Australia to Drop the Queen as Head of State?

[Алекс]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/21/wqueen121.xml

The Queen could be dropped as Australia’s head of state within three years under plans drawn up by the man tipped to be the country’s next prime minister.

Kevin Rudd is a staunch republican
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/09/21/uqueen.jpg

Labour Party leader Kevin Rudd is surging ahead in the polls and is expected to deliver a humiliating defeat to the government of prime minister John Howard at an election due within weeks.

A staunch republican, Mr Rudd wants Australia to cut its constitutional ties with Britain, replacing the Queen with an elected president.

The last time a referendum was held on the republic question was in 1999, when Mr Howard, an ardent monarchist, successfully campaigned to preserve the status quo.

If Labour wins the next election it will throw the full weight of government behind the issue and is likely to spend millions of pounds in political advertising to persuade Australians of the merits of becoming a republic.

A spokesman for Mr Rudd told The Daily Telegraph that a referendum would probably be held in 2010. "Mr Rudd supports a republic," he said.

The latest opinion poll gives Labour a 55 per cent to 45 per cent lead over the government, suggesting a humiliating defeat for Mr Howard.

Part of Mr Rudd’s appeal lies in his novelty and relative youth. He turned 50 today but with his round face, spectacles and shock of silver hair looks younger - hence his nicknames Tintin, Pixie and the Milky Bar Kid.

Mr Howard has delivered Australia more than a decade of economic prosperity, but voters are turning against him.

There is disenchantment over his unwavering support for the war in Iraq, his reluctance to recognise the threat posed by climate change and the tough new industrial relations reforms he has introduced.

Mr Howard is 68 and recently became a grandfather. To some commentators, he has the air of yesterday’s man.

Mr Rudd has a reputation as a bit of a nerd. He claims to have got drunk just twice in his life - once on his 35th birthday, and the second time during a boozy night out in New York four years ago, when he was persuaded to go to a lap-dancing club.

When the strip club visit was revealed last month, Mr Rudd suggested it had been leaked by the government to discredit him and that he would "take a belting" from the public.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/09/22/wqueen122.jpg

But polls afterwards suggested that he had gone up in the estimation of many Australians, who saw the episode as evidence of a streak of ‘larrikinism’ that the opposition leader had previously lacked.

One of Mr Rudd’s biographers, Nicholas Stuart, said the former diplomat has worked hard to shed his image as a brainy technocrat. He recounts a story from around 1996, when Mr Rudd was trying to break into federal politics.

"Everyone was standing around a barbecue talking about a rugby league grand final. Kevin comes up, it all goes quiet, and he chirps up with something about how interesting it will be when China engages in world trade. People suddenly discovered their glasses needed refilling. He had the ability to clear a room.

"He’s changed 100 per cent since then," says Stuart. "He can mix it with the typically Australian ocker bloke if he has to."

His reputation as an intellectual is no bad thing, said Dr Nick Economou, a political scientist from Monash University in Melbourne. "He’s bright, capable and conservative. He was never a unionist, and he is no friend of the unions — in fact I think he’ll have some very tense relations with them. He comes across as dependable and trustworthy."

Born in the lush hinterland of the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, Mr Rudd was 11 when his dairy farmer father died as a result of a horrific car crash.

He and his three siblings were shocked to find that their father had never owned the farm on which they lived - he was a tenant.

Within months the family was turfed off the land and went on to endure years of financial uncertainty.

Convinced that China was the power of the future, he enrolled in a degree in Chinese language and history at the Australian National University in Canberra in 1976. [Yellow Australia policy]

Graduating with first class honours, Mr Rudd joined the Australian diplomatic service and was sent to Beijing, a posting he relished. He has maintained his fluent Mandarin and upstaged Mr Howard at the recent Apec summit in Sydney by chatting comfortably in Chinese with President Hu Jintao.

After seven years as a diplomat he resigned from the foreign service and took a job as chief of staff to the state Labour Party in Queensland. In 1998 he contested and won the federal seat of Griffith and has held it ever since.

He is likely to strengthen the already close economic and diplomatic ties between Australia and China, while maintaining the crucial Anzus alliance with the United States.

Relations with the Bush presidency are likely to be strained, however, by his pledge to withdraw Australia’s 550 combat troops from Iraq.

"He’ll carve out a more independent world role," said Mr Stuart. "He has deep and intimate links with America but there’ll be less sycophancy."

The father of three, a devout Christian, has not escaped the sharp-tongued wit of Australia’s best known cross-dressing comic.

"Do we want a prime minister who looks like a dentist?" Dame Edna Everage, aka comedian Barry Humphries, asked of the Labour leader in a recent stage show. "Is Australia ready for a leader named Kevin?"

If the polls are to be trusted, the answer is yes.

---

Not that I have much postive to say about the Queen, Royal Family or Britain, but Australia distancing herself from the motherland can only degrade her, especially if it is to move closer to China.

[Jake Featherston]

Australia's proximity to southeast Asia puts it in a precarious position, thus for that reason I support Australia maintaining this formal tie with European (British) civilization.

[Anarch]

LOL YES. Rudd just fucked up. Shout high off the rooftops ya support China, plz MR RUDD!?!?! YES! Drive us away from the Yanks and the Brits and have us suck up to the largest population of chinks in the world. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease!?!?

(Note: that's sarcasm, btw. I despise the Labour Party). John Howard is a traditionalist: pro-Brit, pro-America, pro-traditional Australia.

[Ahknaton]

A staunch republican, Mr Rudd wants Australia to cut its constitutional ties with Britain, replacing the Queen with an elected president.

The last time a referendum was held on the republic question was in 1999, when Mr Howard, an ardent monarchist, successfully campaigned to preserve the status quo.

If Labour wins the next election it will throw the full weight of government behind the issue and is likely to spend millions of pounds in political advertising to persuade Australians of the merits of becoming a republic.

A spokesman for Mr Rudd told The Daily Telegraph that a referendum would probably be held in 2010. "Mr Rudd supports a republic," he said.
This is such bullshit. They don't get the result they like from a referendum so they just have one again and again until they get the result they like. Of course, the Republicans only have to win once, while the Monarchists have to win every time. There should be a limit on how often this gets put to the vote - maybe once every 25 years - i.e. once per generation. Spending millions of dollars on advertising to "get the result the government wants" is a mockery of democracy too.

[Leonard Smalls]

No. Helen Mirren is the best queen Britain has ever had.

[Anarch]

This is such bullshit. They don't get the result they like from a referendum so they just have one again and again until they get the result they like. Of course, the Republicans only have to win once, while the Monarchists have to win every time. There should be a limit on how often this gets put to the vote - maybe once every 25 years - i.e. once per generation. Spending millions of dollars on advertising to "get the result the government wants" is a mockery of democracy too.

Precisely. Besides, it'd just end up a politician's republic. If there was a time for the country to hold together normally and be a republic it should've been when the Poms executed Break Morant in the Boer War.

[Felix the Cat]

I don't think yanks would have a problem with this, on the contrary most would welcome it

[Charlie Robespierre]

I think the final attainment of full nationhood for Australia is the liquidation of the monarchy. All things being equal that is. But things are most certainly not equal. Australia is tettering on the brink of social anarchy and that remote geriatric Queen of a terrorist nation, 1000's of miles seems to be the wafer thin barrier preventing the subversives from completely overwhelming Australia - not that it's too far from that point already...

[MrRS]

It is up to the Aussies really but if they want to scrap their current system then that is up to them.

[Jake Featherston]

I don't think yanks would have a problem with this, on the contrary most would welcome it

Machiavellian, power-hungry yanks (neo-cons and Hillary, basically) would probably like this, since it would put Australia a little more firmly in our orbit by default, but your average American has an Anglophilic streak that makes them envious of countries with Queen Elizabeth on the money. Very few would probably want to accept the Windsors as the Royal Family for the USA, but very few would want to get rid of them if we already had them, and would probably think it peculiar if Australians did so.

[Dan Dare]

Since Australia seems hell-bent on turning itself into an economic and actual colony of China (and India) I'd say the sooner they come to terms with that reality, and stop pretending to be a western country the better off we'll all be. In that respect, it's complete nonsense that an old lady England should their head of state, far better to offer the position to somebody who can help progress their Great Project to become the No. 1 Offshore Agricultural and Mining Collective for the PRC.

We don't care, just so long as Sir Les Patterson (http://jakartablokm.com/articles/lespatterson.htm) is permitted to continue with his sterling efforts as Australian Cultural Attache to the Court of St. James.

http://www.portrait.gov.au/exhibit/rarely_everage/borland_les.jpg

Sir Les, going about his official business

[harjit]

It always surprised me how Australia is so far ahead of the curve than Canada in this matter. We don't even have a republican movement to begin with.

This may be just superficial, but we have American-sounding accents whereas Aussies have British-sounding accents, this makes it even more surprising and ironic. :p

[Jake Featherston]

It always surprised me how Australia is so far ahead of the curve than Canada in this matter. We don't even have a republican movement to begin with.

Canadian national identity is almost entirely (other than in Quebec) a product of not-being-American, so there's no way there would ever be much support for abolishing the monarchy, as having Elizabeth II as your head-of-state (don't bring up that Governor-General foolishness; that person is just the stand-in for the real chief-of-state) marks you as distinct from America, in a very precise and symbolic manner going all the way back to 1776 (so much sothat it would only be a slight exaggeration to say the Anglo-Canadian national identity depends on it).

Besides which, Australia, Canada, and the UK itself all currently function as republics-in-name-only, and very successful ones at that. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Places like Ireland and India had a real impetus to drop the monarchy that places like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will presumably never have. Is South Africa still part of the British Commonwealth? I'm pretty sure they are, although between the Boer War and Apartheid, I'm almost surprised they didn't go the blarney-curry route their own darn selves.

[harjit]

Besides which, Australia, Canada, and the UK itself all currently function as republics-in-name-only, and very successful ones at that. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Places like Ireland and India had a real impetus to drop the monarchy that places like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will presumably never have. Is South Africa still part of the British Commonwealth? I'm pretty sure they are, although between the Boer War and Apartheid, I'm almost surprised they didn't go the blarney-curry route their own darn selves.
The British Commonwealth is a non-political economic and cultural association, seperate from whether or not the British Monarch is head of state of the member nation. India (a republic) and Pakistan (an Islamic republic) are both members.

[Kodos]

Machiavellian, power-hungry yanks (neo-cons and Hillary, basically) would probably like this, since it would put Australia a little more firmly in our orbit by default

Since Britain tends to be our most reliable foreign ally (followed by other Anglo countries who have the queen as head of state) I don't follow this logic.

[Jake Featherston]

Since Britain tends to be our most reliable foreign ally (followed by other Anglo countries who have the queen as head of state) I don't follow this logic.

You can't understand how we'd want Australia to be even more firmly in our orbit than they already are (and have been since Singapore fell to the Japanese), merely because we also have excellent relations with Britain? How odd. I really don't see what one has to do with the other.

[Captain Sharkey]

Anyone who voted "yes" either doesn't have a clue, or is some kind've shit for brained internationalist

[Kodos]

You can't understand how we'd want Australia to be even more firmly in our orbit than they already are (and have been since Singapore fell to the Japanese), merely because we also have excellent relations with Britain? How odd. I really don't see what one has to do with the other.

If they get rid of the queen they will probably move more towards the Chinese orbit.

[Jake Featherston]

If they get rid of the queen they will probably move more towards the Chinese orbit.

Yes, that too. I covered that in post #2 within this thread.

[Felix the Cat]

There are many republics in Asia which have bad relations with China. I don't think that necessarily follows.

[Jake Featherston]

There are many republics in Asia which have bad relations with China. I don't think that necessarily follows.

Australia does seem to be drifting in that direction, however.

[Алекс]

http://i17.tinypic.com/5yjtwte.png

/

'The Yellow Peril' - the other characters are Russia, France, England and Germany.

http://i6.tinypic.com/4lt7jt5.jpg

[Charlie Robespierre]

If the Chinese are going to economically consume Australia some distant regal vegetables on the other side of the world are not going to intervene....

[Jake Featherston]

If the Chinese are going to economically consume Australia some distant regal vegetables on the other side of the world are not going to intervene....

I assume that cartoon was from pre-WW2 days. Probably pre-WW1.

[Felix the Cat]

Postcards are probably German (can't make out signature). They're dated 3/05

[Hakluyt]

I think the final attainment of full nationhood for Australia is the liquidation of the monarchy. All things being equal that is. But things are most certainly not equal. Australia is tettering on the brink of social anarchy and that remote geriatric Queen of a terrorist nation, 1000's of miles seems to be the wafer thin barrier preventing the subversives from completely overwhelming Australia - not that it's too far from that point already...
Nationhood doesn't necessitate political independence. Anglo-Celt identity, whether in Australia, Canada or the UK, is a global identity that transcends superficial, utilitarian political demarcations. However, retaining a basic constitutional connexion is in our interest, and to attack those connexions is to attack that group interest.

Constitutional monarchy is also an objectively superior and more flexible form of government then democratic republicanism. If the republican movement were merely an isolationist patriotic Australian movement that wanted to be free of external influence, they would propose replacing Elizabeth with their own monarch to sit in Canberra; rather, republicans are just philistines with incorrect political views.

It should also be noted that the balance-tipping factor in another referendum would be the immigrant vote. Rural Australians on the other hand vote overwhelmingly pro-monarchy.

[Hakluyt]

It always surprised me how Australia is so far ahead of the curve than Canada in this matter. We don't even have a republican movement to begin with.

This may be just superficial, but we have American-sounding accents whereas Aussies have British-sounding accents, this makes it even more surprising and ironic. :p
Both Australia and Canada suffered from serious cultural inferiority complexes in the second half of the 20th century - ours focused on the US and Australia's on the UK. So they have been much more conscious of their similarities and differences from the UK, and a certain class has taken it upon themselves to be antagonistic and promote a pseudo-rebellious curmudgeonly national attitude.

That's not to say we don't have our republicans - John Manley, who came pretty close to a shot at PM, would have tried to do away with the monarchy. Lots of the old Alliance leaders were republicans (like I've said before, they're the only political alignment that really broadly agrees with you on this).

[Charlie Robespierre]

Nationhood doesn't necessitate political independence. Anglo-Celt identity, whether in Australia, Canada or the UK, is a global identity that transcends superficial, utilitarian political demarcations. However, retaining a basic constitutional connexion is in our interest, and to attack those connexions is to attack that group interest.

Constitutional monarchy is also an objectively superior and more flexible form of government then democratic republicanism. If the republican movement were merely an isolationist patriotic Australian movement that wanted to be free of external influence, they would propose replacing Elizabeth with their own monarch to sit in Canberra; rather, republicans are just philistines with incorrect political views.

It should also be noted that the balance-tipping factor in another referendum would be the immigrant vote. Rural Australians on the other hand vote overwhelmingly pro-monarchy.
How anyone can derive satisfaction let alone tolerate a powerless, archiac and irrelevant lollipop that resides almost exclusively on the other side of the world as the head of state of ones nation is something, that I for one, do marvel at. It curbs the PC girls I suppose..

For me, absentee monarchy is plainly a ludicrious system. Best to promote the best men, on merit, from within ones community, that have a taste for the local region and be respected as proven men of character. Ideally of course. The PC vipers, though. presently dominate Australia. I can hardly imagine their power being extended any further and given the nightmarish state of the Queen's own backyard I doubt her continued presence (or absense as the case maybe) as Australia's numero uno will have any future positive impact upon Australia's internal situation..

[Captain Sharkey]

Australians don't want a Republic. It is only worthless wog-parasite immigrant scum and the traitorous shit-for-brained internationalist liberal chardonnay socialist degenerates who imported them that want it.

[Hakluyt]

How anyone can derive satisfaction let alone tolerate a powerless, archiac and irrelevant lollipop that resides almost exclusively on the other side of the world as the head of state of ones nation is something, that I for one, do marvel at. It curbs the PC girls I suppose..

For me, absentee monarchy is plainly a ludicrious system. Best to promote the best men, on merit, from within ones community, that have a taste for the local region and be respected as proven men of character. Ideally of course. The PC vipers, though. presently dominate Australia. I can hardly imagine their power being extended any further and given the nightmarish state of the Queen's own backyard I doubt her continued presence (or absense as the case maybe) as Australia's numero uno will have any future positive impact upon Australia's internal situation..
Geography is no object, particularly in the modern context where rapid transcontinental travel has physically and conceptually altered distance. Australia is more accessible from London today than Northumberland was a few centuries ago. What you do not seem to appreciate that a Briton is a Briton wherever he happens to live, and it is his immutable right to keep allegiance to his monarch. Churlish inanities like yours offer no indictment of this very natural state of affairs.

'Merit' is a technocratic distraction that doesn't at all pertain to the selection of a head of state. A head of state should not be a bureaucrat or a politician by training; that assumption is one of the fundamental flaws engendered by the democratic republican system. Constitutional monarchy holds that the head of state is an apolitical office. The role of a monarch is to represent continuity and be a focal point for unity.

Monarchy is not 'PC' in Australia. The left consensus is quite the opposite. Further, whether or not the Queen will have any positive political impact on Australia in the near future (not something anyone has argued) lends nothing to an argument holding that she should be actively excluded from Australian life and that country's constitution put into upheaval. To defend monarchy is not to espouse it as some kind of social panacea, it is simply to defend it against those with subversive motivations, motivations that tend to be connected to a hostility toward Anglo-Saxon collectivity and aristocratism in general.

[Jake Featherston]

If the republican movement were merely an isolationist patriotic Australian movement that wanted to be free of external influence, they would propose replacing Elizabeth with their own monarch to sit in Canberra; rather, republicans are just philistines with incorrect political views.

Yeah, that's a good point. They frame the issue as one of quasi-nationalism, but if that's what its about, that goal could be most readily advanced by the elevation of a native Australian monarch.

[Jake Featherston]

The PC vipers, though. presently dominate Australia. I can hardly imagine their power being extended any further and given the nightmarish state of the Queen's own backyard I doubt her continued presence (or absense as the case maybe) as Australia's numero uno will have any future positive impact upon Australia's internal situation..

Things can always get worse.

[harjit]

Yeah, that's a good point. They frame the issue as one of quasi-nationalism, but if that's what its about, that goal could be most readily advanced by the elevation of a native Australian monarch.
Maybe they are nationalistic (or patriotic) but know realistically that the concept of an Australian monarch would be thought of as a comedic farce by the vast majority of Australians, and in fact most of the world.

This also illustrates that there are deep and fundamental differences between the old and new worlds (something I often struggle with WNs over, due to my comparatively milder opposition to nationalist movements in European countries). Just consider the concept of a King of Denmark vs. a King of Canada, this pretty much sums it up.

[Charlie Robespierre]

Geography is no object, particularly in the modern context where rapid transcontinental travel has physically and conceptually altered distance. Australia is more accessible from London today than Northumberland was a few centuries ago. What you do not seem to appreciate that a Briton is a Briton wherever he happens to live, and it is his immutable right to keep allegiance to his monarch. Churlish inanities like yours offer no indictment of this very natural state of affairs.
I haven't denied an Australians right to do anything. I'm afraid plain logic and speaking in a forthright fashion is, alas, churlish on occasion to those whom insist upon holding to certain precious illusions. If so I apologise. It's most unfortunate that the Queen does not avail of this facility for ‘convenient’ transworld locomotion more often. Perhaps then she would not split Australians so...

Right now the only argument with a whiff of validity appears to rely on some vacuous example of sentimental mysticism. Fine but your arguments of a practical nature, such as the monarchy performing in the role as a focal point for unity, obviously fails in practice. Furthermore this fine institution seems to be a lousy bulwark against the PC tidal wave...
'Merit' is a technocratic distraction that doesn't at all pertain to the selection of a head of state. A head of state should not be a bureaucrat or a politician by training; that assumption is one of the fundamental flaws engendered by the democratic republican system. Constitutional monarchy holds that the head of state is an apolitical office. The role of a monarch is to represent continuity and be a focal point for unity. .
So this is why having an absentee lollipop as head of state is better than a person of character derived from the community? The monarch there has singularly failed to perform in it's function as national conciliator, hasn’t she? She has failed to such an extent that her own very position is threatened!

Better a non-party man derived from within the national community. His pi-partsanship could be gauranteed by a compulsory commitment for such office holders to be paid generously by the state alone and that inherent in such a commitment it is forbidden that he accept any renumeration from corporate, political or private interests groups of any kind for life. Thus we would finally attain the maximum objective of bipartisanship, residency and the office holder would be a man of character..

Or perhaps one of the surplus royals could be snatched. You know, like little Edward. At least he’d a resident King of Australia and would have an opportunity to be beloved by the people and even that might have a positive impact upon Australia's internal situation and be a force with regards to the retention of traditional values..
Monarchy is not 'PC' in Australia. The left consensus is quite the opposite. Further, whether or not the Queen will have any positive political impact on Australia in the near future (not something anyone has argued) lends nothing to an argument holding that she should be actively excluded from Australian life and that country's constitution put into upheaval. To defend monarchy is not to espouse it as some kind of social panacea, it is simply to defend it against those with subversive motivations, motivations that tend to be connected to a hostility toward Anglo-Saxon collectivity and aristocratism in general.PC or not, the monarchy (quite frankly certain statements made on the Queens speech and Prinz Karl's statements i.e Islam suggest PC is not that unknown to our regal friends) or/and the “Anglo Saxon collectivity” is superb in allowing those whom most certainly are PC fundamentalists have all their own way. To such a degree that the good Frau Saxe Coburg Gotha, herself, may very well soon be surplus to requirements..

Anyway one can still be a republic and remain in the Commonwealth which is probably what will most likely be the resolution of this issue. The best that could be said for the monarchy is that it's retention is a neccesary evil, a desperate short term ploy to preserve at least the illusion that Australia isn't a politically correct theocracy but certainly the monarchy is by no means satisfactory being an inert figurehead masking a vast network of corruption..

[Felix the Cat]

Replacing one powerless figurehead with another will not achieve very much

Get rid of the monarchy and promote the prime minister to the status of president

[Charlie Robespierre]

Replacing one powerless figurehead with another will not achieve very much
The power should befit the stature of the position..
Get rid of the monarchy and promote the prime minister to the status of presidentAn elected monarchy is the best system. Prestige, merit and bipartisanship is assured presuming one excludes private interests...

[Felix the Cat]

The French system is interesting: the president controls foreign policy and the prime minister domestic policy

[Felix the Cat]

For clarity: which republican system is it proposed that the monarchy be replaced with?

[Anarch]

Replacing one powerless figurehead with another will not achieve very much

Get rid of the monarchy and promote the prime minister to the status of president

If you think the Queen, via the Govenor General, is powerless, perhaps you should check up the Whitlam crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitlam). Removing the Queen as Head of State would cause an infinite number of headaches, rewriting the constitution (and making one acceptable), and cost billions of dollars and is basically a waste of time. Not to mention it's practically guaranteed to give politicians (politicians are ghey, generally) more power.

[Jake Featherston]

Maybe they are nationalistic (or patriotic) but know realistically that the concept of an Australian monarch would be thought of as a comedic farce by the vast majority of Australians, and in fact most of the world.

This also illustrates that there are deep and fundamental differences between the old and new worlds

You are correct in that it would be very difficult to decide who should be King of Australia. No one particularly stands out in that regard, at least that I'm aware. Maybe we could make Pauline Hanson the reigning queen? LOL. If America went monarchial, Pat Buchanan would be a good choice for King, not merely because I agree with his political views, but because he is basically a living symbol of what America has been about for most of its history, and that seems like a good criterion for a reigning monarch...but his wife is barren (much like Martha Washington). On the other hand, I've always preferred the Roman five-good-emperors-tact of each Emperor/Monarch adopting a man of merit from the next generation, rather than allowing his crown & sceptre to pass via some biological line. George W. Bush is a pretty good argument against that. His father was no great leader, but he was freakin' Churchillian next to the churlish brat he sired.

[Anarch]

You are correct in that it would be very difficult to decide who should be King of Australia. No one particularly stands out in that regard, at least that I'm aware. Maybe we could make Pauline Hanson the reigning queen? LOL. If America went monarchial, Pat Buchanan would be a good choice for King, not merely because I agree with his political views, but because he is basically a living symbol of what America has been about for most of its history, and that seems like a good criterion for a reigning monarch...but his wife is barren (much like Martha Washington). On the other hand, I've always preferred the Roman five-good-emperors-tact of each Emperor/Monarch adopting a man of merit from the next generation, rather than allowing his crown & sceptre to pass via some biological line. George W. Bush is a pretty good argument against that. His father was no great leader, but he was freakin' Churchillian next to the churlish brat he sired.

If America was to have a King, that King should have been selected from your original revolutionary leaders. As it is, you have over 200 years of republican tradition not easily erased. Likewise, if Australia was to have its own monarchy, it would make more sense to adopt a son of the Windsor family or perhaps the Danish Royal family (as of late, there's Aussie blood in it) to form our own royal family - if that was to happen. Maybe.

[Kodos]

You are correct in that it would be very difficult to decide who should be King of Australia. No one particularly stands out in that regard, at least that I'm aware. Maybe we could make Pauline Hanson the reigning queen? LOL. If America went monarchial, Pat Buchanan would be a good choice for King, not merely because I agree with his political views, but because he is basically a living symbol of what America has been about for most of its history, and that seems like a good criterion for a reigning monarch...but his wife is barren (much like Martha Washington). On the other hand, I've always preferred the Roman five-good-emperors-tact of each Emperor/Monarch adopting a man of merit from the next generation, rather than allowing his crown & sceptre to pass via some biological line. George W. Bush is a pretty good argument against that. His father was no great leader, but he was freakin' Churchillian next to the churlish brat he sired.

In this impossible hypothetical...

Pat Buchanan is a religious catholic (certainly not a living symbol of Anglo Saxon American history) and not a reliably free market paleocon. My ideal choice for king among our current political class would be Tancredo, followed by Ron Paul, followed by Newt Gingrich (the GOP didn't start selling out till after they got rid of him).

Tancredo and Gingrich should adopt more properly sounding old stock Anglo Saxon names to be monarch too.

[Jake Featherston]

Newt Gingrich (the GOP didn't start selling out till after they got rid of him).

The GOP started selling out around the time they nomined Gov. Alfred C. Landon of Nebraska for President ie., 1936.

[Kodos]

The GOP started selling out around the time they nomined Gov. Alfred C. Landon of Nebraska for President ie., 1936.

If you want to talk about the original sellout, I would blame Herbert Hoover (who was disliked by Coolidge and the truely conservative GOP party bosses at the time). High school history makes him out as an ultra-conservative the way Harding and Coolidge was, he was not.

[Jake Featherston]

If you want to talk about the original sellout, I would blame Herbert Hoover (who was disliked by Coolidge and the truely conservative GOP party bosses at the time). High school history makes him out as an ultra-conservative the way Harding and Coolidge was, he was not.

Hoover's speech to the 1940 GOP convention (when he lost the nomination to Wendell L. Wilkie of Indiana) makes it clear he was in with the America Firsters, and people like Sen. Robert Taft, as opposed to the Wilkie/Dewey/Eisenhower strain of liberal Republicanism then set to erupt upon the national scene. That's more than good enough for me. Hoover lost the 1932 election because he resisted calls to pursue New Deal-style Federal relief programs, price controls, etc. The fact that some 19th century purists object to the fact that he only resisted those calls 90% of the time, instead of the full 100%, is of very little consequence.

[Kodos]

The fact that some 19th century purists object to the fact that he only resisted those calls 90% of the time, instead of the full 100%

Grant, Coolidge, Harding, Grover Cleaveland would have resisted the full 100% and would have happily accepted not being reelected to do it.

I do not consider someone who signed both the Hawley-Smoot tariff and the revenue act of 1932 to be economically conservative.

Also


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Administration_and_cabinet

The following is an outline of other actions Hoover took to try to help end the Depression through government intervention:

Signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, the nation's first Federal unemployment assistance.
Increased public works spending. Some of Hoover's efforts to stimulate the economy through public works are as follows:
Asked Congress for a $400 million increase in the Federal Building Program
Directed the Department of Commerce to establish a Division of Public Construction in December 1929
Increased subsidies for ship construction through the Federal Shipping Board
Urged the state governors to also increase their public works spending, though many failed to take any action.
Signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act establishing the Federal Home Loan Bank system to assist citizens in obtaining financing to purchase a home.
Increased subsidies to the nation's struggling farmers with the Agricultural Marketing Act; but with only limited impact.
Established the President's Emergency Relief Organization to coordinate local private relief efforts resulting in over 3,000 relief committees across the U.S.
Authorized the repatriation to Mexico of 1-2 million people living in barrios throughout California, Texas and Michigan, 60% of whom were U.S. citizens of Mexican-descent, in an effort to ease unemployment.
Urged bankers to form the National Credit Corporation to assist banks in financial trouble and protect depositors' money.
Actively encouraged businesses to maintain high wages during the Depression, in line with the philosophy, called Fordism, that high wages create prosperity. Most corporations maintained their workers' wages early in the Depression in the hope that more money into the pockets of consumers would end the economic downturn.
Signed the Reconstruction Finance Act. This act established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which made loans to the states for public works and unemployment relief. In addition, the corporation made loans to banks, railroads and agriculture credit organizations.
Raised tariffs. After hearings held by the House Ways and Means Committee generated more than 20,000 pages of testimony regarding tariff protection, Congress responded with legislation that Hoover signed despite some misgivings. Instead of protecting American jobs, the Smoot-Hawley tariff is widely blamed for setting off a worldwide trade war which only worsened the country's (and the world's) economic ills.



Before Woodrow Wilson both parties would be considered ultra conservative by modern standards, Wilson was the 1st of the liberal democrats while Hoover was the 1st of the RINOs. Ike was ultra right wing compared to that piece of shit, his big non defense government spending program was building highways which was in accordance with traditional "internal improvements" funded by the federal government.

[Jake Featherston]

[II do not consider someone who signed both the Hawley-Smoot tariff and the revenue act of 1932 to be economically conservative

The utopian ideology of free trade is one of the most anti-conservative doctrines of all time. Are you seriously suggesting that 19th century Hamiltonians who advocated the protective tariff were not conservative?

[Kodos]

The utopian ideology of free trade is one of the most anti-conservative doctrines of all time. Are you seriously suggesting that 19th century Hamiltonians who advocated the protective tariff were not conservative?

A revenue tariff is certainly preferable to an income tax, I do not believe in "protective tariffs" however. The Hawley Smoot tariff was equaled only by the "tariff of abominations" in its tariff rates (even the protectionist early republicans during a time of war didn't really support keeping it that high).

[007]

Get rid of the monarchy and promote the prime minister to the status of president

This would be extraordinarily reckless unless some constitutional safeguard is devised to replace the monarchy's function. How could a would be dictator be compelled to call an election?

[Felix the Cat]

Is South Africa still part of the British Commonwealth? I'm pretty sure they are, although between the Boer War and Apartheid, I'm almost surprised they didn't go the blarney-curry route their own darn selves.
SA left (was kicked out, basically) in the 1960s and rejoined in the 1990s

Maybe they are nationalistic (or patriotic) but know realistically that the concept of an Australian monarch would be thought of as a comedic farce by the vast majority of Australians, and in fact most of the world.

This also illustrates that there are deep and fundamental differences between the old and new worlds (something I often struggle with WNs over, due to my comparatively milder opposition to nationalist movements in European countries). Just consider the concept of a King of Denmark vs. a King of Canada, this pretty much sums it up.
This lumping together of all the nations from Russia to Portugal is not helpful or meaningful: there are more avowed republicans in Europe than in North America

Each nation needs to find its own solution to the particular constitutional/ethnic problems it faces, and this has nothing to do with geography

If you think the Queen, via the Govenor General, is powerless, perhaps you should check up the Whitlam crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitlam). Removing the Queen as Head of State would cause an infinite number of headaches, rewriting the constitution (and making one acceptable), and cost billions of dollars and is basically a waste of time. Not to mention it's practically guaranteed to give politicians (politicians are ghey, generally) more power.
The Whitlam business is critical here: you can be certain that was the last time such reserve powers will ever be used, no matter the letter of the law

The huge controversy generated by that incident caught the royal family by surprise, and made them gun-shy. If they ever intervene in Australian politics again it will trigger an instant republican revolt, and they know it.

So basically, we have a de facto powerless figurehead
For clarity: which republican system is it proposed that the monarchy be replaced with?
*bump*

This would be extraordinarily reckless unless some constitutional safeguard is devised to replace the monarchy's function. How could a would be dictator be compelled to call an election?
Most countries with presidents can have them removed from power via a simple vote of parliament

[Kodos]

This lumping together of all the nations from Russia to Portugal is not helpful or meaningful: there are more avowed republicans in Europe than in North America

Very few in the United States give a shit about democracy.

[Hakluyt]

The Whitlam business is critical here: you can be certain that was the last time such reserve powers will ever be used, no matter the letter of the law

The huge controversy generated by that incident caught the royal family by surprise, and made them gun-shy. If they ever intervene in Australian politics again it will trigger an instant republican revolt, and they know it.

So basically, we have a de facto powerless figurehead
Anarch's other point remains: the republican system gives politicians a broader mandate and more constitutional control. Why do that? Further, what is the real motivation to replace the monarch - why is it necessary to have an active, intervening executive? I'm comfortable with a constitutional monarch having reserve powers, but I don't see a powerless executive as necessarily bad either.

Maybe they are nationalistic (or patriotic) but know realistically that the concept of an Australian monarch would be thought of as a comedic farce by the vast majority of Australians, and in fact most of the world.

This also illustrates that there are deep and fundamental differences between the old and new worlds (something I often struggle with WNs over, due to my comparatively milder opposition to nationalist movements in European countries). Just consider the concept of a King of Denmark vs. a King of Canada, this pretty much sums it up.
That's probably part of their subconscious reasoning. They are culturally insecure. Since most people feel Australia (Canada even more so) is an ahistorical, open, tabula rasa nation, a figure of authority, with real temporal significance is ludicrous - comedic as you put it. This popular perception makes you comfortable as an immigrant; for Anglosaxons with a historical conscience it is shameful. No one with such insecurities is by any definition a 'patriot'.

[Felix the Cat]

Anarch's other point remains: the republican system gives politicians a broader mandate and more constitutional control. Why do that? Further, what is the real motivation to replace the monarch - why is it necessary to have an active, intervening executive? I'm comfortable with a constitutional monarch having reserve powers, but I don't see a powerless executive as necessarily bad either."Republicanism" is simply "not-monarchism", which can mean many things. This is why I haven't voted in the poll - I'd like to know the specific constitutional system Australian republicans are planning to establish after they abolish the monarchy

I assume they intend to adopt a system similar to the US?

Regarding the idea of a "figurehead" monarch - I'd prefer to see the monarchy abolished rather than have it reduced to just decorative status

[Dan Dare]

But again lovebot, if we assume that the epicentre of world civilisation is somewhere in the vicinity of the Dogger Bank, surely it is not an accident that the countries surrounding the North Sea (Germany excepted) are all constitutional monarchies.

Such a system also seems to be a very suitable, and even preferable, approach for countries emerging from a despotic period and transitioning into a liberal democracy. Spain being a case in point. A more appealing figure than Constantine might still hold the title of King of the Hellenes, and might well do do in the future. Serbia, Russia even, are also countries which it wouldn't be surprising to find making a turn in this direction, particularly if they encounter further political turbulence in the future.