No divine right monarchist has ever been more mystical and unscientific
about Royal Blood than republicans are about Elections and Public
Opinion.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Monarchist Thought of the Day
Why do so many people believe that winning an election is more
indicative of "merit" than hereditary succession? Where is the evidence
for this widespread belief? And why should anyone have more confidence
in the wisdom of the electorate, who just happened to be born in the
right place and time and didn't do anything to be qualified to vote
other than be 18 or older, than in that of one person, who just happened
to be born in the right place and time and didn't do anything to get into the royal family? An
individual might be good and wise, or he might not. A majority of the
public? Far less likely. And the sort of person who wants and seeks the
highest office in the land--something dictators and elected presidents
have in common, though their means differ--is precisely the last sort of
person who should be entrusted with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Now, now, Theodore. There you go applying logic and reason to the Mysteries of the Republic.
You must realize how double-plus-ungood such thought is.
:)
I argued something similar, sir, a few years ago against a republican who had said the Queen had no authority.
I.e., I said the electors had no authority. Where would it come from?
I was then told that I argued like a five-year-old.
As H.L. Mencken said, democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
Post a Comment