The Japanese feel pretty good about having an emperor. 75% like Emperor Naruhito! The British monarch isn’t quite as popular, with only a 57% positive opinion. But everyone (ok, most people) loved Queen Elizabeth II. Andorra gets in on the fun by having two monarchs, recognizing the president of France and the Bishop of Urgell as its dual heads of state. Andorra recognizes the President of France and the Bishop of Urgell as its dual heads of state.
So, maybe a king isn’t so bad? Except these monarchs have no power. According the Japanese constitution, the emperor is “the symbol of the State and the unity of the People, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.” He “shall not have powers related to government.” In the United Kingdom, according to the royal website, “the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected parliament” and he “no longer has a political or executive role.” The UK doesn’t have a written constitution to lay these things out, so for this purpose we’ll just have to take the Royals’ word. Always a safe bet.
Our president, on the other hand, is the head of the executive branch of government. The Constitution simply says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” He’s put in charge of the military, given the power to negotiate treaties, appoint various offices, and require the various departments to report to him. He has much more power than any of these constitutional monarchs. So what’s wrong with a king? Do we not already have one?
My concerns:
Ruling by dictate
Trump’s celebration of his executive orders is a self-aggrandizing abuse of his office. While many of the hundreds may be run-of-the-mill in every way except the shear number of them, a few stand out as efforts to exert power in ways the president has never used in my lifetime.
The executive order to end birthright citizenship is an attempt to rewrite constitutional interpretation and, as far as I know, has never been tried before.
The executive orders targeting law firms is a blatant attempt to reduce the ability to hold this administration accountable. If these orders were allowed to stand, why would any big law firm ever represent someone the president doesn’t like again? The president bears a grudge against each of these law firms or someone within them.
Self-aggrandizement
I grew up learning about Lincoln getting to the White House from a log cabin. Truman ran a haberdashery (he sold shirts). Grant was a drunk failure at one point. Plenty of other presidents didn’t start from nothing – Jefferson, both Roosevelts, and both Bushes all came from wealthy families. And maybe it was time to expose the lie of the self-made president. But is this how we needed to do it?
Trump has inspired a cult of personality I grew up associating with Stalin, Mao, or Kim. His name is stamped on everything he does. He talks about himself and how great he is all the time. His followers worship him. They are trying to get his head on Mt. Rushmore or on the hundred dollar bill. They are even attempting to order studies into why some people don’t seem quite as worshipful of this stable genius. People I generally think are quite sensible feel obliged to respond to my criticisms with praise for the man. It’s a far cry from the days when presidential aspirants would deny their interest in the position and had to have their friends nominate them.
This might be annoying if he weren’t also fleecing his followers. His memecoin has made him millions of dollars. He sells Bibles with his name on them (remind you of any kings? I suspect Trump would approve of the writer’s of the KJV’s dedication, if he ever read it).
Of course, it’s not just his followers. Foreign dignitaries flock to his hotels and golf courses. If you want to make a deal with the president, it helps to put a little in his pocket first.
Demands for loyalty
In the UK, they swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch. Maybe in practice it doesn’t mean much anymore, but a lot of that has to do with the devolution of power to Parliament. If the oath was to the Prime Minister, I can imagine British citizens, many of whom didn’t vote for the current PM, would object quite strenuously.
President Trump is not demanding an oath of allegiance of everyone, but he is demanding it of new hires. It also seems to be the main motivator for his second term picks. During his first term, the turnstile of cabinet members seemed to coincide nicely with moments when the departing official wouldn’t just do what Trump told them to do, or when they expressed some public disagreement. The current team seems to understand the message. Every public event is a celebration of Trump or an attack on anyone who dares to stand in his way.
No Kings
One of our founding principles, firmly established during what some people call the second founding, is that this government is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Focusing policy-making into one man is the path to tyranny. Focusing our attention and worship to a man is idolatry. And giving our loyalty to one man is a betrayal of the ideals of this nation.
“For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” Thomas Paine
Speculative Stephen 
Leave a comment