Story by Joseph Ford Cotto
What is so great about monarchism, anyway?
America gets along just fine without it -- if you ignore the latest Gallup report that Congress has an approval rating of 28 percent, which is the highest said number has soared in nearly ten years.
"If a nation does not want a monarchy, change the nation’s mind," the late South African Prime Minister Jan Smuts said. "If a nation does not need a monarchy, change the nation’s needs."
Smuts knew the truth behind these words firsthand. He served in the late 1930s and early '40s, a time when the British Crown was being subsumed by Dutch-descended nationalism. Most of his country's voting populace ignored his advice, got its wish of a sovereign republic, instituted Apartheid to maintain power, ultimately saw this fall apart, and now is faced with a 'nonracial' government largely defined by varying degrees of black supremacism.
This is to say nothing of the tribal conflicts that plague South Africa today -- all of which are glossed over by the promise of republican ideals.
"This war would never have come unless, under American and modernising pressure, we had driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany," Winston Churchill told during 1945. "By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones. No doubt these views are very unfashionable."
Did Britain's most famous World War II prime minister not know what he was talking about?
"Anyone who fears that by becoming a republic we would condemn ourselves to a presidency held by a perpetual succession of superannuated politicians .... is an optimist," The Independent's Gordon Medcalf pointed out in 1997, with Tony Blair's anti-monarchist Labour Party having just attained power.
Medcalf continued: "The alternative nightmare scenario looks not to the European model but to the American, where the essentials for election to the presidency appear to be ruthless ambition, access to vast wealth, reckless promises of patronage and preferment, effective control of a big slice of the media and a plausible TV manner.
"We don’t know when we are well off."
Could any serious political observer look at our partisan duopoly and say Medcalf is wrong? Could any serious person claim that America's system of government works well for even a bare majority of the citizenry?
"Monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all," Aristotle declared. This ancient wisdom gels with the opinion of Margaret Thatcher who, after her prime ministerial tenure ended, remarked that "(t)hose who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians."
Her statement takes on special significance when the perspective of Lord Russell, published in The Spectator amid Blair's ascendancy, enters consideration: "The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing."
Here in America, the Supreme Court and lower federal judiciary are our referees. How apolitical are they?
Count Nikolai Tolstoy is the International Monarchist League's chancellor, having held this position since 1987. His career is very much a continuation of the family business -- writing. He has produced much about history and politics, putting down the pen to stand for office on four separate occasions. Though he never won, his anti-globalist ideas certainly did with the triumph of Brexit last year.
Tolstoy recently spoke with me about many topics relative to monarchism -- specifically its role in the present day. Some of our conversation is included below.
Joseph Ford Cotto: Seemingly, most Americans do not consider that the British Empire was, for its age, far removed from dictatorship. One might say average Americans will refuse to entertain the idea that monarchist Britain was liberty-friendly, all the while claiming that the Revolution was driven by an altruistic, republican desire for individual rights. What is your perspective on this?
Count Nikolai Tolstoy: This view is of course wholly simplistic and unrepresentative of historical reality. By the standards of the day, the British constitution was regarded by other countries as enviably free. After all, eloquent voices (like that of Edmund Burke) were raised in the British parliament in defence of American colonial interests. Nor did the revolutionaries enjoy a monopoly of virtue. As Dr Johnson queried: ‘How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of slaves?’
Cotto: Cecil Rhodes, during the run-up to the turn of the century, planned to use his vast wealth and political connections to reclaim the United States for Great Britain. Had he been successful, do you believe that a constitutional monarchist America would have enjoyed a higher standard of living than what came to be the case under the federal republic?
Tolstoy: There existed strong feelings on both sides of the Atlantic that the British Empire and United States enjoyed shared values to an extent that called for a close alliance. This was exemplified in the two twentieth-century world wars, when both powers joined to overcome German and Japanese tyranny. However, I don’t think Rhodes’s proposal would necessarily have led to a higher standard of living, which rested on quite different considerations.