07-19-2003, 07:54 PM
Well, I'm a pacifist, so the duel's going to be a little one sided. But, then, it's been illegal for quite some time, so maybe we could skip out on that one? Still, if I have to die, or be wounded, I pick sabres.
I'm not equating a president with a monarch. They aren't the same, obviously, in many important respects. What I'm saying is that they share an air of untouchability (and not in the indian sense).
This is not to say they're invulnerable. Kings get hammered plenty often, as do presidents. They just have a ritualistic or formal separation (less a legal one than a mythological one) between them and the people.
Saying that they listen to (or are ruled by the opinion of) the people is no counter either. Kings do that. Perhaps not to the same extent, often, but then I never said they were the same thing. Only that there is a "whiff" of similarity about them.
I still think that Brits, Aussies and Canucks have more of a sense that the PM is their employee, and less their ruler, than Americans with their president. I also think this is a function of their system, not just their culture.
Jester
I'm not equating a president with a monarch. They aren't the same, obviously, in many important respects. What I'm saying is that they share an air of untouchability (and not in the indian sense).
This is not to say they're invulnerable. Kings get hammered plenty often, as do presidents. They just have a ritualistic or formal separation (less a legal one than a mythological one) between them and the people.
Saying that they listen to (or are ruled by the opinion of) the people is no counter either. Kings do that. Perhaps not to the same extent, often, but then I never said they were the same thing. Only that there is a "whiff" of similarity about them.
I still think that Brits, Aussies and Canucks have more of a sense that the PM is their employee, and less their ruler, than Americans with their president. I also think this is a function of their system, not just their culture.
Jester