In my experience scenarios that spit in the face of one's dearly held opinions tend to be subconsciously seen as more "implausible", the other thing this board likes to keep track of. I'm guilty too - I always get a little annoyed when I see Yet Another Evil US. So evil EUs might tend to be seen as implausible or not quite up to snuff and forgotten. Again, only natural.
An Examination of Extra-Universal Systems of Government
- Thread starter Ephraim Ben Raphael
- Start date
- Status
Are there any regimes which have taken a more corporate attitude towards neo-reactionary thought? Maybe the Korean chaebols, Japanese zaibatsu, or other mega-corp entities decided that it would be nice if they were socially and politically as well as economically above the average citizen?
I deliberately avoided bringing up the issue because it's complicated, and the European Empire isn't as hegemonic and united as you'd think. I'd say tolerance differs between different kingdoms, and let the reader decide how far that extends and where.
I have plans for other corporate regimes.
The Eleventh Crusade
My world map for the European Empire entry. It's crazy, but I like crazy.
- The PoD is Jeb Bush doing much better during the 2016 GOP Primaries, and winning the nomination. Trump accuses him of rigging the system and runs independent. This leads to Sanders running an independent campaign as well. This leads to no single person winning enough electoral votes to snag the presidency, leading to the election being thrown to the House...where they elect Bush, who got the least electoral and popular votes. The other three candidates cry foul, and politics in America gets even more violent, leading to the formation of opposing gangs of rioters.
- Economic trouble in the USA leads to shockwaves in China, causing their market to collapse. Anti-Xi factions in the CCP try to oust him, which fails, leading to a second Chinese civil war. This causes the global market to collapse and the Americans to crumble into civil war.
- The EU and Russia remain the most stable, but they get drawn into their own war, which the Europeans win.
- The war in America ends with neoreactionary Trumpists taking control of the East Coast and forming the American Empire, inspired by the European model. A rump United States is the last refuge of the Bush and Clinton factions, and while Sanderistas never held down New England, they did manage to take control of the West Coast. The country is heavily damaged, and each side is rather politically extreme. The United States is the most moderate, having relinquished emergency rule in the 2040s, even though the Second American Civil War is still technically going on.
- China is divided between the Hong Dynasty, the result of a former PLA colonel deciding to seize the Mandate of Heaven, and the Republic of China, which is the return of the Taipei regime, welcomed because they brought stability to the country.
- Canada is a republic because the Windsors decided to play ball and integrate themselves into the European Empire's hierarchy.
- ISIS manages to take control of much of the Middle East, except Israel, which survives by virtue of having a nuclear arsenal. The Israelis have become allies of Europe (leading to better treatment of Jews in Europe than one would expect), and European "crusaders" cooperate with the IDF along the border.
- The South American Union is a new thing, a heavily Catholic federal democracy aligned to Europe.
- P.S.: According to European historiography, the Tenth Crusade is the War on Terror.
Last edited:
Is this thread dead? I want to see the 'World Governments' and 'Multiversal States' of the Multiverse, hopefully. Thanks!
Great, now I want that phrase "It's not dead, it just sleeps for long periods of time before re-emerging." to be the central theme of a government/TL on here...It's not dead, it just sleeps for long periods of time before re-emerging.
Great, now I want that phrase "It's not dead, it just sleeps for long periods of time before re-emerging." to be the central theme of a government/TL on here...
Somalia.
Kingdom of America
Washington D.C. is a city I have seen in many timelines, and this is a smaller incarnation. The classical Greco-Roman architecture exemplified by the Capitol remains dominant, and the familiar large, concrete, administrative buildings such as the Pentagon are completely absent. This is a humbler America. A regional power, not the globe-spanning superpower many readers will be familiar with.
I take a cable car. It whisks past the White House, the official seat of American power. The building is humble by the standards of the French and Prussian emperors, designed by George I himself to resemble the royal palace in Mount Vernon. The American royals spend little time in the White House, preferring their many estates scattered throughout the country. Today, they are absent.
I notice a political rally beside the White House. The crowd is carrying handmade signs and American flags, with thirteen white stars instead of the three on the official Stars and Stripes. One man is shouting slogans to a crowd of supporters. The car passes by slowly, so I can hear what the man is saying. He is repeatedly shouting "let freedom ring," and the crowd replies with "down with the King."
I ask a young woman sitting next to me what the commotion is about. She rolls her eyes.
"Democratic Republicans. They're a gaggle of noisy idiots who think abolishing the monarchy will solve all of the country's problems. The Constitution protects their right to speak, but some people should just learn to shut up."
I ask her how popular the Democratic Republicans are in the country.
"They never get a majority in Congress, but with the Whigs and the Federalists losing support, that might change."
The cable car makes it to its stop in Arlington, where my contact is waiting for me. Laura Destrahan is an attorney working with the Department of Foreign Affairs. She is a tall, thirty-something brunette in smart business attire. I notice that she is wearing a lapel pin with the arms of the House of Washington. She nods to acknowledge me, and gives me a firm handshake before showing me out of the station. I ask Ms. Destrahan where her guards have gone.
"This isn't Russia, Mr. Chaná," she replied in a strong Mid-Atlantic accent I had trouble growing accustomed to. "Government officials don't need to fear the assassin's blade."
We make our way to a small, quiet bistro and sit inside, away from the muggy Washington weather. Ms. Destrahan apologizes for the venue, but she explains that she had to skip lunch earlier and had to make last minute arrangements. I told her she did not have to apologize for anything, and I enjoyed these more personal interviews. After a little more small talk, we began the interview proper. I begin by asking how a rebellion against George III paved the way for George I.
"Americans love freedom. I am sure in your visits to other timelines, you have found this to be true. When the British refused to properly represent the people of the colonies, we had a duty to create a new system where we had representation."
Ms. Destrahan continued.The Kingdom of America began as a series of British colonies on the eastern coast of North America. A series of controversial taxes, and the belief that the American colonists should be represented in Parliament, eventually led to a successful rebellion against the British crown.
Initially, America was governed under a confederation called the United States of America. The original Articles of Confederation provided the central government with very few powers, which led to disputes among the states over who should pay the outstanding debts incurred during the Revolutionary War against the British. Several attempts to form a new constitution failed, leading to a long period of political chaos and, eventually, rebellion against federal taxation. In the name of keeping the country together, the Continental Army under General George Washington seized control of the country without congressional approval. General Washington was later crowned by his soldiers as king, to act as the central executive necessary to complement Congress.
I asked Ms. Destrahan why she believed monarchy was appropriate for America. After all, wasn't the American Revolution fought to remove monarchs?
"The common misconception, mostly thanks to lies spread by the Democratic Republicans, is that this country was founded to remove monarchy. That is not true. The Revolution was fought to guarantee the rights of the colonists as British subjects. Since the British government refused to respect those rights, we established one of our own, with increased protections to ensure the abuses of power going on in London would never happen on this side of the pond."
Are you talking about the Constitution?
Ms. Destrahan nods. "The British system was, and remains, flawed because they have no written constitution that guarantees rights and separation of powers. They have tradition and legislation, but these principles are not baked in to their government."
What rights, and what separation of powers?
"His Majesty is not some Oriental autocrat, nor can he ever be," Ms. Destrahan replied. "The Throne is responsible solely for the administration of the government and the application of the law. Congress has the exclusive power of legislation, and the President of Congress has as much power as the King. As for rights, the Constitution forbids any part of government from acting to suppress freedom of speech, the press, assembly, religious worship, the ownership of arms, and so on. And let's not start on the powers exclusive to the states."
What powers does the King have?
"Under the Constitution, the King has supreme executive power over the entire federal government. In practice, one man cannot manage an entire government, so he appoints Secretaries to head the various departments of the executive government. These Secretaries form his privy council, and they govern on His Majesty's behalf. Congress must approve of these appointments, but the King may fire anyone at will without congressional approval."
But wouldn't the system be better with a democratically-elected executive? Wouldn't that be more responsive and responsible to the people?
"The institution of monarchy serves as a protection against mobocracy. The Founders understood that the passions of the people can be easily inflamed by demagogues. We allow the people to speak through Congress, and they decide policy. The role of the King is to execute the will of the people through Congress." Ms. Destrahan shakes we head.
"What business does the common man have in choosing executives? Do they have any particular wisdom that qualifies them to make such important decisions? It would be chaos."
With the crown's powers explained, I ask Ms. Destrahan about the role of state government.
"The rights of the states are guaranteed by the Constitution. Neither the King nor Congress have much say on purely state matters. They decide policy for themselves."
Ms. Destrahan pauses, then smiles for the first time since I met her.
"You will find this interesting, Mr. Chaná. Most states have their own royalty. Minor nobles that serve the same role in state government as the King does in the federal government. But, some states have wholly republican governments, and ban royal title in state government. Most of the New England states are governed in this way."
I thank Ms. Destrahan for the interview, but I have one more question for her. I mention that, on my way to meet her, I saw a Democratic Republican rally. I asked if she knew any Democratic Republican politicians that would be open to an interview. Ms. Destrahan laughed at my request.
"You wouldn't have any problems with that. Those nutters are always looking for another soapbox. My only question is, why?"
I explained that I wanted to hear their side of the argument. Ms. Destrahan told me I was making a mistake, but she nevertheless wrote a phone number on a napkin and told me to ask the line for a Mr. Jones.
"I would love to answer any of your questions, Mr. Chaná," a brash, Bronx accent said over the phone. Because it was such short notice, Arnold Jones, Chairman of the Democratic Republican Party of America, declined my request for a personal meeting. But the very fact that he entertained my request for an interview at all spoke volumes to the Democratic Republican Party's present responsibilities and powers.
"Political change is always difficult, Mr. Chaná, but never impossible. General Washington," - Mr. Jones never referred to George I by his royal title -"himself believed that. Any attempt to change the system on this institutional level will be met with stiff resistance from entrenched, powerful special interests."
So the Democratic Republicans are revolutionaries?
"In the American tradition! The Democratic Republican Party wants to return America to its roots: a republic, as the Founders truly intended. We are the revolutionaries of 1776, but we are also the true restorationists."
Mr. Jones was very enthusiastic about abolishing the monarchy, so I asked him to enlighten me about the Democratic Republican Party's other planks.
"We need to clean up Washington D.C. The major issues facing this country is a lack of accountability from the executive. Unelected monarchs appointing unelected bureaucrats. The end result is that the executive always goes over budget, and Congress lets them get away with it by increasing the budget! The monarchy also gets in the way of much-needed change. It took this country until 1898 to approve the constitutional abolition of slavery, a decade after every other state abolished that abominable institution, because the House of Washington did not want to let go of its own slaves."
But wasn't Congress the people's voice in the federal government? Didn't they provide an ample check on the King's power?
"Mr. Chaná, if you believe that, I have some beachfront property in Dakota to sell you! Congress doesn't do its job, because there are too many political parties, and none of them want to hold the King to account except for us. The Whigs, the Federalists, the Liberty Party, even the Social Democrats, they're all in bed with the Crown. The executive needs to be directly accountable to the American people."
I finally asked Mr. Jones if he believed the American monarchy could ever be abolished, given how entrenched the institution is in American politics.
"Congress and the states can call another constitutional convention if a supermajority of congressmen and a supermajority of state legislatures vote for a measure. That's the Democratic Republican Party's goal. Then, we can abolish the monarchy and fix this country's problems. We may only have a dozen seats in Congress, but we have the state legislatures and the majority of governors in New England. And with the messes George V has gotten us into, more people are listening. Believe me, Mr. Chaná, change is coming to America."
Well, this is the first time I'm wholeheartedly agreeing with the Democratic-Republicans. Let freedom ring! Down with the King!
How does the royal succession work in the Kingdom of America? Since George I didn't have a natural son, it would've needed to go to his stepson John Parke Custis or his step-grandson and adopted son George Washington Parke Custis. Alternatively, he could've followed the model of some Roman emperors and adopted an unrelated heir - which is what I might recommend?
It went to his adopted son, and the line continued from there.
On the whole, yes.
What do the stars represent? The branches of the government?
Is this supposed to be Alex Jones?
1776 SHALL COMMENCE AGAIN!
Is this supposed to be Alex Jones?
1776 SHALL COMMENCE AGAIN!
- Status