By: Onnie Stone
On Sept. 14, students and faculty settled into room S105 to watch a debate over the superiority of monarchy or republic. History professor Michael Evans argued on the side of a republic against political science professor Thomas Boudrot who argued for a monarchy.
Associate history professor Dr. Amy French officiated the Brown Bag debate. After a close game of rock-paper-scissors, Professor Boudrot began the debate by acknowledging his disadvantages, “America will never accept a monarchy,” he admits. As for his second disadvantage, he referenced his opponent’s British accent, “never have a debate with a British person,” he warns, “because they have such beautiful accents I can never compete with them.”
“It’s a trainwreck,” Boudrot commented, “the British system is in real crisis.” He goes on to list some major political and economic issues Britain has had in recent years. “They make our system look great,” he points out, “and we’ve been a trainwreck for a while too.” He uses this to emphasize how the late Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III were able to unite the British people during trying times.
“What holds us together,” Boudrot asks, “what unites us?” He continues his argument, explaining the benefits of a government figurehead that is above partisan politics and can give citizens a “higher loyalty.”
The argument for monarchy proved to be both enthusiastic and passionate, despite Boudrot truly favoring a republic.
“Dr. Boudrot has argued very eloquently and effectively for monarchy,” Dr. Evans compliments, “and I think you do have to be eloquent and effective in arguing for an institution which is undemocratic and anachronistic,” he opens with a jab, spurring laughter from the audience.
“For many countries, the British monarchy is not a symbol of continuity and peaceful constitutional rule,” Evans comments, “it is a symbol of colonialism.” In his argument against a monarchy, Evans cites how the British Empire has been undemocratic and unwelcome for many of its colonies. “An elected head of state, no matter how much you dislike him or her,” Evans clarifies, “is elected and can be unelected.”
Evans continues his argument for a republic by referencing the Declaration of Independence, which he dubbed “a hate letter to King George.” He made note that American revolutionaries “saw the monarchy, the Crown as a symbol of all that they were against.”
“They understood that monarchy and the lack of liberty go hand-in-hand” Evans finished.
At the conclusion of the debate, Dr. French opened the floor for questions and discussion.
“How would the monarchy be dissolved in England,” one student questioned. “Parliament has the power to dissolve the monarchy,” Boudrot responds, “and Charles knows it.”
Another student asks about how the implementation of a monarchy in the United States might avoid the current political environment and controversies. “I don’t think it would work,” Boudrot answered, “I really don’t.” He explained that our having no history of monarchy would make it impossible to align ourselves under a single government figurehead. “It’s just not possible,” Boudrot concluded, “In my opinion.”
The debate fostered learning and discussion between the audience and professors hosting the debate. It served as a fun and lively learning opportunity for those in attendance of the Brown Bag debate.
While a date has not been set yet, the next Brown Bag hosted by the Humanities Learning Center will discuss the politics of Star Trek. Book groups will be organized next semester around “Firekeeper’s Daughter” by Angeline Boulley, an Indigenous American author from Michigan.
