A monarchist defends July 4

As a monarchist it would seem that I should automatically hate the principles of July 4.  I do not.  It should be remembered that Parliament, not the Crown, was the true tyrant of England.   Therefore, strictly speaking, the colonials were rebelling against a representative government.  Even more, Parliament–like today’s congress–was controlled by Big Business, the East Indies Company.  To that degree then, the Colonials were right to seek independence.

Further, when we reflect on what a culture and ethnos truly is, the colonials were going to be independent anyway.  As such, they were their own country de facto.  From one perspective, they really weren’t “rebelling” at all.

But I see the applications for today reaching deeper.  A lot of convertskii have become official monarchists and then proceed to bash the United States every chance they get.  Unfortunately, they do not limit their criticisms to only the parasitic aspects of the US (e.g., Congress, Lobbies, etc).  They also attack the legitimately good parts of the U.S., and that is wrong (see Jeremiah 29).  Even worse, these convertskii have not reflected on the thorny issues of political ethics.  How many of them have read the Anti-Federalists and Samuel Rutherford?  I rest my case.

So which is better, monarchy or republic?  Well, we must acknowledge that both will be deeply flawed in application.   We must be careful of the reactionary republican response to monarchy, saying, “Doesn’t 1 Samuel 8 condemn monarchies?”  Well, the irony is that today’s republican government embodies all of the horrible things Samuel warned about.  (And what’s even more ironic is that these republicans do not even realize it.  They think that merely having the sacred word “republic” necessarily guarantees freedom).

I am not so sure that America needs a monarchy, though.  It would be alien to our traditions and would have to be imposed top-down, which guarantees failure.