I think there is a cultural disconnect on both sides here. As a yank I
think it is absolutely preposterous that Australian, British, Canadian,
Dominican, etc citizens and members of the military must swear or affirm
an oath of allegiance to some lady, "her heirs and successors according to
law" simply because of who her daddy was. But that is because I am not
intimately acquainted with all of the symbolism and tradition.
Similarly, I think that subjects of the commonwealth miss out on an understanding of the symbolism and tradition
behind the "support the president" quote.[^1] The support in this case is not about the individual but about the
office of PotUS. The support of the office is an acceptance and affirmation of the outcome of a free an fair
election and in no small part a complete and total rejection of the chains of haplotype worship. In the US oath of
allegiance citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Constitution and instead of swearing or affirming allegiance,
individuals must renounce and abjure any allegiance to princes, sovereigns, etc.
[^1]: I say "I think I understand the sentiment" but I have never heard of
it phrased that way (and Google only gives three results yours being one of
them.
I agree that it's weird to swear allegiance to some person who inherited their spot. I didn't say I wanted a queen!
I do, however, see the wisdom in a non-political head of state. It can help break gridlock and disassociate patriotism from politics. (w.r.t the "I support our president" thing, I was specifically thinking of this crap: [1].)
I just don't think anyone's found the right option for the head of state. Inheritance is bad, a sinecure for elderly politician is bad, a popular election would obviate the non-political part of it. I almost want it to be a career civil servant, like a career diplomat. The Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs is, I believe, the highest non-appointed person in State. Something like that.
Comments
But you do get haplotype worship.
I think there is a cultural disconnect on both sides here. As a yank I think it is absolutely preposterous that Australian, British, Canadian, Dominican, etc citizens and members of the military must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to some lady, "her heirs and successors according to law" simply because of who her daddy was. But that is because I am not intimately acquainted with all of the symbolism and tradition.
Similarly, I think that subjects of the commonwealth miss out on an understanding of the symbolism and tradition behind the "support the president" quote.[^1] The support in this case is not about the individual but about the office of PotUS. The support of the office is an acceptance and affirmation of the outcome of a free an fair election and in no small part a complete and total rejection of the chains of haplotype worship. In the US oath of allegiance citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Constitution and instead of swearing or affirming allegiance, individuals must renounce and abjure any allegiance to princes, sovereigns, etc.
[^1]: I say "I think I understand the sentiment" but I have never heard of it phrased that way (and Google only gives three results yours being one of them.
I agree that it's weird to swear allegiance to some person who inherited their spot. I didn't say I wanted a queen!
I do, however, see the wisdom in a non-political head of state. It can help break gridlock and disassociate patriotism from politics. (w.r.t the "I support our president" thing, I was specifically thinking of this crap: [1].)
I just don't think anyone's found the right option for the head of state. Inheritance is bad, a sinecure for elderly politician is bad, a popular election would obviate the non-political part of it. I almost want it to be a career civil servant, like a career diplomat. The Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs is, I believe, the highest non-appointed person in State. Something like that.
[1]: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/03/cnna.spears/