Historical April–May 2013 article. Dates, prices, services and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
I’ve been amazed at the number of folks who’ve responded to the idea that I floated in my last column. No, I’m not referring to reducing global warming by having the airconditioners in our cars turned to high and driving around with the windows open. no, it wasn’t about my recommendation that the City and County merge. What tickled people’s fancies was my suggestion that we move to a monarchy as a form of governance.
In case your short-term memory is gone as a result of too many M&Ms or fried baloney (or, better still, due to too many M&Ms mixed with fried baloney), here was my thinking.
While anointing Queen Oprah was my suggestion, my motivation was less about her, eminently qualified as she might be, and more about the effectiveness of a monarchy. Yep, effectiveness is what I’m seeking, a way to solve the problems that continue to smack us in the face. Everything is relative here folks – if we go back far enough in the family tree, after all, you and I are likely cousins – so “effectiveness” is based on comparing the problemsolving capacities of a monarchy to our current form of democracy. Don’t get me wrong.
I like to vote as much as the next person.
I regularly trek to the corner of Washington and Skinker to cast my ballot, even when the actual decision is a done-deal before Election Day (as was recently the case). Further, I appreciate what democracy has to offer.
The idea that we all have an equal say (not just those white, male, propertyowners) is cool beans. Thousands have died for our right to vote, going back the Battle of Lexington in 1775. And millions upon millions have envied our democracy, not only that people decide who will be their leaders, but that we have the ability to purge ourselves of miscreants and fools. Think Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, and George W. Bush (oh well, purging two out of three isn’t bad).
But there’s a time and place for everything, and I question whether this is still the time and place for democracy. “Why?” you no doubt wonder! Hey, look at congress and ask “Is this working?” Helloooo?
The answer is a resounding no, it’s not working. Think sequester, buster.
The recent tap dance – make that dances — on the edge of the fiscal cliff made this very obvious, but this is only the last act of a long-running play. For too many years congress has lived outside its budget (which, of course, is really our budget) and too many congress-people lack the ability to play well with others. Problems aren’t solved; they’re debated and avoided.
It wasn’t always this way.
The give and take, back and forth, ying and yang which escape us now have actually served us reasonably well in the past.
As Evita Peron said, “politics is the art of compromise” (or was it Juan?).
As illustrated by James Surowiecki in his book, The Wisdom of Crowds, groups often arrive at wiser decisions than any of us do when working alone. There’s a lot to be said for disparate voices coming together in the dome to discuss and decide. Our country’s diversity should cause us to make better decisions when our representatives come together.
But that’s only when they come together, when it works. And it hasn’t been working lately. Author of the political column, Fivethirtyeight, Nate Silver pointed out that the number of our congressional representatives who come from safe seats — “landslide districts” he calls them – has doubled since 1992. That is, their territories lean heavily either to the left or right; they’re strongly red or blue. Deep blue Skinker-DeBaliviere is an example of this.
It means that the people we elect simply need to only play to the priorities of their constituency, deep red or deep blue, in order to be re-elected. There’s no motivation for them to reach across the aisle and work with folks who view the world through a slightly different hue. Indeed, since the first priority of an elected official is to be re-elected, there’s every incentive for a blue or red rep to play just to their constituent base whether or not problems are solved.
Most of our politicians don’t have the courage to do the right thing if it will cost them a vote, and the Internet has exacerbated that tendency.
But kings and queens don’t have that problem! Yep, I think it’s time for us to return to a monarchy.
With no elections facing them, our kings and queens could simply make the right decision.
They wouldn’t have to worry about voters or being recalled, so could do what’s right regardless of the political cost.
I have no doubt that within the first 30 days of putting on the i-Pad crown, a king would tax the wealthy more heavily, decree a surcharge on carbon emissions, and combine St. Louis City and County.
A queen would raise age eligibility for social security (we are living longer, you know), bar the American League from using a designated hitter, and withdraw our armed forces from combat zones. Plus, imagine how cool it would be to have coronations and Golden Jubilees to celebrate! Think of all the cool t-shirts featuring our royal family.
I realize that the idea of being led by a king or queen will strike some traditionalists as not very American. OK, then, what if we compromise? How about electing the king or queen, and simply doing away with congress? Think of the money we’d save by not having all of those representatives and senators! I’m sure that Disney could convert Capitol Building to become a theme-park.
The Supreme Court building could be turned into a B&B.
To be fair, my highly logical plan has a flaw. Who becomes king or queen is the key to effectiveness. Would you want Newt Gingrich as king or Nancy Pelosi as queen? Nah, me neither.
I think we need to step outside of the box and be creative. Who’s a problemsolver? What background would be good preparation for leading the country?
My three candidates for royalty would be Walt Disney, Rosa Parks, and Steve Jobs. Sure, the fact that they’re all dead makes it a bit harder for them to rule, so view these people as paradigms, examples of the kind of thinking we need. OK, what do you think? Who would you suggest? Any volunteers for the royal robes?
Originally published in The Times of Skinker-DeBaliviere, April–May 2013.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times2013_04.pdf, printed page(s) 8; PDF page(s) 8.
