When I first read your comment I saw it “Michael Jackson”, and I was kind of confused as to what he had to do with the whole populism thing, and how exactly he was a monarchial figure. But either way, I think it’s safe to say they both had a hand in destroying America.

But Stonewall Jackson was da bomb.

So we’re agreed. Andrew Jackson* ruined America.**

*pretty monarchical guy though
**as a bonus, with my first comment comes a big thumbs up to the treatise and an even bigger pat on the back to the whole blog

The short answer is just that people get tired of the same person. Even Churchill was ousted in 1945 (he left office before V-J day). In America, at least, we’ve got a very anti-dynastic streak. Why that is, I can’t say without rambling, but we just get tired of the same people in power. That’s why power shifts so often from one party to the other.

In times of distress, people would rather follow one of their own, even if they don’t agree with him/her than succumb to the other. That’s why approval ratings generally jump after disasters and at the beginning of wars.

But by the same reasoning, I’d also have to say that arranged marriages are more Biblical than any other options, and I not even gonna TOUCH that.

But as to the serious comments: I agree with you. I’m down with our system having it’s flaws, because I think that the checks/balances are effective in some ways to keep corruption to a minimum. But what you said about kingly presidents I find to be more support for monarchy being if not the superior form of government, at least the natural form of government. I agree with what you said in a earlier comment about how people WANT a leader, who they can love and fear and respect and get behind–who they can follow. So that to me is the problem with our system: in a normal situation at least half the country hates our leader, or if hate is too strong of a word, at least they don’t follow him. What we see in times of distress when a charismatic, capable leader rises up and gains the support of nearly all the people, you get a king-like figure. So I say why don’t we just have a king in the first place?

But I mean, I realize that there will always be dissension, especially as you mentioned in this day of high education/literacy/information. So you’re probably right that a true monarchy wouldn’t work.

I think the world has changed too much for truly autocratic rule to be possible. Any time there is widespread literacy and a little freedom of information, the people call for democracy. For many countries, it’s only a matter of time. Even China’s day is coming.

In some ways, my peace with Representative government is that it is imperfect. I love all the little kinks and idiosyncrasies of the American system. I love looking at how our system has evolved. We take it for granted, I think. Every once in a while, the people elect a Lincoln (it’s telling that the statue at the Lincoln Memorial has Lincoln seated at a throne). I don’t know whether America has the best system in the world, but it has worked this long.

I don’t know if I agree that monarchy is the biblical model of human government. I don’t have much evidence to support it, really, but God only gave the people a monarch when they begged for one. Monarchy was just the context they had to work in. Except for Classical Greece and Early Rome, representative governments were unheard of. In another universe, the Israelites might have called for democracy, and God probably would have given it to them. When the Kingdom comes, it will be God as King, and all us below Him, but God is the only possible true and perfect ruler. I still plead inconclusive on the Bible’s model for government. I just don’t think God concerned Himself much with how we rule ourselves. He probably sees it as pretty redundant, anyways.

I don’t think the way you described representation is the way I intended to describe it in my post… if you were trying to make the comparison.