broad impeachment powers in the document, and rested the authority to demand accountability from the executive and judicial branches of the federal government with the elected body that was most closely tied—via biennial elections—to the people.

It is, as well, why the progressive reformers of a century ago established the power of recall, which allowed voters to remove despotic leaders during the course of their terms of office—as opposed to putting up with tyranny until the next election. The right to petition for the redress of grievances is made real via the recall power, which gives citizens the authority to gather a sufficient number of signatures and a force a tyrant to face the wrath of the electorate.

Monarchs and their minions cannot be recalled, unfortunately. But governors and their minions can be. This distinction keeps the promise of republican government. The ability to recall a state senator who disregards the rule of law in Wisconsin, or a governor who would restructure government to empower himself while taking away the rights of public employees to defend public services in Michigan, is our defense against an “elective despotism.” And the current exercise of that power is far more exciting to this republican than a royal wedding.

Like this blog post? Read it on The Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.

Support The Nation’s June Fundraising Campaign

With the midterm elections now firmly upon us, the question is whether Democratic candidates will do more than merely occupy ballot lines as mild alternatives to the red-hot crisis that is Donald Trump.

As Trump spends over $1 billion a day on a globally destabilizing war on Iran and admits that he doesn’t “think about Americans’ financial situation,” millions across the country are struggling with the surging costs of essentials. Democrats must seize this moment and advance bold, small-“d” populist ideas—not settle for cynical caution that once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Nation elevates progressive ideas, movements, and elected officials achieving real change across the country into the national conversation. At the same time, our journalists are exposing how crypto and AI-funded super PACs are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to knock out candidates they oppose, reporting on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, and sounding the alarm on attempts by red states to quickly redraw electoral maps, disenfranchising Southern Black voters.

We can play this critical role because of support from readers like you. This June, we’re raising $20,000 to power The Nation’s independent journalism in the run-up to November’s immensely consequential elections.

It’s in our power to build a more just society, and your support at this critical moment brings us closer to that bold vision. I hope you’ll donate today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x