Should the United States join the Commonwealth of Nations?

[Indy Texas]

As an English-speaking country with a history heavily intertwined with that of the British Empire, the United States is a logical candidate for membership.

The requirements for membership are below:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Harare Principles are as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm imagining Republicans foaming at the mouth at the prospect of 'Murica joining an organization that opposes "racial oppression" and wants to remove "wide disparities in living standards."

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, because the whole reason we exist is to be away from the British.

[TNF]

ONLY if the British monarchy is abolished. No American should accept or recognize the authority of any monarch; all monarchies are by their nature illegitimate and insulting to the principles of the American republic. Recognizing Queen Elizabeth as anything other than a parasitic usurper, a leech upon the liberty of our British cousins, would be to throw away our ancestors' blood and sweat for independence and a republican, free society.

[Dr. Cynic]

I would be open to it in general, but I absolutely refuse to recognize the monarchy.

[MurrayBannerman]

King George is a tyrant!

[Хahar 🤔]

Of course not. Why?

[H. Ross Peron]

Recognizing the British monarch's leadership of the Commonwealth no more undermines our sovereignty than recognizing the Secretary-General as head of the UN.

[TNF]

Recognizing the British monarch's leadership of the Commonwealth no more undermines our sovereignty than recognizing the Secretary-General as head of the UN.

It undermines our republican character and institutions.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Being familiar with American history after 1775, my answer is a firm no.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Death to the Queen!

[Supersonic]

ONLY if the British monarchy is abolished. No American should accept or recognize the authority of any monarch; all monarchies are by their nature illegitimate and insulting to the principles of the American republic. Recognizing Queen Elizabeth as anything other than a parasitic usurper, a leech upon the liberty of our British cousins, would be to throw away our ancestors' blood and sweat for independence and a republican, free society.

It's for this reason I am against what this thread proposes.

[ElectionsGuy]

Absolutely not.

[Randy Bobandy]

Recognizing the British monarch's leadership of the Commonwealth no more undermines our sovereignty than recognizing the Secretary-General as head of the UN.

It undermines our republican character and institutions.

Not really. The queen is nothing more than a symbol.

I would be all for the U.S. joining the Commonwealth of Nations.

[TNF]

Recognizing the British monarch's leadership of the Commonwealth no more undermines our sovereignty than recognizing the Secretary-General as head of the UN.

It undermines our republican character and institutions.

Not really. The queen is nothing more than a symbol.

I would be all for the U.S. joining the Commonwealth of Nations.

The Queen is a symbol of despotism and tyranny, of class rule and privilege. That's not something we should sign on to recognizing.

[Randy Bobandy]

Recognizing the British monarch's leadership of the Commonwealth no more undermines our sovereignty than recognizing the Secretary-General as head of the UN.

It undermines our republican character and institutions.

Not really. The queen is nothing more than a symbol.

I would be all for the U.S. joining the Commonwealth of Nations.

The Queen is a symbol of despotism and tyranny, of class rule and privilege. That's not something we should sign on to recognizing.

As if the U.S. is any better.

[Hatman 🍁]

Voted yes, but that would mean we wouldn't do so well at the Commonwealth Games

[TNF]

Recognizing the British monarch's leadership of the Commonwealth no more undermines our sovereignty than recognizing the Secretary-General as head of the UN.

It undermines our republican character and institutions.

Not really. The queen is nothing more than a symbol.

I would be all for the U.S. joining the Commonwealth of Nations.

The Queen is a symbol of despotism and tyranny, of class rule and privilege. That's not something we should sign on to recognizing.

As if the U.S. is any better.

We are by virtue of not making class rule completely explicit.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, this seems like an unnecessary and silly idea, although not really much worse than that.

ONLY if the British monarchy is abolished. No American should accept or recognize the authority of any monarch; all monarchies are by their nature illegitimate and insulting to the principles of the American republic. Recognizing Queen Elizabeth as anything other than a parasitic usurper, a leech upon the liberty of our British cousins, would be to throw away our ancestors' blood and sweat for independence and a republican, free society.

This isn't wrong as such but the blood and sweat in that case was already kind of pointless in the final analysis, I think.

[TNF]

No, this seems like an unnecessary and silly idea, although not really much worse than that.

ONLY if the British monarchy is abolished. No American should accept or recognize the authority of any monarch; all monarchies are by their nature illegitimate and insulting to the principles of the American republic. Recognizing Queen Elizabeth as anything other than a parasitic usurper, a leech upon the liberty of our British cousins, would be to throw away our ancestors' blood and sweat for independence and a republican, free society.

This isn't wrong as such but the blood and sweat in that case was already kind of pointless in the final analysis, I think.

Pointless in what way? I'm not trying to be coy here, I'm genuinely interested in what you mean there.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, this seems like an unnecessary and silly idea, although not really much worse than that.

ONLY if the British monarchy is abolished. No American should accept or recognize the authority of any monarch; all monarchies are by their nature illegitimate and insulting to the principles of the American republic. Recognizing Queen Elizabeth as anything other than a parasitic usurper, a leech upon the liberty of our British cousins, would be to throw away our ancestors' blood and sweat for independence and a republican, free society.

This isn't wrong as such but the blood and sweat in that case was already kind of pointless in the final analysis, I think.

Pointless in what way? I'm not trying to be coy here, I'm genuinely interested in what you mean there.

I mean, obviously there was a certain symbolic value in what the American Revolution accomplished, but I agree with socialisthoosier that whether or not we kept a monarchy wasn't really in and of itself that important a consideration since the class character of the United States didn't change in any way, shape, or form--i.e., that that symbolic value wasn't what I'd consider worth shedding that amount of blood for--and for a while now I've had a lingering suspicion that the narrative of the Revolution may have actually made things worse because it gave the country an explicitly political and explicitly bourgeois founding myth, which Britain, despite being indeed much more explicit about its class distinctions, lacks (and also because, well, remember the experiences and general alignments of minorities in the conflict).

[Mordecai]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hell no.

[Simfan34]

ONLY if the British monarchy is abolished. No American should accept or recognize the authority of any monarch; all monarchies are by their nature illegitimate and insulting to the principles of the American republic. Recognizing Queen Elizabeth as anything other than a parasitic usurper, a leech upon the liberty of our British cousins, would be to throw away our ancestors' blood and sweat for independence and a republican, free society.

Please fall in a hole. Obviously this is a great idea, we should go for it immediately.

[TNF]

No, this seems like an unnecessary and silly idea, although not really much worse than that.

ONLY if the British monarchy is abolished. No American should accept or recognize the authority of any monarch; all monarchies are by their nature illegitimate and insulting to the principles of the American republic. Recognizing Queen Elizabeth as anything other than a parasitic usurper, a leech upon the liberty of our British cousins, would be to throw away our ancestors' blood and sweat for independence and a republican, free society.

This isn't wrong as such but the blood and sweat in that case was already kind of pointless in the final analysis, I think.

Pointless in what way? I'm not trying to be coy here, I'm genuinely interested in what you mean there.

I mean, obviously there was a certain symbolic value in what the American Revolution accomplished, but I agree with socialisthoosier that whether or not we kept a monarchy wasn't really in and of itself that important a consideration since the class character of the United States didn't change in any way, shape, or form--i.e., that that symbolic value wasn't what I'd consider worth shedding that amount of blood for--and for a while now I've had a lingering suspicion that the narrative of the Revolution may have actually made things worse because it gave the country an explicitly political and explicitly bourgeois founding myth, which Britain, despite being indeed much more explicit about its class distinctions, lacks (and also because, well, remember the experiences and general alignments of minorities in the conflict).

I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying here, especially the last few sentences, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to argue that the class character of the United States didn't change as a result of the revolution, because it did in a very real way. Prior to the Revolution the United States had a landed gentry not unlike that of England with commiserate titles of nobility (or equivalents, like the proprietorships of several colonies) as well as a fairly rigid social structure with explicit class distinctions, although these were obviously not as intense as they were in Britain. The Revolution swept away these institutions and made civil society much more open and fluid. And so I would argue that the Revolution definitely had a class character in that it wiped out class distinctions explicitly in the law and established American bourgeois democracy.

ONLY if the British monarchy is abolished. No American should accept or recognize the authority of any monarch; all monarchies are by their nature illegitimate and insulting to the principles of the American republic. Recognizing Queen Elizabeth as anything other than a parasitic usurper, a leech upon the liberty of our British cousins, would be to throw away our ancestors' blood and sweat for independence and a republican, free society.

Please fall in a hole. Obviously this is a great idea, we should go for it immediately.

The only good monarch is a dead monarch.

[Oakvale]

What a cringeworthy idea.

[Хahar 🤔]

I think that the idea that the independence changed the basis of American society from aristocratic to bourgeois (even if it didn't necessarily have any immediate effects) is an interesting one.