Earlier this week the final testament of beheaded French King Louis XVI was recovered. The testement, "The Declaration to all the French" was written in 1791 immediately before he fled Versailles to escape the dangers of the French Revolution. By this time the Revolution was in full swing, and Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette were caught as they fled. The legend says that a guard captured the King by recognizing his image in some French currency. However, this legend could simply have been fabricated to indicate how the King's excesses and incompetence would lead to his downfall. Eventually, Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette both stood trial and were both found guilty of treason and were executed via guillotine. With the execution of the monarchy, the revolution continued and eventually democracy was born in France. Additionally, Louis XVI's final plea to the French people in "The Declaration to all the French" fell on deaf ears to then disappear for over a hundred years. Despite not having read the entire 16-page manuscript, it has not been put on public display, yet all accounts have indicated that Louis XVI felt he should remain as the absolute ruler of France, but also understands that some changes must occur to improve the quality of life for all French people. This scenario rings true for today.
The obvious scenario could be the Obama vs Cheney battle that unfolded during the past week. A simple case of out with the old and in with the new, yet the old is reluctant to leave. I get that, yet there is more. This battle is not a personal one nor a principled one. It is a practical one. This is not a who will win Obama or Cheney scenario. This is not who will get the upper hand, the Democrats or Republicans situation. This is a battle about how the public wants to be governed. Just like the French were not battling the monarchy nor the idea of the monarchy, but instead the actions of the monarchy, this battle is one in the same. This past week has been a case of monarchy vs. democracy and to a larger extent it has been a debate about how to structure the democracy. Would a Presidential democracy be better or worse than a Parliamentary democracy has become the new question.
As all pundits acknowledge elections are evaluations on the current administration. Do we want more of the same? This last presidential election, and the congressional elections of 2006 were both more indictments than evaluations of the Bush Administration due to the severity of the objection, and the objections continue. Currently, the news cycle focuses about half of its time on the actions of the Bush Administration and that should show to all the severity of their actions. We currently have enough to focus on, so the prospect of reliving the past should be last on everyone's list, yet it must remain on the list due to the severity of past actions. Due to the number and the severity of the actions I must assume that there must have been a practical difference in how the past and the present feel a government should be run. Thus far it appears that the past feels that a monarchy is far superior to all alternatives.
The Bush Administration cloaked itself in secrecy and classified documents all under the guise of serving the President, but the legality of these actions would only last so long. They would only last as long as the chief law enforcement officer, the attorney general, followed all the commander in chiefs commands. Those days would end with the end of the Bush Administration. A democracy that believes in transparency would not have acted in a similar fashion. They would expect punishment for conducting torture and politically motivated firings, yet these guys and especially Dick Cheney seem surprised about the current turn of events. This makes sense because all monarchies appear surprised and frustrated when they have diminished power and could possibly face punishment for acts they committed under their reign. Under their rule, their acts are their rights, and all their acts are right. Thus the notion of being punished for doing these acts seems absurd. I understand this logic, and this is what we are faced with.
We are dealing with a democracy, that is not set on how they want to govern, being forced to relate peacefully with a monarchy. This is entertaining, yet annoying. The old axiom goes that democracies relate better with one another than they would otherwise with different types of government. I never bought into that belief, but instead feel that countries or parties with known objectives can relate better with each other. This is on display now. Dick Cheney has an obvious objective. He wants to stay out of trouble. To stay out of trouble he either must make his illegal actions legal, or regain power. So far he has proclaimed that his methods of torture worked by saving American lives and therefore are legal, and he has criticized the President with every chance he has gotten. His motives are plain for all to see. The motives of the Administration and the Democrats is much vaguer, and that causes the problem. They do not know how the want to govern.
In my opinion we just left eight years of monarchy-esque rule, and now we need to counter the secrecy, efficiency, and destruction of the past administration with equal force. However, I do not think our traditional Presidential form of government would do the trick. It takes too much time to get anything done, and while that can be very good this is not that time. The government needs to be efficient, transparent, and productive. In my eyes that screams Parliamentary. The President needs to be much more like a Prime Minister in that he runs the entire show, yet this is a show where everyone gets free admission. We all get to see, and we all get have opinions. We can even call an end to the show prematurely if we want just like they do in actual parliaments. We can end the efficiency, and the influence of Obama's presidency simply by having Congress behave in a similar fashion to their present one. They can vote down promises the President made during his election. Promises that helped him get elected. They can continue to act with the folly of the current GOP by believing that it would be better to keep Guantanamo Bay Prison open then to transport the prisoners to maximum security prisons in the United States. This is the act of a party that is unsure as to how they want to govern, and this is to the detriment of all Americans. I vote for Parliamentary, and considering that most countries that had or have monarchies use this system, I would feel that its track record would bode well for our future and our stability.
I could go one for days about what I feel the government should do, but The Sunday Siris about the week that was, so I will refrain. Thus after Louis XVI wrote "French people and above all Parisians... return to your king, He will always be your father, your best friend." we must remember that he was caught by the people as he attempted to flee. He was caught because he represented a time of excess and incompetence that no longer benefitted the French. The Kings rightful acts had now become treasonous in the eyes of the people, so the people acted. Essentially, I am growing tired of Dick Cheney's 'declarations' and Congress' in ability to see the benefit of acting more like a parliament. Yet at the end of the day, it is the role of the people to decide how they want to be governed. We as American's need to know what we want, and we need to admit that that will require tough decisions. Otherwise the government will continue to not govern in our favor.
Long Live the Republic.
That was the week in my eyes, and this was your Sunday Sir.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 3:50PM 
