Semantic Influences

It crossed my mind that people tend to think in terms of royalty and, subtly, caste. I'm always bothered that people consider the president of a nation to be its king because that ignores the purpose and structure of a republic.

The guy is there to serve as administrative agent to carry out the laws. Or something like that.

If I start a company, chances are I will install myself as president. I realize that it has become common now to list CEO as the top gun. But it has traditionally been president, and small companies still have either president, or president and CEO. It makes the sole proprietor feel good to claim the title CEO.

The thing is, in that company I started, I am king. It runs on my rules and I can, to a point, hire and fire as I like. People see the president of a company as one who can choose how it allocates resources, decide work rules, etc. Or fire you for somehow offending his or her majesty. That is pretty much to be expected.

In the realm of government, however, this view of the title, "president", is not how it is supposed to be. In this case, the president serves at the pleasure of the citizens, not vice versa. It could be that the language and other cultural traditions have caused us to retain that feudal outlook, much to the detriment of the cause of liberty.

Fairy tales, charming and informative as they are, often focus on the privileges and entitlement of royalty. A position one cannot earn, but must either be born to, or achieve by conquering an opposing army. Even then one must be the one in which all power resides, as far as the army which won.

So, we treat our career politicians as royalty, and the president as king. Special planes, a mansion with countless chefs and servants of all kinds. Special pensions, insurance, you name it. Even exemption from many of the laws they create which the rest of us must obey.

I don't expect to change any of that, but it can't hurt to point it out. I do think that it may have a lot to do with traditions which date back to times when lords and kings had absolute power. And in a country in which it used to be an admirable accomplishment to start and run your own company, the confusion between the two types of president can cause some issues.

Some try to dampen the monarch worship by saying, "I don't respect the person but I respect the office". Fair enough. Do you respect that office more than your on office in life? Or do you simply fear it? Maybe you think anything with an official seal must be revered or you will be guilty of lack of patriotism.

I'm not sure where I stand on these things.

For example, The Pledge of Allegiance. It was written in 1892 by Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, who was also a socialist. He had a utopian vision of an America with financial and all else equality for all. Lots of people have had that view, and still do. It doesn't tend to work in practice because people don't like to find themselves carrying the load while others slack off. The system requires constant vigilance and enforcement by some authority. Good luck trusting that outfit.

Anyway, this was written by a socialist for a Columbus Day event which included impressionable children corralled into making a pledge of allegiance, which seems rather devoid of conditions. Not until 1954 were the words, "Under God" placed in this oath. That was due to pressure from the Knights of Columbus.

People have come to view this thing as a patriotic oath which all should affirm over and over. I'm a little skeptical about the wisdom of such pledges. I would, and have, taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I believe that is part of the military thing, as well as what elected officials vow to do, but don't. That is because I whole heartedly believe in the number one document which was designed to limit the power of authority in this country. It provides the state with certain permissions. What the individual can't do is supposed to be spelled out. What the individual can do is everything not forbidden.

Someone will say I am wrong on this. I do not think I am. The point is that their is a difference in these oaths. I'm suspicious of any oath of allegiance to a state, especially one required of children who haven't a clue what it means or why they are reciting it. A pledge written by a well meaning fascist of sorts. One who dreamed of a socialist society powered by a military industrial complex. Hmm. I guess dreams do come true. I wonder if he guessed how much of the population would have to be doomed to abject ignorance, and how many bought cheaply, in order to continually garner the votes and support it took to get this far.

Anyway, the good Baptist did have some noble sentiments, but we part ways somewhere along the path. I would not expect him to honor an oath I'd concoct either; "I pledge to kick your ass if you mind my business when I am not harming you, and to which it stands, with a go away doormat and a hemet for all".

That would be fun to introduce into the schools. I wonder if anyone would know it makes not so much sense.

It is interesting how that little allegiance thing became the cause of those who swear they are opposed to socialism of the nazi tradition, or communism, yet, without the bigotry aspect of the national socialist party, Bellamy was basically in line with their system.

The church kicked him out for his socialist sermons, and he quit attending because they were bigots. A case in which I agree with both the negatives. Not keen on the system of socialism, nor am I fond of bigots. Why does the name Al Sharpton jump to mind when I hear that word these days? I used to think of David Duke when the word came up. How times change.