In May of 1796, George Washington, after serving two terms as the first President of the United
States of America, gave his farewell address to the new nation, and declined to run for a
third term. He did not see the his position as President as an appointment for life.
And as the first president, Washington knew that he would be setting
several precedents for the office, and he was right. The long line of presidents that followed
since consistently declined to run for a third term out of respect for Washington.
That is until FDR came to town, and became President in 1933. And ran for second term,
and then a third term, and then a fourth term??
Clearly nothing but death could stop FDR from running for office again.
After FDR’s passing, the precedent was codified into law thanks to the Twenty Second amendment.
But I find it amazing that over the course of 140 years, and 31 presidents,
George Washington served as a symbol of leadership - specifically leadership
and power with a willful expiration date. This symbol of contained and responsible power.
But his influence since has greatly declined.
People don’t invoke his messages or the values he personified too much any more.
A few days ago, with the news of Betty White’s passing - some terrible person
put out a tweet wondering why it couldn’t have been Queen Elizabeth
in her place instead? I won’t even show the tweet here since it’s such a despicable
thing to say and I don’t want to give that person the attention.
There are enough people inside and outside the United Kingdom that find the institution
of Monarchy useless, and can’t wait for the day until it’s erased. I’ve never agreed with that,
but I also didn’t see the value of a constitutional monarchy until recently.
In researching this video, I came across a Ted talk explaining why the we should choose Monarchy.
"monarchs are not only capable of coexistence with democracy in many ways they enhance democracy
the first way in which this can happen is that a monarch is better suited to be a head of state
than any elected official the reason for this is that a head of state is supposed to represent
all of their people regardless of race regardless of gender regardless of sexual orientation
regardless of religion and crucially regardless of political alignment
I’ll link the video below and recommend watching it in full,
but the crux of Noah Wiener’s point is that Monarchy adds stability,
consistency, and a non-partisan challenge to the leaders that get elected by the people.
Politicians sway to public opinion, they can be manipulated, and manipulative. They can be bribed,
bought, and sold. This is why the people don’t have trust in the class of politicians.
The offices of the President or Prime Minister of a nation are designed to be revolving doors,
with people coming and going as per the elections.
But in the case of the United Kingdom, the Queen is always there. She is a fixture as
the head of state and as a representation of the essence of British people’s interests,
culture, and, most importantly, a representation of their values.
So what exactly are these values? They’re not about absolute power, or living excessively like
monarchs used to represent in the past. The modern monarchy represents character and morality - like
having strength in the face of adversity, being impervious to financial influences like bribery
or material gain, and being untouched by any temptation of political power.
So completely antithetical to the politicians. The Queen is the untouchable embodiment of the
ideal governance. She stands above the government. The Prime Ministers,
at their appointment, are invited to form a government BY THE Queen.
But the Queen is not above the British people. No instead, the Royal families’ primary role
is to serve the people. And it is a practice that is cultivated and passed on within the family,
with the working royals serving the people through charity work, sitting down with people
that are serving their communities, and bringing attention to important issues facing society.
So let’s look at American society where there is no such ideal representation aside from the
Founding Fathers. But their influence has been on a major decline. The office of the President is no
longer looked at with respect since it is after all inhabited by politicians.
And increasingly there is a decrease of religious influence in our society.
So who has replaced that void? Well,
celebrities unfortunately. Celebrities are looked to when it comes to a crisis, for charitable work,
to speak on important topics like elections, economic troubles, human rights, and more.
And while Celebrities are more than willing to take on this mantle,
they lack the ability to do right by that role. They after all have become famous
for pretending to be other people, for sex tapes, or just plain showing off their wealth.
These are hardly the basis for representing an ideal in society.
In fact it is this overemphasis on celebrities that has led to a culture of plastic surgery,
virtue signaling, and widespread narcissism.
Well you might ask, do we even need ideal representations to look up to in our society.
Yes, yes we do. This is part of our nature. We will always look for ideals to live up to.
And generally, these ideal representation, display the values of our society back at us.
I wonder what would have happened if the values that George Washington embodied
could have survived beyond the 140 years they seemed to influence our nation
after his death - values such as service to our country no matter the price,
of patriotism, the importance of remaining by partisan and reducing the divide between people.
The values of electing people rather than parties to leadership positions.
While George Washington represented these values so well - he died long ago, and his
influence has been written off as irrelevant and too idealistic in our current society.
In British society, they have the benefit that the ideal representation of British values
is forever embodied by the monarch. And since it’s embodied by a person,
the representation can grow, and change along with the people. Each Monarch has the ability
to bring with them something to the institution that will ensure its survival. So rather than
stay stagnant, irrelevant and die out - the institution and the representation can endure.
This also puts into context for me why Meghan Markle’s and Prince
Harry’s challenge of the Royal family has been such a big deal. People are obsessed
(as am I) with this face- off. There is no shortage of analysis on YouTube of what exactly
every move by the family, or estrange couple means or could mean for the Institution.
This face-off is the battle of two opposing views. I’ve already talked
about the values that Her Majesty the Queen represents, but what about Meghan Markle?
Well she’s a celebrity. She is celebrity culture invading the royal family.
Instead of strength in the face of adversity,
she believes in airing out the problems, of tearful displays of the unfairness of life.
And service of others is never done in a sincere fashion but rather with an ulterior motive.
Like when Harry and Meghan went to a school to distribute school supplies - it was purely done
as a publicity stunt. After they had the photos - the couple were quick to make themselves scarce.
Instead fo being unswayed by money, Prince Harry & Meghan Markle are all for it - looking for
monetization opportunities wherever they can get them. Signing deals with Spotify,
and Netflix. Taking camera crews with them when they visit the UN. Publishing books using their
royal titles. And to cap it off, Prince Harry has plans to publish a book about his family.
And finally, the two are tempted by power. It’s clear now that the Oprah
interview was a ploy to sow doubt when it came to the suitability of Prince Charles
and Prince William as future monarchs. And never should we forget the remark
that Meghan made saying that they were one plane crash away from the throne.
So the battle between the Sussexes and the Royal family isn’t simply a family issue. It’s a public
criticism of the values the family represents and a desire to supplant them with celebrity culture.
No wonder the British people refuse to the take the challenge lying down.
And no wonder why the Royal Family scrutinizes their own public behavior so intensely. This
is why all the instances of airing dirty laundry, cheating rumors, or much worse scandals are such a
risk to the Monarchy. If the Monarchy is supposed to represent the ideals of British culture,
then it better live up to that ideal. Otherwise, the whole thing may come crumbling down.
This is also why people are more likely to stand by the Queen,
instead of siding with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry.
Where the Sussexes offer visions of complaining, and narcissism,
the Queen offers a higher vision to her people. An ideal to aspire to, to be inspired by.
In a world where the difference between right and wrong has become increasingly blurred,
despite her family getting embroiled in divorces, feuds, scandals - the Queen
has stood as a lone incorruptible figure.
Thanks for watching everyone. I hope you enjoyed this video, if you did, please like,
share and subscribe. I’m a great admirer of George Washington’s, and have been mulling over a video
talking about the American Revolution vs. the French Revolution and why one was successful while
the other complete chaos. I think it has a lot to do with the personalities involved, and would
be a very interesting study. If you’re interested in a video like that let me know in the comments.
Thanks again! I’ll see you in the next video!