U.S. Needs A Hereditary Monarchy.

J.P. DONLON

Perhaps we've been going about the presidential selection process all wrong. Despite two years and millions spent, neither side has managed the requisite knockout punch. Even after endless lawsuits and recounts, the eventual victor will be faced with governing a country that doesn't really know its own mind. Next time, perhaps we should consider a simpler alternative: hereditary monarchy.

It might seem non-egalitarian, but consider that for the past two years we've been trying to ratify the successon of one of two political dynasties--neither of whose scions has had a non-political aspiration since birth. Al Gore has no more link with sharecroppers in Carthage and Yalie George Bush has no more in common with oil wildcaters in Midland, TX, than French speaking Henry Plantagenet had with English yeomanry. We've been shadow boxing with our own version of a Lancastrian and Yorkist rivalry. Why not go for the real thing?

Before buying a new car or PC, one would certainly wish to compare cost, quality, and ease of use. Why not do the same when shopping for a head of state? After all, this is the age of efficiency. As Egypt's King Farouk once forlornly opined, in the end there will only be five kings left: spades, diamonds, hearts, clubs, and England. Since inception, the U.S. has had 42 presidents, while England has had 41 monarchs since the conquest.

By excluding the last three presidential office holders and those who weren't elected in their own right (Presidents Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur, and Ford) and those monarchs who seized the crown through means other than inheritance (William I, Stephen, Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, and William III), one can whittle down a list of roughly 34 leaders for each nation.

Author John Steele Gordon found that most scholars agree that presidents Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, and the two Roosevelts were great leaders. He added to this an unconventional choice, James K. Polk, because one-third of the territory of the nation--The Great American West--was added during his single term. On the other hand, both Adams'--John and John Quincy--Martin van Buren, James Buchanan, U.S. Grant, Rutherford Hayes, Warren Harding, Hubert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon were disastrous presidents. Gordon reckoned the remaining 16 to be adequate leaders on balance, but not great.

How do the kings and queens of England stack up? Henry I, Henry II, and Richard the Lion Heart were well regarded by their subjects, as were Edward I and Henry V. Equally Henry VIII, Elizabeth I , Charles II, Queen Victoria, and Edward VII were monarchs of great stature during times of peril and imperial expansion. Any list of hopeless monarchs would have to include William II, John, Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V, Edward VI, Mary I, Charles I, James II, George III, and Edward VIII.

Yes, the choices are arbitrary and, after a lot of pushing and shoving, some will want to push leaders in different categories, but in the end Gordon came up with a simple scheme. He rated each great at +3 and each disaster at -3 with adequate leaders at 0. The result was that monarchy won with a score from -3 compared with democracy at -12. If one wishes to award a +1 to the adequate on the basis that simply avoiding disaster is an achievement, monarchy does even better, +8 to +4. So, you see, monarchy has its advantages. It's cheaper to run in the long term, and think of the tourism trade with a changing of the guard and all that.