This is why I am not a Republican or a Democrat, and why I will from henceforth vote for the candidate best suited to hold a given office, no matter how "fringe" or "third party" he or she may be. It is obvious to me that there is no functional difference between the Democrat and Republican parties; no matter who is elected President or to any other office, the United States government will continue to grow, abortion will remain legal, there will be no end to the federal income tax, and the false "wall of separation" between church and state will be maintained. Therefore, I will vote for the candidate who I deem most in line with true conservative values -- and if that means I'm "wasting my vote" and the Democrat wins, so be it. After all, what's the difference?
Representative government does not work well on any scale, but in a multicultural empire of three million people it can only lead to disaster. The fiasco in New Orleans is proof of the increasing inability of the federal government to respond to rapidly-changing circumstances in an effective way. If current trends continue, I predict that in time our system of government will become so corrupt and unwieldy that it will begin to lose power at its fringes, and we will have chaos -- the kind of chaos that can be ended only by the strong hand of a caudillo, an ethnic warlord, or a king.
This is why I am a monarchist: it is the only truly Christian form of government, in that it is patterned upon the Divine order of the Universe. Furthermore, monarchism is the only authentically conservative form of government, in that it is based upon a ruler deriving his just powers from God rather than the ever-fickle and highly-malleable "will of the people", and as such it has a sacramental quality that no popular government can possess. (In a true Christian monarchy, a vote by the people or the decision of a judge to allow abortion could be overruled by a simple "no".) Finally, Christian monarchs have traditionally been limited by religious oaths to their proper role under God as His governors: the protection of borders, the establishment of justice, and the preservation of the language and culture of the nation. When a monarch violates his or her oath to protect and serve the nation, he or she excommunicates himself or herself from the Church, and in so doing loses the authority to rule -- making him both a hertic in the eyes of God and a fair-game traitor in the eyes of his noble peers. This sort of check on the exercise of power has proven to be far more effective than any mere paper constitution.
"But what of tyranny?" you ask. "Surely the bloody history of monarchism shows that absolute power currupts absolutely!" But does it? What evils did any king ever commit that could rival those committed by secular, popular governments in the years since 1786? Besides, compared to the power of today's governments, no king ever possessed anything even close to absolute power. Our "representative" governments in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada have powers that would make even the mightiest medieval king look weak, and they intrude into our everyday lives in ways that would have had mobs of torch-bearing peasants in the streets in the days of Henry or Harald. I fail to see how under the current state of affairs we are any more free than our "subject" ancestors were; the IRS alone is far more cruel and powerful than George III ever could have dreamed of being, and yet we burned poor George in effigy, while both parties allow the IRS to continue to exist.
Nevertheless, the government we have is the one that God allows us, and so I will support it in every way possible until there is nothing left for me to support. I will do so by voting for the best candidate for the job in every election, regardless of his or her party affiliation. There is no such thing as a wasted vote.
In the post above, the phrase "three million people" should read "three hundred million people". I apologize for the error.
That is simply a reflection of modern tools, which are more powerful than ancient ones both in their proper and improper uses. The fact that the people weilding these powers are called "dictator" rather than "king" is meaningless.