The Danger of Political Royalty

King George III

This post is written by guest author Edward Mahee. Mr. Mahee boasts an extensive legal background, and is an emerging conservative thinker. This is his fifth posting for the site.

In Episode 4 of the HBO miniseries “John Adams,” based on David McCullough’s best-selling book, there is a powerful scene where John Adams is addressed by Great Britain’s King George III.  At the end of the scene, the British king remarks that he prays the United States will not suffer too much for want of a monarchy.  Mr. Adams responds that the United States would endeavor to answer those prayers.

Americans have always held themselves as examples of how free people can govern themselves without the need for an established and paternalistic class of elites. We have long demonstrated that citizens can govern themselves successfully and, as a result, have turned a backwater at the edge of the world into the greatest, most powerful nation-state in recorded history. In America, the citizen, not political royalty, has always come first–it forms the foundation for a democratic republic and national prosperity through liberty.

However, there are many still enamored with the idea of princely power, great men and women ruling over peons. We, of course, do not have a monarchy, or established permanent ruling class. Some would have it quite differently, embracing the idea of political royalty and heavy top-down governance.

This became strikingly and disturbingly clear during the recent passing of Senator Edward Kennedy. There are many who wish to use the Kennedy family as a kind of royalty by proxy.  We are admonished to be reverent and to pay special homage to the Kennedy clan. 

One such example of this came in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on August 28, written by Eugene Robinson titled “Ted Kennedy: An Eternal Prince” soon after Sen. Kennedy’s passing.  The attitude toward the Kennedys held by many in elite circles is well represented in Mr. Robinson’s piece.  He wrote “Ted Kennedy was the youngest of nine children in a family whose ruthless patriarch was intent on building an American dynasty.  The old man, business titan Joseph Kennedy, was a king.  Ted’s older brother Jack, the handsome young president, was a king. The other two brothers, Joe and Robert, were slated for the throne but died too soon.  Ted made a run for president…but was not meant to win…he was the eternal prince.”

That language is unnerving.  The elder Joseph Kennedy and his children worked hard cultivating the image of the Kennedys as a kind of American royalty.  His personal motivation was understandable; the motivation of so many others to buy into it, lock, stock and barrel is not. 

The telltale mark of royalty or nobility is that they are people set apart.  By their very nature, they are different kinds of people as a matter of law.  America was founded in direct opposition of that notion.  It was founded on the notion that, while we may admire some, we will not put any family or group over and above to govern us.  The glamour of royalty is seductive, but we would do well to remember the warning of William Graham Sumner who said, presciently, “the constitutional republic, however, does not call upon men to play the hero; it only calls upon them to do [their] duty under the laws and the constitution, in any position in which they may be placed, and no more.” 

Members of the Kennedy family have been trying to avoid this admonition.  They wish to be viewed as heroes—their status depends on it.  The retort from those who support the Kennedys’ dynastic aspirations is that they do so much good and are committed to service.  That may be true; doing good and doing right is the obligation of every American.  That does not mean, however, that we ought to have a family overseeing us, and it certainly does not mean that ordinary people should submit to increased taxes and regulation for the Kennedys’ good intentions.

Ted Kennedy was in many ways a remarkable man.  But Americans must be careful not to embrace the celebrity, or royalty, of any family or leader. If we do, we risk losing our identity as self-reliant, free, and strong individuals. The citizen and its Republic must always come first.

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net