Absolutism is the One and Only History abounds with tales of destructive dictatorships and the failed democracies. Which is better: governments with casualties or casual governments? Absolutism is a more expedient form of government because it is quick and painless; it provides the guidance and boundaries to keep countries and citizens out of turmoil; democracy is slow, messy, and ineffective. In the United States of America, a representative democracy, Congress takes long to do little. The Washington Informer proves this through their article “Democratic, GOP Squabbling Leads to Government Shutdown” written by journalist Barrington Salmon. On the first of October 2013, a 16-day government shutdown began due to the Congress’s inability
…show more content…
Thomas Hobbes, an Enlightenment thinker, agreed. He thought men, in their state of nature, were selfish, cowardly, and violent. Hobbes claimed that, unless some effective authority stepped into place to provide order, mankind was too immoral to properly govern themselves. He believed that the saving authority could take form in army, police, or government as long as it was absolute or “sovereign” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Although excessively cynical and an overall unpleasant man, Hobbes was considered a genius in his time, and he may have a point. As exhibited in the government shutdown of 2013, humans have to involve their emotions in politics and government; objectivity is a herculean task. An absolute ruler wouldn’t be emotionless but they could prevent the prides of many different-minded politicians from getting so tangled that they hurt rather than help the country. An absolute ruler would bring order to the table, a clean-cut, concise, compact serving of political order, a dish much more appetizing than the chaotic cluster of outrageous combinations that comes with …show more content…
In “Checks and Balances,” an article written by Elizabeth Purdy, PhD., the layout of the United States government is thoroughly described. Laws must be agreed on by both the House of Representatives and the Senate in order to be passed and even then, the president has the power to veto their decision. The Supreme Court can check Congress’s actions and call them out for any unconstitutional conduct while also keeping an eye on the country’s criminal justice to make sure it’s fair and orderly. This complicated system of powers helps a democracy be democratic, helps laws be equally agreed upon by representatives of the people, and helps the government avoid a dictatorship by making sure all the power doesn’t land in the hands of a single individual (Purdy). It’s true that a representative government is fairer but it is also much slower. All the time it takes to agree only to be vetoed and returned to square one in inefficient. In the time spent for a democracy to finally decide to pass one bill guaranteeing universal suffrage, an absolute monarch could have ended wars, raised wages, and legalized gay marriage, all on top of giving everyone voting
Thomas Hobbes, an Enlightenment thinker, agreed. He thought men, in their state of nature, were selfish, cowardly, and violent. Hobbes claimed that, unless some effective authority stepped into place to provide order, mankind was too immoral to properly govern themselves. He believed that the saving authority could take form in army, police, or government as long as it was absolute or “sovereign” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Although excessively cynical and an overall unpleasant man, Hobbes was considered a genius in his time, and he may have a point. As exhibited in the government shutdown of 2013, humans have to involve their emotions in politics and government; objectivity is a herculean task. An absolute ruler wouldn’t be emotionless but they could prevent the prides of many different-minded politicians from getting so tangled that they hurt rather than help the country. An absolute ruler would bring order to the table, a clean-cut, concise, compact serving of political order, a dish much more appetizing than the chaotic cluster of outrageous combinations that comes with …show more content…
In “Checks and Balances,” an article written by Elizabeth Purdy, PhD., the layout of the United States government is thoroughly described. Laws must be agreed on by both the House of Representatives and the Senate in order to be passed and even then, the president has the power to veto their decision. The Supreme Court can check Congress’s actions and call them out for any unconstitutional conduct while also keeping an eye on the country’s criminal justice to make sure it’s fair and orderly. This complicated system of powers helps a democracy be democratic, helps laws be equally agreed upon by representatives of the people, and helps the government avoid a dictatorship by making sure all the power doesn’t land in the hands of a single individual (Purdy). It’s true that a representative government is fairer but it is also much slower. All the time it takes to agree only to be vetoed and returned to square one in inefficient. In the time spent for a democracy to finally decide to pass one bill guaranteeing universal suffrage, an absolute monarch could have ended wars, raised wages, and legalized gay marriage, all on top of giving everyone voting