American friends, looking on from Canada I am happy about yesterday's widespread peaceful protests against your incipient dictator. But why "No Kings"?
Here in Canada, many of us are quite happy to have a king -- our constitutional monarch, King Charles III, who recently visited Canada to open Parliament, as a gesture very much designed to show that we are different from the USA.
As an anarchist, I value having a Head of State who has zero coercive power.
But I am guessing that when you Americans think of kings, you have poor old George III in mind, and that trouble he gave you with taxation without representation and all that rot?
I am curious!
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
You have figurehead monarch who has had no actual power for SO long; the "No Kings" is a reference to the American Revolution and the revolt against a British King with real power. BUT, historic references aside, I think "No Dictators" would have been a better choice of slogan.
@ChipmunkErnie But George III didn't have the power modern Americans seem to think he had. He was subject to parliament in ways that American presidents have never been. Your founding fathers replaced a limited constitutional monarchy with an entrenched potential dictator. And now the potentiality has come to fruition.
@ninalanyon True, but he did have some power -- particularly compared to today's monarch -- and I think it's more of a question of him being the symbol of perceived repression; it's much easier to mount a campaign against a single target than spreading it out over a whole Parliament.
@ChipmunkErnie I think it's actually a better slogan, referencing the history and in particular the foundation of the country. "No dictators" would be too generic.
@Elessar But dictator is more accurate. You have to remember that when Americans say king they have in mind an almost mythical creature. They think that George III personally demanded taxes from the colonists. Of course he did no such thing. English monarchs hadn't had tax raising powers for at least a century at that time.
My worry is that because of this they will fail to see that the real danger is not the establishment of a hereditary monarchy but the establishment of serial dictatorship.
