How American Monarchy Would Have Worked

Alexander Hamilton had a plan to make America be ruled by kings in a monarchy system of government - with a catch.
Join this channel to get access to special perks and support our mission:
/ @thinkingwest

[@gorgeousgentleman5390]

United Empire of America (UEA)

[@Strombolini]

United American Empire (UAE)

[@iagoofdraiggwyn98]

​@@StromboliniThis already exists as an acronym.

[@KameroonEmperor]

​@@iagoofdraiggwyn98you're so smart

[@lukepensabene6086]

We’re already an empire

[@nelson5953]

​@@lukepensabene6086 *A pseudo-empire. While America doesn't directly subject people, it does sell weapons, export culture(sometimes unwillingly), and indirectly supports coup's. The only difference is that it doesn't call itself an empire, nor does it have an emperor.

[@andrewlenfest7548]

You get to vote for your prefered monarc while in reality the only options on a ballet are the same handful of families all controled by the same people. Hey, wait a minute

[@PatchyConvert]

[Insert meme here.]

[@arijitbasu6113]

Same as modern America

[@danielellis4749]

Didn't the US evolve into something akin to an elected monarchy? Certainly at first, the House dominated politics with Presidents being in a more management role. E.g., President Jefferson thought that maybe it was beyond his authority to do the Louisianna purchase. But, given the Civil War, presidents became much stronger, led congressional efforts, and began issuing more and more executive orders. Currently, unilateral actions by presidents have bypassed the legislature entirely. Those include foregiving student debt and declining to enforce laws that are disagreeable to the executive.

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

The problem for a short time US had leaped from the First Citizen to the Domine,

[@fusion9619]

My student debt wasn't forgiven. Not that I wanted it to be... But they emailed me regularly for a couple of years, then in the end just said they can't but they're "fighting for you!" It's just annoying. Do it or don't do it, just quit the BS.

[@MatthewRX]

God forbid any politician or president forgive student loan debt….how abhorrent.

[@williamcrawford7621]

John Adams pointed out that the current President was already more owerful than many historical monarchs, like those of Sparta and Poland. The only distinguishing feature is that the President is elected (although many monarchs were too, like the Kings of Poland), impeachable, and only held his executive power for a term of years. Personally, I think electing for a life term would be preferable because the President would operate with a longer time preference and maybe our government wouldn't degrade itself to such short term thinking.

[@alifkazeryu8228]

I'm also in favor of life term. before 2016, we're rather friendly with chinese. after that, it's not. good thing after 2020 we're not that friendly toward china, thus at least provide some consistency. but that's exactly why I'm in favor of life term! at least the policy would be somewhat consistent.

[@thalmoragent9344]

Overall, the Monarchy would've been great for America tbh

[@lecavaliere]

its a so simple question, with the kings we are united, with politicians we are divided...

[@fusion9619]

Why is it better to be united?

[@TheRyujinLP]

@@fusion9619 Take a look around you, this is what a divide nation looks like.

[@Dragblacker]

Are the current monarchies of the world united?

[@lecavaliere]

@@fusion9619 why its better to be divided?

[@lecavaliere]

@@Dragblacker when i said kings i just wanna says kings and queens…

[@BoromirsonofDenethor]

The short democratic cycle is a weakness of the executive for sure. Why not have a 10 year term for example? Or why not get rid of the two term limit? Doesn't have to be for life... The Polish monarchy was also famously elective and ended infamously. If a narrow elite ellects the president they will choose a weak one. If all citizens vote, there's a better chance of a good president being chosen.

[@buddyfats4768]

@@BoromirsonofDenethor what makes you think all the citizens wouldn't also pick a weak president? I mean we are seeing in real time, citizens being unable to elect a president that serves our interests.

[@ladahieno2382]

wow wow wow, I like what you're getting at here but Polish Elective Monarchy ended poorly not due to it being an elective monarchy but because of a very specific Polis political and societal structure, influenced by our history and culture.

[@BoromirsonofDenethor]

@@buddyfats4768 Sure, there are no guarantees in life ;) I just meant that in Poland the peasants didn't get to vote that's all... That means their interests were represented only in a roundabout way by other classes and institutions - not ideal.

[@BoromirsonofDenethor]

@@ladahieno2382 I agree that the Poles were too decentralised and were gutted because of it by smaller Sweeden. They just didn't get the balance right. It's sad really: if only they had had majority voting instead of consensus voting in the parliament, much could've been different. They could've voted for a standing army that could've saved them... Who knows.

[@buddyfats4768]

@@BoromirsonofDenethor The church was an effective advocate for the poor peaseants. But just like how in the United States only landowners were able to vote is because it's about only allowing those who have a stake invested in the society as well as those who have shown intelligence and competency to vote. Letting anyone vote is a terrible idea and exactly why things are so bad in the West now.

[@DominicJGomez]

Simple, people vote for their state representatives and the state representatives vote for the monarch

[@buddyfats4768]

Yes we should have been an elective monarchy, but it could never work today with universal suffrage.

[@CedarHunt]

Nah we're good with our current system

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

Knowing monarchies, it might've prevented universal suffrage.

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

We are not 'good' with the current system. It's quite dysfunctional.

[@CedarHunt]

@@ThatMans-anAnimal Just because the system isn't obeying your whims doesn't mean it is dysfunctional. The system is working as intended, which is far better than any monarchy anywhere in the world at any time in human history.

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

You've subscribed to a very peculiar (Whig) historiography, which is the present system's propaganda. We do not live in a democracy. We live in an oligarchy. It's not a personal gripe I have about what the people have chosen, since they merely defer to the credentialed class. I'm merely observing system dynamics. This was never pitched by the founders as the perfect system, it was a grand experiment. Ancestor worship and extreme conservatism only serves the interests of an oligarchy which has already stopped observing the constitution in favor of a new one, civil rights law, which overrides the old one. We live under a social-liberal, bureaucratically-managed system which hasn't had a powerful executive since FDR set the system up in the 1930's. The prestigious institutions, the Ivy League schools, along with federal agencies like the CDC, control what the demos (the people) must accept as truth. Over the past century of living under this system, we have seen that our elected leaders are not in control of the unelected bureaucrats (often falled "the deepstate", in actuality they are the Senior Executive Service). This means the people are not in control. We are consistently told that we are 'voting the wrong way' if we elect the managerial class' undesired candidate. With a controlled (not free) press, the managerial class simply manufactures consent. If what I'm describing sounds like a degenerated aristocracy (defined as an oligarchy, or rule by the rich), then that's because that is what it is. It can choose to describe itaelf as a democracy, but that would make it a performative cargo cult democracy, aping the gestures without any of the substance.

[@BarbershopBytes-ox3dr]

I love Hamiltons Elective monarchy proposal , with some slight changes. Think the governors should be elected not appointed for twelve year terms no reelection. Only former governors and senators are eligible for Presidency / Monarch position. Senators serve only three year terms and only three terms per lifetime.

[@MatthewRX]

A US politician promoting the best interests of the country? The framers of the constitution would be appalled by the current state of this country and the fact that the only thing our politicians promotes is their own self interests. What they’d be even more shocked by is the overall complacency of the population and the fact that we’ve stopped holding our politicians accountable.

[@ZombiePigman642]

Better than what we have today.

[@BrianJosephMorgan]

Much preferable to what we have.

[@fusion9619]

"voted down in favor of the presidential system it (the US) has today." Definitely not. What we have now is much closer to monarchy than the founders wanted. States' rights are basically forgotten at this point. And I've personally sat in a political science lecture where the renowned professor said unironically that the Constitution is not a legal document.

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

Its more akin to an absolute monarch or the Imperator of Rome both of which were autocratic, than a medieval monarch whose powers were kept in check by other nobles, family members and the church, similar to crowned republics pre-modern Roman Republic, as most medieval king were more servants of the nation and the people rather than governmental authorities,

[@fusion9619]

@@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723 hey, nice to meet someone who knows that. Kings served and tyrants were rare. I've heard a real life prince say that the king's job is to protect the people from the government.

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

@@fusion9619 The Reinesance and the Enlightenment allowed the rise of absolute monarchs, perhaps none so great and vain as Louis the XIV, the Sun King, King of France who set in motion the fall of his dynasty

[@fusion9619]

@@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723 I guess I was mistaken

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

@@fusion9619 The thing is you can be a competent tyrant or benevolent dictator, Sula, Caesar, Octavian, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Severus, Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantius, Constantine I, Justin I, Justinian, Heraclius, Napoleon Bonaparte, but does not mean you should because when you create a Empire you greatest strive will be keeping it and the legacy falls down to your heirs, which many of them can be "inept" shall w say and this case we get, Caligula, Caracela, this creates problems after problems, Feudalism, as in kingdoms, is at its best, a temporary solution that can for a certain number of years even centuries work, as nations care more about their homelands ana themselves rather than others, this is why the principle ideals of kingship differ from an Emperor, a king can talk to other kings, Emperors believe in absolutism, which is very dangerous, look at America, Russia and China, you have an imperial court with its industrial & banker oligarchs, but also their political senior regional governors or magisters, if their leader dies they have to elect a new one or they face self-annihilation, 2 of these at the very least, America, for now, is in its struggling Republic days, as long as neither Sula or Caesar march on DC things are fine, Europe right now is still in its interregnum, a second Dark Age, after the death of Charlemagne, hunting the people is not the same as grabbing power, one does it out of true love and duty while the other does out pride and ambition,

[@Colton-el4mp]

I actually believe an electoral monarchy would do well in my home country, Canada. We have large flaws in our federal government as the intended check and balance for our Prime Minister (PM) is the British Monarchy which is now in practice an absentee head of state. The system I've thought of would take influence from both European parliments and the US senate. As follows: - The House of Commons (HoC) would better represent the nation as a whole by implimenting an electoral system other than First-Past-the-Post (I'm a fan of mixed-member proportionality) so that Parliment more accurately reflects the wills of all Canadians. From there the PM will be elected in Parliment. The PM will choose their candidate for Monarch (explained further below) to act as Head of State while the PM acts as the Head of Government. Multiple PM candidates can choose the same candidate for Monarch. - The Senate will be formed in the style of the US senate in which provinces and territories are given equal power regardless of population. Senators will be chosen to represent each province/territory by their respective legislatures. The Senators can be any Canadian citizen so long as they reside within the province they represent. Now for the interesting part: the Senators must confirm the Monarch for their position else the PM has to find someone else. This way it ensure the country is being led by someone that is, at least in theory, accepted by both the nation and large AND the individual provinces. - The Monarch can be any Canadian citizen and can theoretically serve without term limits so long as they retain the confidence of both the Senate and the HoC (note: if the Senate loses confidence in the Monarch the PM must find someone else, but if the HoC loses confidence in the Monarch it will be seen as a lack of confidence in the PM as well, triggering a federal election). The Monarch shall have the typical powers of the current British Monarchy over Canada, alongside assuming the majority of foreign relations from the PM.

[@Classical.Conservative]

This would have been the ideal system for America

[@Caesar-Americanus]

I would change the title to Lord Commander in Chief

[@ThatOneManWhoLaughsInBritish]

"Rule America, America orders the states. Americans never ever ever shall be infringed" ahh video

[@zaktan7197]

What about the idea of an elected monarch being the head of state while the president would be the head of government? Arguably, foreign policy should take the long view while domestic policy should be more accountable to the people. It would also basically be a bicameral executive. Just spitballing ideas, cool channel.

[@prodigalsonposts]

I just want a tempered monarchy in America

[@ryryb447]

Personally, and observationally, I believe the current system of government is insufficient in review of modern technological and scientific advancements. As such, it is imperative, and especially based on recent scandals and polarization of politics, that we have a unifying front serving as the crown of the people. This crown being elected is ideal, but to be given greater authority in order to enact governance which otherwise moves at a snails pace and ultimately does not serve to truly help the people. A Monarch could expedite these changes and make them law way faster due to a greater degree of power held. However, he or she can also do great harm or work to warp the system into something more benefitting to themselves. It would be a potentially glorious or detrimental change for sure. To me, the question is - are we bad enough where we need to change to this now? I think the answer is yes. I think we need a Monarch and we need what comes with one - Order, Discipline, and Prosperity for all. I support American Monarchism. It must, however, not reflect one particular political agenda, as a crown would be placed upon the head of he/she who represents all people of this nation. I also would hope for changes to be made to the entire body of government and constitution. Out with the old; in with the new!

[@NationalMutualist]

Yes, we should’ve been an elective monarchy, not only would our head of state be more beautiful and majestic, but also would’ve changed the world as elective monarchies would’ve replaced their hereditary predecessors instead of monarchy being completely abolished by republicans. So I agree with Hamilton here.

[@Mr_Namekian858]

What's the name of the picture at 2:50?

[@AmericanImperium1776]

Who here thinks we should remove Executive term limits (or at least have the Executive be a term of Ten years and upon reaching the term’s end a referendum to determine if he stays or not) and place limits on Congress? Also, have it be that only those who have taken a test demonstrating knowledge of American politics and history should be allowed to vote in this referendum. 👇🏻

[@CedarHunt]

Nope

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

That would eliminate numerous perverse incentives evident in the present system.

[@AmericanImperium1776]

@@ThatMans-anAnimal That's the idea.

[@MatthewRX]

Uh no…not in the current climate at least and not until we start holding our elected officials at all levels of government accountable for their actions

[@truetory6231]

This is a bad idea. As a staunch monarchist, I generally support the restoration of all the traditional monarchies overthrown in Europe, Asia and Africa. However I also firmly believe that the USA is the one country where monarchy does not belong. I say, let America keep its republic my only problem is that they spread thier republicanism everywhere else when they should have kept it to themselves.

[@MichaelDeutschman]

Completely disagree. Modern republics and democracies have proven to be catastrophic no matter the continent.

[@fusion9619]

America could be a patchwork of small monarchies if we just actually had property rights and you could keep your land and give it to your kids. But we don't have property rights, instead we have socialism pretending democracy isn't socialism - it's really a franchise of theft.

[@comtedlillie26]

Why is the USA the only country thats unworthy to have a Monarchy? We’ve been a Republic for 200 years and is already declining. The Republican system does not work, even the Ancient Republics were crowned Republics, none were like us.

[@truetory6231]

@@MichaelDeutschman you have a point, republicanism is indeed a failure however given America's culture I consider them a lost cause which is why they are the one country I don't think monarchy would work in....that's the American exceptionalism I believe in. Monarchy should be everywhere else but not there, let them rot alone in thier republican despair.

[@banana_bread_at_work]

Based

[@SebastianX1.9]

It was a terrible argument, and I'm very sympathetic to his economic nationalism - but appointing state governors is an abomination that would have abolished the federalist system and turned us into the present centralized totalitarianism from the start. We would have been some kind of English speaking Russia with arbitrary, autocratic government. Hamilton was a good economic thinker and real patriot but fundamentally wrong. PS. Great video, thanks for posting.

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

It seems that power tends to concentrate over the years, regardless of whatever man-made contrivance stands in its way. Shouldn't we build a system with an acceptance of such inevitabilities?

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

If you're passive-aggressively speaking of me, I will reiterate my point from the other thread you must've followed me from is that the US is converging on Chinese state capitalism (totalitarianism), not that it already has. I said it was an oligarchy and not a democracy. I am not being insincere.

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

My apologies then, I suppose I was being a little paranoid. Thank you for your response, sir, and godspeed.

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

I guess I forgot what the original post actually said, oops. My mistake seems obvious. How embarrassing.

[@foundationofBritain]

America ought to have just stuck with England and have been federated in to a Dominion like that of Canada and Australia. Most of the problems in the core Anglosphere doth emanate from the United States, all that GAEness is just exported to the rest of us Anglos and it makes us sick and weak.

[@CedarHunt]

Hahahaha, no

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

You've been listening to a lot of Academic Agent, haven't you? He's an Iranian propagandist, you know?

[@isoldam]

The innocent UK. Nothing bad ever came out of that nation. Oh, please, give me a break.

[@Dragblacker]

@@ThatMans-anAnimal He is? Is he now one of those "Christian Revivalists" who thinks Muslims and Christians should join forces against "Clown World of the banksters, et al"?

[@brianSalem541]

All hail King Donald the First! All kneel and kiss the royal ring.

[@asagv]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It would have been a terrible system of elected tyrant

[@ЖудаМ]

So basically the current day America lmao

[@CedarHunt]

What good intentions? Monarchy is just stupid

[@daggh1]

Oy vey!

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

@daggh1 Hamilton was half-Jewish.

[@buddyfats4768]

​@@ThatMans-anAnimalwhere is your evidence for that?

[@n4ughty_knight]

Sounds like democracy with extra steps

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

Sounds like you never read any political science, like Aristotle.

[@n4ughty_knight]

@@ThatMans-anAnimal Sounds like you want to pick a fight

[@ThatMans-anAnimal]

What we have now, "liberal democracy," is oligarchy, not democracy. Monarchy is not democracy. According to Aristotle, there's three modes of government, the abovementioned three.

[@mozartwa1]

an elective monarchy exists today - in the Vatican, which is now effectively ruled by a regent who has money... And this regent's name is Putin)) is such a monarchy and such a state good? Hamilton was a military man... and if the military had brains they would be philosophers))

[@TheMacDonald22]

You think the Vatican is controlled by Putin? I've never heard that one before. You sure you're not thinking of the Eastern orthodox church?

[@CedarHunt]

It was a ridiculous and backward idea if there ever was one. Monarchy is a categoric failure. That is why it has been abolished and replaced practically everywhere.

[@linin3288]

If monarchy is a failure how did it manage to preserve itself for thousands upon thousands of years.

[@RoniiNN]

Okay commie

[@CedarHunt]

@@linin3288 By being the only option. The moment an alternative and superior system came along, it was thrown away.

[@linin3288]

@@CedarHunt This really plays into modern humans complete misunderstanding of history to believe that all ancient humans were complete idiots,so according to you not one system throughout thousands of years throughout all civilizations was devised that would be an improvement of monarchy,or would replace monarchy and when it did in very few cases only relatively late in history(in Athens and Rome)it immediately got blotted out and it was only untill the enlightenment that humans became smart and revolted against tradition.This opinion,I am sorry to break it to you is complete anti-historical crap.

[@CedarHunt]

@@linin3288 Facts are facts. The Enlightenment is called that for a reason: we stopped being backward and ignorant and created a superior way of life. One that has erased the previous systems of "government", if such a grand term can be applied to such primitive systems, almost entirely. Virtually the entire world sees this reality. What is your excuse?