Once upon a time, there was a king who imprisoned a man because that man publicly protested when the king married his half-brother’s wife. It came to pass that the king held a lavish banquet at which his wife’s daughter danced seductively for the king and his highest officials and wealthiest nobles. The king was so pleased with his stepdaughter’s dance that he offered her anything she desired, up to half his kingdom. At the behest of her mother, the king’s stepdaughter asked for the head of the man the king held in prison. Not wanting to show weakness in front of his inner circle, the king did as his stepdaughter asked.*
The king acted on a whim. If not intoxicated by wine, he was intoxicated by his power. He made a rash decision based on who he disliked and who he liked – and wanted to impress. Arguably, his actions were unworthy of a king. He made a promise based on his momentary pleasure, not what was best for his kingdom. And his wife used his selfishness to get what she wanted. It was not a good way for a king to lead his people.
There have been good kings and bad kings. Kings that put their country first and kings that put themselves first. Kings that used their power to make life better for their subjects and kings that made life better only for their inner circle. At the heart of the matter is the question of who the king should serve.
Plato suggested that a “philosopher-king” would be the best ruler. The philosopher-king must necessarily acquire absolute knowledge through careful, dedicated study to become wise enough to rule his people with justice, virtue, and selflessness. Before he can exercise absolute power, he must first master his own impulses. Self-control must come before control of others. He would not be king to aggrandize himself, but to serve others.
Perhaps the closest we have come to this ideal was Marcus Aurelius. Yet even he would admit he missed the mark. In fiction, there is the legendary King Arthur. It would take a complete overhaul of education and societal norms to achieve Plato’s ideal. In modern times, we have had moderately successful constitutional monarchies, with kings and queens that have served their countries with honor. The best of these were raised and educated to put their countries first. Queen Elizabeth II comes to mind.
The “American experiment” was founded on the principle of separation of powers – legislative, executive, and judicial. The idea is that the three branches will best serve the people by following the Constitution – and they take an oath to this effect. “Checks and balances” simply means that no one branch should take total control. Under the Constitution, the president is not an absolute monarch, but “one who presides,” an administrator sworn to uphold the law.
If a president is allowed to seize more power than the other two branches, the people will likely suffer. This is especially true if the president has no idea what a philosopher-king must bring to the table. In that case, he can only persuade gullible people that he will “fix” whatever is wrong, “fight” for them, and make their country great again. It doesn’t matter if he does any of these things, just that enough people believe him and grant him power.
In the poem by Lewis Carroll, “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” the main characters promised pleasant things to the young Oysters, if they chose to walk with them along the beach. Four Oysters joined them, then another four, and so on, but the eldest Oyster chose to stay in his Oyster bed. Lacking wisdom and better guidance, the young Oysters walked willingly.
“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “To talk of many things: of shoes – and ships – and sealing wax, Of Cabbages – and Kings – And why the sea is boiling hot – and whether pigs have wings.”
In the end, the Walrus and the Carpenter dined on the Oysters. The sea was hot for a reason.
“It seems a shame,” the Walrus said, “To play them such a trick, After we’ve brought them out so far, And made them trot so quick!” The Carpenter said nothing but “The butter’s spread too thick!”
“I weep for you,” the Walrus said: “I deeply sympathize.” With sobs and tears he sorted out Those of the largest size, Holding his pocket-handkerchief Before his streaming eyes.
“O Oysters,” said the Carpenter, “You’ve had a pleasant run! Shall we be trotting home again?” But answer came there none — And this was scarcely odd, because They’d eaten every one.
In his “nonsense” poem, Carroll points out that not all leaders tell the truth, and not all promises are good. We must be wise. We must be careful who we follow. And above all, we must not grant the title of King to anyone, except maybe Arthur or a real person truly worthy of the title.
*Mark 6:17-29 and Matthew 14:3-12.
MurrayWorks 