The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

Rules:Please be respectful and nice. Please do not be rude. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.You must agree that this will be a fair debate, using unfair advantages is not allowed.No use of profanities or swear words. No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.No threats or implications thereof.No cheating. I will be making my arguments that the United States should join the Commonwealth of Nations, but as a Commonwealth realm, meaning the Queen being Head of State.The Commonwealth offers the United States an idea that has worked. It has figured out how to conduct relations across the cleavages of wealth, religion, and race in an era in which international politics are characterized by intensifying economic interdependence and cultural assertiveness. This has been achieved by a combination of soft power and quiet diplomacy. The Commonwealth has very few hardpower resources at its disposal; just modest sums of money and a few peacekeepers where circumstances permit. It proceeds, as the Harare Declaration expresses it, ‘through consultation and the sharing of experience.’ Members like to see themselves, in the words of the former secretary general, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, as an ‘organic community of states,’ bound by mutual understanding, if not always by mutual agreement. Indeed, one of the most common terms used by those who participate in its operations is that of a family. This makes sense because throughout history, embassies have been the centre for the building of mutual relationships between foreign governments, and have also, sadly, been the centre for turmoil, Benghazi, Iranian revolution hostage crisis, to name a few. In general however, the idea of an embassy is to bring foreign nations closer together, culturally, economically, and in politics. It is what allows people to connect with a nation, in a way, as the values and traditions of a nation are typically made known at a particular embassy. This is why embassies, all over the world maintain different building design, interior layout, special exchange programmes, and through the attitudes of diplomats. The Commonwealth of Nations and each of its member nations enjoy a special form of diplomatic missions, known as High Commissions. A high Commission is, in most aspects, an embassy, with some differences. First, each Commonwealth nation shares a special bond, through language, rule of law, values, and history. This means that they do not have a “foreign” viewpoint of one another. The ambassador takes another name, as a High Commissioner. A High Commission has its history set during the Days of the British Empire, where a High Commissioners job was to manage protectorates, that were not under full control of the Crown. However, the idea of High Commissions evolved over time into what now allows nations like Canada and Australia to maintain special cultural, and political ties together that you would not see in an embassy. Put it like this, embassies focus on “foreign” relations, and High Commissions emphasise the special Commonwealth bond, by means of easier access, occasionally shared High Commission buildings, as was the case for Canada and the United Kingdom, allowing for efficient diplomatic missions, a bond that, while it has a certain emotional aspects to it, also functions with a manner that encourages citizens of the Commonwealth to interact, and communicate with one another, having a common interest. Common interests is why they do not have a foreign view of each other. The United States was founded on many principles shared by many of these nations, particularly Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Common law, the English language, and our heritage rooted in the British Empire gives us the opportunity to maintain a High Commission, and develop a much closer cultural, economic and political bond with our true family. We need to cast aside our 1776 prejudices towards a king from 238 years ago, and embrace nations which share much more in common with us then many of our citizens may think. It’s an uphill climb, but it is well worth it. Now, as for becoming a Commonwealth realm: According to http://goo.gl... "Our modern Constitutional Monarchy gives us a Queen who is: an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics, commercial and factional interests a focus for national unity, national awards and honours and national institutions a Head of State whom we share with 16 other independent countries because she is their Queen too and that links us all together amazingly and most valuably the Head of the Commonwealth because all 53 countries recognise her as this and so she is a special unifying symbol for them too the centrepiece of colourful non-political ceremonial and national celebrations separate from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), unlike in some countries where the two are combined, often with difficulty able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organisations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc a Head of State completely under the democratic control of Parliament but not having to change every few years in divisive elections at the head of a Royal Family who can share the duties and represent the Queen a constant, lasting symbolic head of the country with links back through our whole history and assured lines of continuity into the future a worldwide well-known and respected symbol of our country carrying out State Visits and goodwill tours in other countries." Here in the United States we could really take advantage of these benefits. It has been reported on June 30, 2014, from http://goo.gl..., that "Americans have less confidence in the Obama administration than they did for George W. Bush’s at the same point in his presidency, according to a new Gallup survey." And if you look here, http://goo.gl..., it has been reported on April 29th, 2011 that "According to a recent CBS News/ New York Times poll, Queen Elizabeth II has a 61 percent favourable rating among Americans, with a mere 7 per cent holding an unfavourable view of the British monarch (a further 25 per cent are undecided). That compares with an average job approval rating this week of 45.5 percent for the US president according to RealClear Politics, with some recent polls placing him as low as 41 percent." One can only imagine that these ratings have improved since this was reported, it's the Queen who does the job right.It's a fact that constitutional monarchies are more democratic than republics. According to http://goo.gl..., "As constitutional monarchies make up around 15% of the countries in the world, if there is more than 1 country in the top five or even top ten, then clearly constitutional monarchies are over represented. Similarly if there are more than three in the top 20, constitutional monarchies are again over represented. And if constitutional monarchies are over represented, republics (that is politicians' republics) are therefore under represented." It's also a fact that today slightly more than a quarter of constitutional monarchies are Western European countries. According to Wikipedia. http://goo.gl... We share so much and Canada also shares the British Monarchy, the United States would be better within the Commonwealth of Nations and looses so much being outside of it. What is the harm in joining? The Commonwealth will be strengthened by adding those in North America who want Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs as their head of state. It will provide political stability by placing the seat of power above that of political expedience. The American Revolution was an illegitimate rebellion and it is time we restored legitimate authority to this land. I would be surprised to see the U.S. ever join because most Americans just love the revolution. Mind you, really we were fighting a move made by the Parliament and not by the King but we paint a different story. We believe that the American public would be better served if these positions were separate, with the latter being held by an un-elected, non-partisan monarch. The United States is able to join the Commonwealth of Nations even if it is a republic. A republic has been allowed in the Commonwealth since the London Declaration, with the interpretation that republics who do not answer to the Monarchy of the UK are still allowed to join. The US has a long history with the UK, Canada, Australia, and other Commonwealth Countries including the "Special Relationship" between the UK and the US. Canada is the one of the US's largest trading partners and the US is Canada's largest. Both countries have the longest unmiliterised border in the world. The US and the Commonwealth would both benefit greatly from the US joining, both in defense and in economics. Britain gave birth to the US and toady the US and the UK have one of the tightest alliances in the world. We have close cooperation politically and militarily and on intelligence matters. Why not make it official? As an American, I find it strange that we are not a member. America, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are arguably already a unit. They are militarily, financially, culturally, and security a group that dominates world politics. The Queen is as popular in the US as she is in the existing members. It would be a great way to cement the Anglo sphere into a group as other nations like China grow.Sources:http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...