Would You Vote For An Unelectable Candidate?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1351527' date='Aug 6 2007, 09:00 PM'](Like everyone else, it seems) I'd probably vote third-party as a display of principle (and to show the GOP they can't take us "religious right" people for granted). However, if I was in a "swing state" and there was a close election, I might vote for Rudy just to keep Hillary out of the White House. (That's a big "if," though.)
I do think Rudy is definitely the lesser evil in this case, though, but I'm not going to really throw any support behind him. He's said he's for abortion being turned over to the states (which is probably a legally necessary first step), though he'll probably do nothing substantial to help the pro-life cause.
Hillary, on the other hand, will do all in her power to support abortion at every turn (as evidenced by her 100% pro-abort Senate voting record).

All-in-all, not a happy situation.[/quote]

Ya - Rudy believes that abortion should be up to the states (and so does Fred Thompson)
and Rudy believes that Rose v Wade was wrong because legislation (drum roll) should be done by legislatures ... and F. Thompson also believes this

[adt6247]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1351606' date='Aug 6 2007, 10:47 PM']As for monarchies and such, I'm for checks and balances in government. I think for a "Catholic Monarchy" to work, we would first need a total conversion of our society to the ideals of old Christendom.
A serious modern monarchy, I'm afraid, would probably end up looking more like Kim Jong Il's North Korea than 12th century France. (Call me a cynic, but that's my cold, hard view.)[/quote]
Frankly, a more authoritarian papacy and a mostly Catholic populous would be the most powerful check against a monarch. The threat of excommunication has kept monarchs at bay in the past, and the Pope even has forced dynastic changes (such as the change from the Merovingians to the Carolingians in France in 751 by Pope Zachary) That, unfortunately, wouldn't be likely any time soon. I do think there are some nations that have cultures that are predisposed to Monarchy -- right now, the best would be Austria and Hungary. There is still a strong support, among Catholics, for the House of Hapsburg. Otto von Hapsburg, the crown prince and pretender to the thrones of Austria and Hungary, is an exemplary Catholic monarch. If his countries would take him back, it would be a good thing.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1351606' date='Aug 6 2007, 10:47 PM']Where people are godless and corrupt, any system of government will fail.[/quote]
I agree to a point. However, one thing to realize about monarchy is the necessity of hereditary succession leads, in general, to a greater focus on the royal family, and thus greater focus on family. I think sodomy would be unthinkable for an heir to the throne, as one could not produce further heirs.

The best argument I've heard is that the monarchy only requires one man to be virtuous to make a virtuous government. A democracy requires every man to be virtuous, or at least a very solid majority. Which do you think is more likely?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1351606' date='Aug 6 2007, 10:47 PM']And my general view of government is the less, the better.[/quote]
Monarchical governments tend to be minimalistic compared to republics. Name one medieval king that had the influence in a peasant's day-to-day life that a single IRS agent does...

This country was founded on small, restricted government, but it didn't take long for Thomas Jefferson, as president, to violate the constitution that was to hold him at bay... Republican (form of government, not the party) governments tend to have less accountability because they are in office for a short period of time, and don't necessarily hold the nation's long-term interests at heart.

Edited August 7, 2007 by adt6247

[adt6247]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351521' date='Aug 6 2007, 09:47 PM']Oddly I find myself at least mildly intrigued by the idea. I have to think about it more by adt makes a compelling argument ... [/quote]
Take your time with it... it took me years to come to these conclusions. And it's not terribly urgent; it's not like the US is going to have an opportunity to morph into a monarchy next week.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1351939' date='Aug 7 2007, 09:12 AM']Take your time with it... it took me years to come to these conclusions. And it's not terribly urgent; it's not like the US is going to have an opportunity to morph into a monarchy next week.[/quote]
The biggest problem I have with it is the total pointlessness in holding such a view. A monarchy isn't going to happen -- we're left to deal with the reality of the governmental system we currently have in place. So while I may support a monarchical form of government as being "right" I'm still left with the responsibility of being politically involved here.

[HS_Dad]

> Monarchy....

The history of monarchies is of oppression. Also, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I agree with Winston Churchill. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except
for all the others".

Rule by individual people created in the image of God is the best check on corruption in the long
run. Compare the U.S. democracy vs. the corruption in much of the rest of the world and
I think it is objectively clear we are better. We consider it "corrupt" when congress people change their votes for thousands in campaign contributions. In Russia they literally take over massive companies and loot them, killing their enemies even if they have U.K. citizenship!

> Giuliani.

The pro-life battle has been about overturning Roe vs. Wade from the beginning. Giuliani
has promised to appoint strict constructionists. This is a multi-decade struggle. Despite the
spending weaniness of many Republicans, I was quite disappointed in the 2006 election because we were extremely close to victory in overturning Roe v. Wade with Roberts and Alito. Now, with Democrats controlling the Senate for another 3 + years (the 2008 numbers are 21 Rep incumbents vs. 12 Dem incumbents), they'll be able to block good justices.

So, while not ideal, Giuliani trumps Hillary on this score. (We live in a fallen imperfect world people. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of marginal progress. If we followed that logic, no pro-lifer would live in Minnesota since our tax dollars subsidize abortions.)

In addition we are in a civilizational battle between us and extremists around the world who are attempting to get and use nuclear weapons against American cities. Giuliani gets this. Hillary gets this too. But, to placate her party, she would not exercise sufficiently vigorous methods which she may know are in the best interests of the American people and western civilization. Luckily, being a woman and knowledgeable enough to not allow her campaign's rhetoric to influence her thinking and needing to demonstrate "strength" for domestic and international political reasons.... she would govern far better than any other Democrat with respect to this global struggle.

[Socrates]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1351936' date='Aug 7 2007, 09:07 AM']Frankly, a more authoritarian papacy and a mostly Catholic populous would be the most powerful check against a monarch. The threat of excommunication has kept monarchs at bay in the past, and the Pope even has forced dynastic changes (such as the change from the Merovingians to the Carolingians in France in 751 by Pope Zachary) That, unfortunately, wouldn't be likely any time soon. I do think there are some nations that have cultures that are predisposed to Monarchy -- right now, the best would be Austria and Hungary. There is still a strong support, among Catholics, for the House of Hapsburg. Otto von Hapsburg, the crown prince and pretender to the thrones of Austria and Hungary, is an exemplary Catholic monarch. If his countries would take him back, it would be a good thing.
I agree to a point. However, one thing to realize about monarchy is the necessity of hereditary succession leads, in general, to a greater focus on the royal family, and thus greater focus on family. I think sodomy would be unthinkable for an heir to the throne, as one could not produce further heirs.

The best argument I've heard is that the monarchy only requires one man to be virtuous to make a virtuous government. A democracy requires every man to be virtuous, or at least a very solid majority. Which do you think is more likely?
Monarchical governments tend to be minimalistic compared to republics. Name one medieval king that had the influence in a peasant's day-to-day life that a single IRS agent does...

This country was founded on small, restricted government, but it didn't take long for Thomas Jefferson, as president, to violate the constitution that was to hold him at bay... Republican (form of government, not the party) governments tend to have less accountability because they are in office for a short period of time, and don't necessarily hold the nation's long-term interests at heart.[/quote]
Actually, I've known a number of people with your views, so I'm actually rather familiar with it (odd as that may seem). And I'm not totally unsympathetic either - I just tend to be a bit cynical (though I prefer to call it "realism"). I'm not anti-monarchical on principle, nor am I by any any means a worshiper of the modern idol of "democracy.'
I do think monarchies are overrated, but so are republics (and pure democracies - "mob rule" just plain stink).

My point was that a succesful monarchy in the manner of medieval Christendom would require a major overhaul of entire culture and society in order to work. I think simply crowning a king (even a "Catholic king") would in itself accomplish little.

Medieval monarchies were held in check by the powerful forces of the Church (in an age when the Faith was taken seriously by almost everyone) and the nobility, as well as by the technological limitations of the time which helped keep tyrannies in check prior to the 19th-20th centuries.

And pagan monarchs (or emperpors) tend to be tyrannical monsters.

Today, I'm afraid, giving one man total control of government, while it may be good in the case of a good king, could be disasterous in the hands of of bad king. While the Church could be a check on tyrants in the Age of Faith (when more-or-less all citizens are serious believing Catholics), today it would be easy for even a proclaimed "Catholic" king to disregard the authority of the Church (just as modern Americans politicians blithely disregard the limits of the Constitution). And of course beefing up the temporal power of the Church has serious problems of its own.

Your point about sodomy seems somewhat odd and irrelevant, as if I recall their have been royals who practiced that vice, and we haven't really had as yet any confirmed sodomites as President (though given our current societal free-fall, that could easily change).

In short, I belive both republics and monarchies have both strengths and weaknesses, though I really don't have time to get into it all in depth. I respect the monarchist position, but my main problem tends to be with traditional Catholics who complain about our government, yet refuse to vote or make any contribution politically because "they're monarchists." Such a stance is useless. (not saying you fall in that category.)