Jim Bennett (The Anglosphere Challenge) discusses Arnold Kling’s review of his work in Kling in TCS on TAC and, in the process, brings up an interesting point on “strong central monarchies”:
Lexington Green of Chicago Boyz in a private email, took exception to Kling’s description of England’s “lack of a strong central monarchy,” pointing out accurately enough that the English monarchy was far more effective, and far more centralized than Continental monarchies for a long period of time.I think we are seeing an endemic problem in discussing this issue in English-speaking discourse. When we say “strong central monarchies” our image is of Louis XIV’s France — pervasive and intrusive government. Its opposite in one sense is a weak, decentralized monarchy, which would be (to give the classic example) pre-partition Poland. But the English monarchy was also the opposite of the Sun King’s autocracy in a different plane — it was strong and fully able to enforce civil peace in England from a very early time. But in terms of intrusiveness into English life, it was amazingly unlike Continental states — no real police, no standing army. This model — effective where needed, absent where not — was the model the founders drew on for the Federal government. And Lex is right, this model has been critical for the success of our civil society.