What would happen if…

The Mamas and the Papas sang the lamentation “Monday, Monday.” It is the least favorite day of the week, poor Monday. People do not want to go back to work and the snooze delay on the alarm gets a workout. So, let’s brighten this Monday by asking a few what if questions. What would happen if…

  • All the money used to house, protect, garden, compensate and communicate for royal families with no power was instead used to provide scholarships or housing to people in need. Queen Elizabeth, you have been grand, but your role is not really that needed to run the country and being a ceremonial mascot (as my Political Science professor termed it) is an expense we do not need.
  • Legislators, presidents and other elected officials had term limits. OK, will give you senators and presidents two terms, three for Congress members. And, no lobbying immediately following your tenures. If donors knew there is a time limit on their investment, they may be less inclined to fund candidates. With limited time, the candidates may devote more time to doing their jobs – right now two Senator terms counting twelve years amounts to less than eight years of work given the estimated fund raising time.
  • Fact checkers at a press conference are armed with super-soaker water guns and each time the politician lied more than a little, he or she would get soaked. By the end of one of the former president’s press conferences, he would have one wet suit.
  • Politicians who name call or label folks are sent to a corner to sit in time-out. Ted, go back in your corner. Not that one, that one is reserved for Donald. When you can debate without name calling, we will let you back into the discussion Of course, we may need more corners to rooms.
  • Politicians should be like pro golfers and wear their funders’ logos on their shirts and visors. In fact, they should shed the suits, as that gives the appearance of more gravitas than many deserve by their words and actions. We will then see that said politician is funded by these six organizations. And, none of the euphemistic PAC labelling – tell us who really supports you. NRA, Exxon Mobil, Dupont….

That is enough for now. In my view, the world would be a better place if we did any of the above. It would be more fun and truthful, as well.

25 thoughts on “What would happen if…

    • Kim, I agree. It would make the selection process less combative. I also think SCOTUS should require more than a majority vote. We end up with more partisan judges, in my view. Keith

  1. An interesting set of suggestions, Keith, though I wasn’t aware that our royal family was costing Americans anything! I’m not a great fan of them either, particularly some of the hangers on in minor roles, but I think they generally do a good PR job for our country – much better than our current government of inept racists and grifters are achieving. Term limits is an excellent idea, as would be banning all donations to politicians.

  2. All the ceremonies attached to Her Majesty bring in vast amounts of money via tourism and her role as Head of the Commonwealth Countries keeps together an organisation that might otherwise have fallen apart years ago. Charles does his bit as does William. For me the best part is that it kept Tony Blur from becoming our first ever President and keeping Boris from the same position. I don’t want a Government where the politicians are paid by the state but also paid by big business and base their decisions upon the wants of the latter and not the people they supposedly represent.

    • Clive, David, no question my opinion on this means little as it is not my money. And, no question there is benefit derived from their roles. With that said, I would love to see a cost/ benefit analysis of the royal family. Even that would likely fall short of assessing their value as some take pride in their role which cannot be valued. But, I do know there is a hefty sum of money spent on their PR helping them tell us why we should appreciate them. As for the veracity of the elected officials, we Americans have no room to criticize anyone. This was not intended to offend, so I greatly appreciate the push back. And, my comments are not limited to this monarchy. Keith

  3. While I will remain silent on the first one, for I have a number of friends in the UK who I know highly value their Queen, every one of the rest of them are great ideas! I’m especially for the term limits — the longer they have the position, the more likely the corruption, taking bribes in the form of campaign contributions. And I love your ideas about making them sit in a corner and about the super soaker water guns!!! I’m convinced, you must run for President in 2024!!! Shall I start a GoFundMe for your campaign?

  4. When I read your first point I could so relate to our prince’s family. (Ok, at least they are not paid by the taxes of their inhabitants.) Half of the Liechtensteinians would do anything to keep the monarchy but the other half doesn’t see the use of it. They only get in the way when they don’t like a decision the government makes.

      • It depends on how they were raised but they are more open to the big world. Politics still can separate families over here. But the past 40 years have brought a lot of “fresh foreign blood” (like me too… lol), so this has been soothened a lot in the younger generations. The country is still a bit special when it comes to the monarchy… lol. But what I appreciate is that the Prince’s family is not part of those gossip magazines and rather keep themselves in the background.

      • Erika, that is interesting about the low-key profile. Some monarchies are all about getting positive press. I feel for those monarchies in countries where the press is so invasive, actually hounding people. Your monarchy is a lot like those actors who live away from Hollywood on purpose to have a real life outside of the bubble. Keith

  5. One subject in the UK guaranteed to raise ire.
    The Royal Family as an institution and by default its wealth / worth, the two are inextricably linked in the UK.
    A word of advice…Don’t go there. There will be ranks of The Left who would agree, but if there was ever an election loss-maker it would be this (almost equivalent to the gun-laws debate in the USA…some might argue even more emotive)
    Actually one question which is as tangled and complex as a multi-national company (or group of companies) accounts, would be. How much is the Queen / Royal Family actually worth in personal wealth? At this stage all manner of constitutional experts will come along and point out that much of the apparent wealth is held in properties, works of art etc, which by default (ie our unwritten constitution) are held ‘in trust’ for the nation. Then others will tell you that one of the true reasons tourists (if Covid is controllable) come to the UK and spend money is to see all things Royal in all its splendour.
    And there is a century’s worth of ingrained popularity, which is down to the efforts of Elizabeth II (professional through and through), her father George VI (WWII) and his father George V (arch conservative who with the aid of his wife Queen Mary realised what had been was all over and images had to change; time for public appearances, talking to common folk etc).
    An issue best left alone. Rational debate will be swamped.

    • Roger, sage advice, as usual. I did see a poll from two months ago that said people over 65 supported the monarchy 81%, but people from 19 to 45 (I think that was the age grouping) were at 53%, which still is a majority, but significantly down. I guess the question I would ask would the feeling still be the same if the family was less than moral or ethical? There are generations who have only known Queen Elizabeth. She has been a mainstay in people’s lives, which gives comfort in and of itself. She has not been perfect, but has been an exemplar for the most part. Keith

      • I read that poll Keith and at the time my Civil Service brain thought:
        1. Where are the 46-64’s
        2. ’19-45′? Since when do 19-24 year olds want to be associated with 40-45 year olds? Particularly as during Brexit 19-45 did not count as one unit. 19-30 would have been a better divide since that would cover the births of last decade of the 20th Century.
        It might do for a headline grabber but not for any party making a decision on a political stance.
        As you say generations (in fact folk from 75 downwards) can only truly remember Elizabeth II as the monarch. Whereas discussions between monarch and Prime Minister are supposed to be strictly confidential (Boris of course slipped up there once), there is a consensus amongst observers and historians of this era that Elizabeth has been the safe pair of hands that PMs (aside form Thatcher) have valued.
        Now her children are another matter: Andrew’s association with Epstein in particular has been a dream come true for republicans.
        Charles is seen by some as having a tendency to meddle outside of his remit.
        Anne won an Olympic medal but is seen general abrupt, lacking something of the personal touch and somewhat ‘hard’.
        Edward did the wise thing, by royal standards took a very low profile with his family and does whatever duties come his way.
        The testing time will be when The Queen dies, it will be the end of an era and then there could be a Brexit style debate with all sorts of issues coming up; such as Scottish separation from the UK (if it hasn’t happened by then?); Ulster’s loyalty to the Crown (much ill-feeling over the government handling of Brexit).
        We shall see.

      • Roger, I agree on the age brackets – too wide to be helpful. As you know, people can take true statistics and make them tell a different story by how they are presented, especially graphically.

        As for the Queen, it is quite easy to look good in comparison to the inept acting PM. When Johnson took the job, my first reaction was it is fitting the Brexit mess will fall in his lap as he supported it so much. As for Andrew, the Epstein mess is far worse than is let on in the press, which is saying something and Epstein’s lover and finder Maxwell will feel the brunt of it since Epstein took his own life. As for Andrew, the Queen and Phillip, while alive, probably called him on the carpet for his sexual misconduct. Keith

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.