And not having a constitutional monarch has helped
us?
I personally think that Ronald Reagan would have made a great constitutional monarch. Someone we all look up to, sort of a collective "Dad" - without too much power. I totally disagreed with most of his policies - and James Watt's free-for-all on federal lands was driving me crazy. IMHO, JFK would have made a good one, too, and maybe even Andy Jackson who was arguably the
worst president (in terms of dereliction of duty) we've ever had.
IMHO, the counties I've visited that have constitutional monarchies seem to view their politicians as, well, politicians. Not someone who embodies their state, someone to look up to. Makes it seem worthwhile keeping the monarch around, so long as he/she hasn't got a lot of power. Oh - and putting this in perspective, I don't know
anyone else in the states with this opinion (it's not a new england white liberal aclu thing). The only one even slightly close, was Mark Twain, who thought we'd ought to have a royal family of cats. Come to think of it, he eventually became a new englander, so maybe this
is a regional thing.
What I'm trying to get at is that the office of president has become somewhat confused with that of monarch. Many people vote for a president because he has kingly qualities - when what we need is a competent politician. Having a separate (somewhat powerless) monarch might keep that tendency in check...
All that said, have I misread the Queen's power in Aus? Is there something she's
done in the last twenty years that really changed things for Australians? (note non-rhetorical question - please correct me if she
has done something - big apologies for not being as up on Australian history as I'd ought to be.). And feel free to call me names - seems I'm the keeper of unpopular opinions here today/tonight
