Pobjie: Republicanism, like suicide and Peter Garrett, solves nothing
|
We all go through phases in life. The rebellious phase, the gambling addict phase, the Catholic phase. And I am no different, for I did, in my youth, go through — and I am not at all proud of this — a republican phase. Yes, as embarrassing as it is to admit it, there was a time when I bought into the republican propaganda. When I would go about yelling bizarre, incomprehensible slogans such as “cut the apron strings”, and use the word “plebiscite” in ordinary conversation without the slightest provocation. Looking back on it now, I feel like such a fool. Because recent events have brought home to me just how dangerous republicanism can be, and how close this nation came to catastrophe. Back in the heyday of republicanism, when the air was abuzz with talk of direct and indirect election models, and Malcolm Turnbull had yet to pledge his allegiance to the Eater of Souls, there was a very real chance that Australia might abandon its time-tested monarchy and embark on the insane anarchic goose chase that is a republic. What a close shave we had. Imagine if we had voted yes, and therefore received the news of Prince William’s engagement as a republic! Imagine how hollow we would feel, how unfulfilled and left out. Like a lesbian at a high-school formal, we would have found ourselves watching from the sidelines, longing to join the party but unable to partake in the festivities due to our foolish, left-wing lifestyle choices. Thankfully, having retained our monarchy, we were able to celebrate the wonderful news of the handsome young prince’s impending nuptials with full and appropriate vigour, happy in the knowledge that, as subjects of the Queen, the personal lives of her grandchildren belong to us all: in a way, today we are all engaged to Kate Middleton. She belongs to all of us, something that neither the French nor the Americans can say, and you can sense just how jealous they are. So I’m very grateful I grew out of my childish little republican phase. And yet, amazingly, it seems there are still some who haven’t. It is hardly credible, but today, in 2010, with all we know, there remain grown adults who are incapable of seeing the benefits of living under a foreign hereditary monarchy, and continue to bleat and whine about the need for a republic, as if that will solve all our problems. As if once we have a republic all the crime and the mortgage stress and the boat people will disappear and we’ll live happily ever after in our cosy little socialist paradise, basking smugly in the glow of anarchy as we boast to each other about how cleverly we r-ped tradition and annihilated social order in our mad, headlong rush to fulfil our most base egalitarian perversions. Well it ain’t going to be like that, people. Republicanism, like suicide and Peter Garrett, solves nothing. In fact, there are many solid, irrefutable reasons for retaining the monarchy that has made us what we are today. First, there is the question of stability. The monarchy has kept Australia stable all these many years, while so many other countries have collapsed into chaos. In fact, statistics show that 98% of non-monarchies have experienced civil war, mass genocide, or major earthquakes in the past 20 years. The other 2% have ceased to exist. And there’s a very simple reason for this: whenever you have a head of state who is beholden to the fickle whims of the electorate, you have instability. The only way to forge a truly stable society is to vest ultimate political power in the hands of a person who has gained their position purely through an accident of birth. If becoming head of state is dependent on some kind of achievement or qualification, the result is a steady stream of schemers and grafters “working” their way to the top. Hereditary monarchs eliminate all that undignified nonsense and ensure that the process is untainted by ambition or ability. What’s more, because the monarch doesn’t actually do anything, we eliminate the risk of the head of state interfering with things. Which, of course, is in turn only possible because we choose the head without any recourse to relevant qualifications whatsoever. A perfect closed system. Secondly, there is the principle of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. This is a very, very important principle in democracies, as well as in car repair. You wouldn’t fix your car’s brakes if they weren’t broke, would you? It would be costly and counter-productive. The same goes for governments. And our government ain’t broke, is it? It’s a bit dented. A bit burnt around the edges. But not actually broke. It’s still chugging along. Thanks to the stability (see above) provided by our sovereign Queen Elizabeth the Second. So given that, why would we want to fix it? Look at America. They had a system of government based on white men. It worked fine. But then they tried to fix it by electing a black man. And now look at them — bankrupt, riven by conflict, and subjugated to a godless Communist Islamic theocracy. Do we want that here? Because that’s what we’ll get if we chuck the Windsors out with the bathwater and elect Hamish and Andy as president or whatever idiotic scheme the Greens have dreamed up for us. Thirdly, there is self-esteem. Every nation needs a healthy sense of self-esteem. What is a country without a good, positive self-image? That’s right — Holland. Need I say more? No, but I will. This is where the aforementioned royal engagement comes in. Haven’t you felt happier since you found out about William and Kate? Haven’t you felt more optimistic? Haven’t you walked with a jauntier spring in your step? Don’t you feel the world is suddenly alive with joy and hope? The hope that happy endings really can exist. After all, if it’s possible for a rich, university-educated young woman to meet and marry a rich, university-educated young man, the sky’s the limit, isn’t it? The royals give us permission to dream. And then they mostly get divorced, which is good too, because it makes us feel better about the fact our dreams never come true. In other words, the royal family is a one-stop self-esteem shop. If you need inspiration, you’ve got William. If you need a sense of superiority, you’ve got Fergie. If you need a drunken hooligan dressed as Hitler, you’ve got Harry. And so forth. So there are three completely compelling arguments right there as to why republicans should shut their ugly faces so we can all get on with our lives without their wheedly nasal voices squirming about in our brains like a swarm of nasty left-wing ear-worms. Of course there are more: the boost to the economy of royal wedding merchandise; the employment opportunities for royal watchers, who would otherwise be forced onto the public teat along with the rest of the profoundly mentally disabled; and most importantly of all, the continued good favour of the Lord Our God Almighty, who has ordained that the royal family shall reign over us and whose wrath will be great and terrible should we displease him. Hence the slogan of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, “Keep The Queen Or Go To Hell”. And indeed that’s what I say to all you naysayers who wish to spoil this most joyous of times with their petty modernism: go to hell, all of you, and let us enjoy our beautiful royals in peace. |
|
|
|
28 Comments
great loved it!
nice fluff piece.
Great article, but also scary how many of these points are made in serious conversation! I did laugh at the plebiscite line, too.
All these years I’ve been a Republican and haven’t bought any arguments to the contrary but you have shown me the error of my ways. Never knew Malcolm Turnbull was a socialist though.
what we really need is more monarchy - it’s time to bring a bit of competition to the whole scene.
The ACCC needs to force a structural separation of the British crown (for Australia at least), and setup Wills and Kate as an alternative monarchic regieme in competition with Liz (with Charles to follow). We would have more monarchies to go ‘round, costs should come down, and the competing rulers would be encouraged to innovate.
This article is calling for, nay demanding, a response from our esteemed jurist David Flint AM.
Republicanism would also cause a currency crisis cos it would invalidate all the coins and $5 notes proudly portraying the monarch’s head.
Not too far off the truth, actually. But if Crikey publishes a Flint reposte it must only be on the proviso that he argue for a republic in similarly uproarious fashion.
The only impediment to a republic that I can envisage is that John Howard will put his hand up for president.
The unhinged one is a monarchist…if he was to have become PM would he have demanded all to kiss his ring?
@jaywhar It’s a pity I’m at work, or your comment would have me almost falling out of my chair! As it is I’m giggling while I’m on hold with Central’s IT department. I award your +1 Internets
Holland is a monarchy. Not that it invalidates your argument. They were also the first state to recognise same-sex marriage, so that balances things out I guess.
As a staunch republican, this article has convinced me we need a monarchy to look after us and guide us in the ways of the World. The fact that our future king William has only spent 3 days in our country and he supported England’s push for the World Cup against Australia’s bid should not deter us. Surely 3 days should be long enough to know us, for we are a shallow lot. So I’m ready to touch the forelock to queen Camilla, my God bless her and all who sail in her.
It would be much easier to discuss monarchy v. republic systems if we learned history at school and learned something about our forefathers endevours.
It would be much easier to discuss the issue if we learned geography at school.
Whether one likes it or ot, monarchy has been more tolerable for people than republics, throughout the history of mankind.
I may not be the big fun of the British Royals and the history of the English Throne. But for me, it is not important who is sitting there. It is important, who is NOT sitting there.
And I definitely do not fancy presidential palaces and the presidents aping royals.
Holland? A country which is not only a monarchy, but also even richer per capita than this overly privileged country and possibly even more nationalistic, if its maniacal orange-clad sports fans are anything to go by.
I think perhaps you meant Belgium…
Peter Garrett should have said (when he was relevant and not internally conflicted): “Republicanism - it’s a set back for your country”.
Holland rules. Go the Dutch!
What a complete load of Bollock’s! All I can assume Ben is that you are taking the piss?
Dear Ben if you would like to live in a feudal dictatorship, even if it is a token one, please go back to the “Mother Country’. Mmm all republic’s have had civil war! There is a counter to all of your befuddled arguments, but I dare not waste the words, the time or effort on someone who is suffering so much delusion
Please Crikey put up the counter argument.
@fool: (an apt choice of name), consider this:
Sarcasm (noun): the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. i.e take the piss.
Ben you’ve shamed me into it. I have a confession to make. I was once …
No, I can’t. You can. I can’t. You will. It’s too embarrassing. I’ll hit you.
OK, OK, I was once … an elitist. I indulged myself with this silly old idea that some people could allocate state office more wisely than I could. I looked with scorn on those who cried out, “government of the people, for the people, by the people!”.
I entertained doubts about all-knowing university undergraduates, environmentalist four-wheel-drivers in Mosman, and hairy-necked TAB punters in Essendon, being able to choose a dignified head of state who would have the faintest idea how to do basically nothing and do it very well. After all, they always got it right voting for Big Brother, didn’t they? They were sharp enough to see through the facade of several brilliant dancers and award Pauline Hanson the champion of Dancing With the Stars, didn’t they? I shake my head in wonderment to think that I ever had such doubts.
I feel better already after my confession. Someone give me a hug! I was blind but now I see, and now whenever I hear the words “government of the people, for the people, by the people,” I now leap up, with the same reflexive automation that once in my military service days used to salute the crown, I leap up and call for a democratically nominated and elected head of state to cut ribbons and sack governments. Don’t hold my past against me; I was younger, you see, and knew everything.
Doesn’t ANYONE care about the big issue? Because of the unexpected Royal Engagement announcement, a double episode of Big Bang Theory was replaced by emotive monarchist nostalgia puff.
Do posters have no sense of propotion?
@Fool: It’s satire.
@Ben: Welcome back, you’ve been missed. Are you going to be writing for NM2 ?
Brilliant Ben. You have dealt a death blow to the insidious republican movement.
Now take the United States for an example. They have no monarchy and have the freedom to elect whomever they chose to be leader of the free world. Next time round they will be able to chose between a smart, articulate Harvard-trained professor of law or an Alaskan lady who only got a passport in 2007 isn’t sure whether north or south Korea is an ally. Who knows what they will chose? We don’t have to take such risks as monarchists - we get Charles without having to run the lottery of an election. God save the king!
First there was Pitt the Elder, then there was Pitt the Younger, and now we seem to have reached the bottom of the Pitt?
Well Ceecil, C.e.e.c.i.l; you finally made me laugh at your humour!!
________________________
Have to disagree with you folk though.
FOOL…. I am not! This piece and responses are not satire. This is Australia’s sensitivity (waaaaait for it Elan!), over the ‘Royal masters’ thing.
I have no time for the Royal fambley! I don’t like them. I equally don’t like the incessant crap that goes on every time there is a visit/wedding/engagement; whatever.
We can rip our Pollies to bloody shreds; we do; and they can defend themselves by simple control of what we do/taxes etc., and so we shred them…..and the beat goes on.
‘The Royals’ can do bugger all. We long since stopped getting sent to the Tower! They cannot defend, or they are attacked even more.
That’s why I loathe this stuff. I hate the ridicule of those who cannot defend. The anachronism of a family who historically conquered and thus ruled others has not escaped me, but I’m cynical enough to see some merits in this ‘arrangement’.
They are over there; we are over here- the merit as opposed to stupidity- of that is that in my opinion we get all the perks and none of the pitfalls!
As I said; I’m cynical. This set-up prevents a dictatorship. I have yet to see anyone in the political arena OR Very Important Australian’s, that I would fancy as ‘A Leader’.
THAT is why I like the ‘puppetry’ of a Monarchy. Will we become a Republic;-of course we will!
In the meantime I will retain a dislike of these attacks.
To suggest they are just satire is the usual cop-out.
Crikerians have generally little truck with racism. How many times are ethnic groups attacked-with the defence of: ‘It’s just a joke’ ??
Nah. I don’t like it, and I don’t like those who don’t like it-whatever their reasons,-being subjected also to ridicule.
Have a shot at those who continually publicise this stuff…..including Crikey, who put up three? articles on it.
……and I’ll be buggered if I’ll take kindly to being criticised for saying this.
Each to their own opinion, my little chickadee’s.
The reason some have had such a lean time being able to laugh before was because on some occasions (although the material wasn’t particularly subtle) it was far too nuanced for the poor dears to understand. On other occasions it was their inability to comprehend serious issues, so they said nothing.
When there’s a poster whose only available ’ weapon’ is to mimic his poor friend’s problem articulating his own name, that poster has reached the bottom of the ethical barrel; but when he continues this inane tactic — how does one put this as kindly as possible – it shows the poster shows he must have no other barrel to inhabit.
Hey Norman,
Should I have drawn a picture showing a tongue in cheek?
Sorry, dear william. Try to not mock again.
Ooooohhhhhhh Ceecil. C.e.e.c.i.l ! I’m so chastened. I am. Honest. I am.