M. Ted, may I respond to your last post about the "inevitability of political parties" with a hypothetical post made by, let's say, a European back in, oh, the year 1740:


"Hereditary monarchies are inevitable. They are alliances between people with common interests(like chess). They've always existed, and have always been disliked by those who oppose those interests. Which is also inevitable.

Our celebrated One-Ruler monarchy actually includes a lot of other important players and power brokers, but we don't call them the "King". We call them "interested parties among the clerics and the nobility"--the nice thing about the monarchist system is that if your special interest group doesn't get what it wants from one monarch, it can hope to get it from the next...and may play a significant part in removing a troublesome monarch who proves "difficult" in some way...

Monarchies are like religions in a lot of ways, not the least of which is that they reflect the weaknesses and character flaws of their supporters and founders.

One thing for sure, though...we will ALWAYS have hereditary monarchies. They are the form of government that people have the most confidence in, they have a proven track record, and they have proven better in practice than anything else that's been tried."

(big grin!)

Now that would have been the conventional view in 1740, M.Ted. And only a few radicals would have dared imagine it could be in error.

I swear to you that political parties will vanish ingloriously into the dustbin of history, and their record of achievements will be regarded with horror and disdain by the citizens of some far wiser future society that has done away with them.

But you and I won't live to see it. It's not going to happen that soon.