Friday, July 15, 2011

The Other Incrementalism

Inching back to monarchy:



Go to the Governor General's website, look at the main page introducing the Governor General, and you see a photograph of Queen Elizabeth II shaking hands with someone whose back is turned to the camera. That someone is David Johnston, the Governor General.


I know what you're thinking. "So what?" I understand that reaction. But it's a mistake. Because that little photo is indicative of a big change: The Crown is back.


Just a few years ago, the Governor General's website was festooned with glorious colour photographs of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaƫlle Jean. But the Queen? There wasn't a single photograph of the Queen on the website of the Queen's representative. In fact, there were almost no references to the Queen at all, and one could easily get the impression that the esteemed Michaƫlle Jean was, in all but name, Canada's head of state.



As Dan Gardner goes onto explain this was not an oversight. It was part of a long-term attempt to "quietly shuffle the Queen offstage." One of the bright spots in the Harper years has been the reassertion of traditional Canadian values, especially the military and the monarchy. As noted earlier this week, this is part of the government's tonal conservatism.


Recalling the pre-Trudeau Canada, including a nice invocation of "our fair Dominion" by the PM during the royal progress, reassures the rank and file that the boys in blue haven't gone completely native in Ottawa. It's probably also sincere. Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper seem to believe that monarchy is a good Canadian tradition that needs to be defended. Some might object to the PM's lack of enthusiasm for the Crown, but please keep in mind who we are talking about. Smiling seems to cause him physical pain.


Sounds aren't substance. It's nice to hear words like Dominion. It's very good that our foreign policy is now more oriented around Canadian values, rather than an international relations seminar on multilateralism, but this has little impact on the daily life of the people. We can bemoan this yet still celebrate a small and important gain for Canadianism. Symbolism is cheap but it can carry a great weight.


The monarchy provides an important constitutional role, mostly as a non-partisan referee and ceremonial imprimatur, yet its greater role is as a cultural icon. The affairs of a free people are organized, whenever and wherever possible, upon the basis of persuasion. Unthinking force is the hallmark of tyrannical governments. However noble the goal, a free people will seek always to find ways of accomplish that goal through argument, debate and reasonable compromise. The tyrant orders. The free man talks.


A constitutional monarchy, who is the head of a free people, reigns rather than rules. Lacking much real power the monarch acts as a model of appropriate conduct. There is no finer exemplar than the current sovereign, who has conducted herself in the spirit of her beloved father and grandfather. Note the careful and precise way Her Majesty speaks, her poise and bearing which is kept even with her many years, and the careful discharge of duty. In her actions she sends a clear message: This is an ideal to aspire toward.


This is not to say that this or any monarch is perfect. They are human and should display that most human of traits, a desire to improve and remedy the defects of nature or personal behaviour. Their example and actions transmit to their people the broad values, character traits and common customs that allow for peaceful and civilized existence. Watch HM's 1957 Christmas Address, the first to be broadcast on television. In that broadcast she made the following observation:



Today we need a special kind of courage, not the kind needed in battle but a kind which makes us stand up for everything that we know is right, everything that is true and honest. We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics so that we can show the world that we are not afraid of the future.



These are not very specific invocation, yet they are also very true. If you have a few moments listen to the whole broadcast. It is filled with noble generalities that can be easily shrugged at. Yet that is much the role of monarchy. Not to issue dissertations on philosophy, or remedy the failings of current public policy, but instead to make a frank appeal to our better natures. To remind, suggest, advise and ultimately to persuade her people toward a more humane existence. Something which is of greater weight, all in all, than much of what passes for politics in these times.


35 comments:

  1. This edging out of the Queen and promoting the Governor-General as Head of State is going on here in Australia too but it is being done by Australians for Constitutional Monarchy! They don't say the Governor-General is acting Head of State but Head of State in their own right.

    All this because they were frightened by republicans calling for "an Australian Head of State". I would rather have a Royal Head of State.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That was an excellent article by David Gardner. The growing number of monarchist voices is the Canadian media is an encouraging sign. Still, it's rather sad that it has become something noteworthy when Ministers of the Crown actually voice their loyalty toward the Sovereign to whom they have sworn allegiance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My favorite parts of the article:
    "First, as we should have learned in 2008, obscure and seemingly trivial constitutional matters can very suddenly become urgent matters of national concern. Constitutional clarity is important."

    and

    "Third, we're a mature democracy. Important changes should never be driven by a manipulative few relying on the ignorance and apathy of the many."

    The US is having problems in these areas at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is wonderful to know my Candian cousins are keeping up the good fight up north. In the land down under however,we will have to keep keeping on for some time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous:

    It's an uphill fight. There's a ruling cultural elite that espouse a particular world view that's been quite influenced by Marxism. The elimination of the monarchy embodies their interpretation of the class struggle. HM and Her family are aristocratic parasites who leech the life-blood from the working classes. You've probably heard something similar from the republicanus australianus species Down Under. Though a distant cousin, the republicanus canadianus species has very similar behavioural patters as his southern counterpart including vindictive, anonymous postings in the troll fashion on websites such as this one, ad-hominem attacks on persons identifying themselves as monarchists, convoluted logic and indefensible arguments and interminable, sanctimonious, pontification while boasting to hold the moral or intellectual high ground, or both. This species is highly venomous, and easily agitated, and is best left alone. Though, it does give me a sense of satisfaction to point out that try as they have over the past fifty years, they haven't stomped out monarchism in our fair Dominion, and its popularity is growing by the day.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Keep blogging dears! Because all that the mighty queen of England has left now to protect her rear is a bunch of bloggers. Where are her mighty armies? Buried under the sands of history I see...much like her family will be, thus ending the story of the most evil dynasty in history. The yellow and brown people you monarchists so despise are back and you can't stop our tanks and our planes now. Keep blogging :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. The House of Saxe Coburg Gotha/Windsor is the most evil dynasty in history? What planet have you just arrived from?

    ReplyDelete
  8. When someone anonymously says "The yellow and brown people you monarchists so despise are back and you can't stop our tanks and our planes now. Keep blogging :)" I think what a sad new world you would have people live in.

    In fact I know many "yellow and brown people" as you call them who support the monarchy. So who is this gruop you talk of?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm willing to bet that the vast most of those who visit the Governor General of Canada's web site and see that picture will simply think it's a mistake. That it wouldn't even occur to them that that photo was chosen deliberately.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree David Byers, the ACM really does itself a disservice by continually pushing the "GG is Head of State" line. It underestimates normal people's intelligence, who, when hearing that said by the ACM, will simply reach the conclusion, "If the GG is really our Head of State then why do we need the Queen?". Most people would not have the time/interest to sit down and consider complicated constitutional arguments for why we DO need the Queen and the Crown, so they just assume that the monarchy itself is redundant and unneeded. I understand Australian republicans are starting to make this argument themselves.

    I usually take the position that Australia doesn't have a "Head of State" - we have a Queen, a Governor-General and a Prime Minister who all share the duties of national headship, and who are all essential components of a very successful constitutional system.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you Npinkpanther, we must not, however, turn away from the fact that Australia does have a Head of State and that Head of State is the Queen. If we are proud of what we have and who we are we will be strong. ACM throws up a idea that will hurt the crown in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I think what a sad new world you would have people live in."

    Yep...a pretty sad world for monarchists, racists and all your ilk that revels in the massacre of April 13,1919 at Jallianwallah Bagh in Amritsar, India. I hope you guys suffer every moment as the browns of India and the yellows of China choke your evil monarchy. We cant blame ordinary freedom loving Brits for those past sins, but shouldnt we blame the monarchists for the sins of the monarchy?

    ReplyDelete
  13. It wasn't the King who ordered the massacre, if anything it would've been a colonial police force or militia. Even back then a monarch couldn't have the power to order attacks, those days are confined to the medieval era. Now I hope now that you know your confounded attacks on us are both incorrect and judgmental, you get back to your reading of ''Communist Manifesto''.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Speaking of massacres ordered by heads of state, gentlemen, the nuclear bombings were such massacres. These were massacres of "yellow people," and they were ordered by a President of a democratic republic.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You monarchists do know that you are gonna end up on the losing side, don't you? And you do realise that since the power of monarchs come from their cruelty and not out of a respect for the basic freedoms of all people, it is perfectly justified for another sovereign state to subjugate a monarch and turn him/her into a whimpering nobody.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Sad little man..

    You and whose army? If you saw the worldwide support for the Royal Wedding, the downtrend in the poles for a republic across the realms and the surge in support for the monarchy worldwide by those so called ''Brown and Yellow people'' it would make one think you were on the losing side! And what if we were on the losing side? Better to die fighting in a heroic last stand against the hordes of impressionable fools, like yourself. I hope you find this enlightening.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why do the anti-monarchists always bring up race? They seem to be obsessed with it. Like this person talking about "yellow" and "brown" people as though they are just a homogenous mass. And perpetual victims as well. If it quacks like a racist...

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  18. Speaking on the matter of ACM and the Head of State issue, I propose that we counter the title of "head of state" with its superior, the Sovereign, who is undoubtedly the Queen. As for her not being Australian... well, who's being picky on race and place of birth now?

    ReplyDelete
  19. LAW Wells, The Queen is our Sovereign Head of State, the Governor-General is a acting Head of State. If a nation has a Sovereign that monarch is Head of State, no way around it

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have followed and enjoyed this blog for a long time, and have noticed a consistent pattern for all of it. In light of that pattern, I have just one thing to say:

    Will no one rid us of these turbulent anonymous commenters?

    ReplyDelete
  21. What exactly are you monarchists fighting for? What do you mean by restoring the glory of the monarchy? For instance, India is a republic. That makes us traitors to the British crown. As such, what punishment do you prescribe for this act of treachery and insubordination? You want Britain to enter a ruinous nuclear war with India in order to punish our nation and bring it back under the "rightful" British crown?

    ReplyDelete
  22. You can do what ever you want, India is a nation in which human life means nothing, it is a nation which is extremely backwards and violent, a nation which has little regard for human rights or any eco-sustainability and still worships numerous cloud men, after India left the Empire nothing improved! Even after 60 years of a republic free from the crown India is still a stinking hell hole! Am I some judgemental foreigner? Well i've visited the republic of India, 3 times and the horrible scenes of poverty were appaling! And don't try and make it the fault of the Empire for the desperate state of affairs, because if you were half as patriotic as I am for my nation, you would see to it that India takes its place as free society, but seeing as there is no Westminster System it will be rather difficult. Food for thought hay?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Desperate state of affairs? I thought it was the British prime Minister who was grovelling in India. Hmmm...now, who should I believe, a random commentor on the internet or the Prime Minister of Britain?

    ReplyDelete
  24. And well, answer my question. What punishment do you prescribe for Indian traitors? Drag your RAF Tornados like lambs to slaughter over Indian skies if you want.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am curious where you got the idea that monarchists are particularily interested in the reconquest of the Indian subcontinent?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Because, Leacock, the courageous Mr. Anonymous(thank you, Mr. Baltzersen) believes that all supporters of a particular form of government are responsible for and desperate to revive all the perceived evils done by governments operating under that form, unless, presumably, it is his favored form of government. In that case, whatever evil it does is probably the fault of monarchists and monarchies.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Flight Sgt C.A.RodgersJuly 28, 2011 at 10:24 PM

    Seems to me that this blog is plagued by anonymous keyboard warriors doing battle against eachother in the comments section. And as a Flight Sergeant of the RAAF I can say now that the RAF has no desire to strike against India, and to answer your question a suitable punishment for Indian traitors would be to live in India.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bravo, good sir! Excellent response, and God save the Queen!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wow...you thick Aussie Flight Sgt got little more than a schoolyard level answer to that question. The RAF "striking" India? Do you mean like a suicide attack, because that is exactly what a RAF strike on India would look like.

    ReplyDelete
  30. By the way, Mr. Rodgers, it does not suit grown ups to play dress up with toy planes and to call themselves Fligh Sgt,etc. I cannot be certain about Australia, but I think it is still a little weird for grown men to call weekend flight school an air force... a Royal Australian Air Force no less. A war isn't exactly a pillow fight, you know :)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Flight Sgt C.A.RodgersJuly 31, 2011 at 12:11 AM

    Perhaps it has not occured to you sir that people who follow this blog do not care for self absorbed little bastards like yourself. The idea of loyalty to a common Queen, idea and flag is a force capable of uniting people across the seas. Something I can't expect you to understand. Now would you kindly suggest a scenario that would lead to Britain and friends declaring war on India?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Flight Sgt C.A.RodgersJuly 31, 2011 at 12:17 AM

    And my last post seeing as i'm a rather busy man, spare a thought for the soldiers who defended India in WW2. 73100 men died defending India in the forests of Burma and the like, my uncle Charles Bourke, (on my mothers side) was one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh...so now Britain needs "friends" to declare war on India? Ah...how the mighty have fallen :D

    Here'a a scenario: Step 1: you monarchists get your wish and grab political power in England. Step 2: England, facing financial ruin after a mere 60 years of not being imperialist, decides to turn vampire again.

    Of course, Step 3 would be:
    Your American masters come out and drag all you lapdogs: Eng, Aus, Can, etc. back into your kennels :)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Imagine having such a sad life that all you can do is post hate, anonymously, on a blog.

    ReplyDelete