Polls routinely show that a majority of Americans oppose amnesty for illegal aliens and support greater restrictions on immigration. And yet both parties remain essentially committed to open borders. This does not look like "accountability" to me.
What about Americans who oppose both abortion and an aggressive foreign policy, or who are against affirmative action but also believe in environmental protection? Our system effectively disenfranchises them. Anyone whose views do not fit neatly into either the Democratic or Republican categories has no way of effectively making his rulers "answerable" to him without compromising on essential principles.
I'd rather have a head of state who no one chose than a head of state who others voted for but I did not.
Yes he does. He can work to convince a majority of Americans to his views. Or, do you assume that other Americans should just roll over because you are "enlightened"?
I'd rather have a head of state who no one chose than a head of state who others voted for but I did not.
You would, in essence, prefer a tyranny, as long as that tyrant agreed with you.
You have very intelligently elucidated the very real cause for the Catholic Monarchial state, and the sad disapperance of it thanks to American Imperialism in WWI, etc.
You comment about having a non elected king as sovereign is quite spot on.
One more very important point: in a monarchy there is no such thing as "politics" for the average man. He only needs to kn0ow one thing: "God save our Christian King!". Politics did not exists for the masses - and to a very great extent this was a good thing. Great things were left for great men to decide - and a king, historically, had to rule with equity. It was his duty, and what he was rasied to do. The state/monarch was to protect the comman man, so that he need only concern himself about living his life.....not how to fund mass transit! That was the job of hte king.
Since the dissolution of Western Monarachies over the past century man has experienced nothing but war and political madness and instability. to change the government every few years (i.e. US, Israel) is sheer madness. It by itself does nothing to contriubute to political stability, and peace of mind for the citizen.
A simple reality check would assure any American that his opinion does not count, and that there really is no such thing as representative government (at least not as it functions here at present).
Regardless of any good an noble intentions in the US Constitution, real political power is very far removed from the average man - he truly has no redress of greivances; merely the very flimsy apperance of the same.
The king - like a US President or any leader - only governed because the will of Christ allowed him to. No man has power, except it is allowed by Christ. The difference is that a king - unlike a US President - is crrowned by a bishop (or the Pope in former times), and pledges his service to his nation by an oath to Almighty God, ackknowledging that his power comes from above.
Maybe we could have Teddy Kennedy king. After all, he is a member of a prominent "Catholic" family that the media have certainly made into an aristocracy. Yeah, that's just the ticket for our "Catholic morachy"! He can pronounce on his royal throne, "We are personally against abortion, but ..."