An American Monarchy

Before we can engage in a meaningful discussion about monarchy and its potential role in modern governance, it is essential to first grapple with the concept of democracy—an idea often misunderstood, conflated, or misapplied in contemporary political discourse. Democracy, as a form of government, carries a precise political meaning, yet in popular usage it is frequently conflated with social ideals, liberties, or even moral values. This confusion obstructs clear thinking about government structures and the true nature of political legitimacy.

​

What is Democracy?

At its core, democracy is a political mechanism, a structural framework describing how a society organizes its governance. Democracy derives from the Greek demos (people) and kratos (rule or power), fundamentally signifying “rule by the people.” Yet, importantly, democracy refers to rule by the majority of politically equal citizens within a defined territory. It is a system of governance characterized by a particular process—one in which the collective decisions of the majority determine the exercise of political authority.

This understanding sharply distinguishes democracy as a process and structure from social norms, ethics, or notions of liberty. Democracy sets forth a procedural rule: political power is to be exercised in accordance with the will of the majority. It describes who governs and how they are chosen, but it does not prescribe what that governance ought to achieve morally or socially.

This distinction is vital because the term “democracy” has often been stretched beyond its proper bounds, used synonymously with “representation” or “liberty” in popular and political rhetoric. While representation and liberty can be elements of democratic governance, democracy itself does not guarantee either. A democracy may, paradoxically, be illiberal or oppressive.

​

Democracy’s Limits: Tyranny of the Majority and Mob Rule

The majority rule that underpins democracy can, if left unchecked, lead to what political philosophers have long warned: the tyranny of the majority. In such scenarios, the prevailing majority—whether political, ethnic, or social—may impose its will in ways that oppress, marginalize, or brutalize minorities. The risk of “mob rule,” where populist or demagogic impulses dominate, is an inherent danger within democratic systems.

History demonstrates that democratic processes can be used to usher into power parties or movements with profoundly illiberal or destructive agendas. For example, had the majority in a given nation voted for a Communist party, a Nazi party, or a Fascist party, the outcome would result in a totalitarian state of either a communist, a nazi, or a fascist nature. These outcomes would arise democratically—through legitimate majority vote—but the results would undermine liberty, rule of law, and even the survival of the polity.

The defining characteristic of democracy is process—the mechanism of decision-making—but this process is neutral in regard to content. Democracy has no inherent moral compass or director; the baton of governance can be claimed by any faction, no matter how malevolent. Consequently, democracies can sow the seeds of their own destruction through populism, factionalism, and demagoguery. Indeed, these dynamics threaten the very survival of democracy itself, undermining social cohesion and political stability.

​

Distinguishing Liberty from Democracy

Liberty, often conflated with democracy, is in fact a distinct and more fundamental political principle. Liberty concerns the manner in which government authority is exercised rather than who holds authority. It asks: How ought power be wielded to maximize individual autonomy, freedom of conscience, and personal rights?

Liberty can be—and historically has been—found in diverse forms of government, including kingdoms, empires, and republics. The Founding Fathers of the United States, steeped in a classical and historically minded education, understood that liberty did not require democracy. They envisioned a republic structured to safeguard individual freedoms, balancing popular sovereignty with checks on majority excesses.

Thus, liberty addresses constraints on government and protections for individuals, ensuring that power is exercised with respect for personal autonomy, property rights, and justice. A regime might be democratic yet illiberal, or liberal yet not democratic. Recognizing this distinction is critical to avoiding simplistic assumptions equating democracy with freedom.

​

The Nuances of Representation

Similarly, representation—a key feature of democratic governance—is not uniquely tied to elections or direct voting. Representation means having one’s interests and rights advocated for in governance. Yet representation can arise through various institutional forms and does not depend solely on popular suffrage.

Consider the legal profession: lawyers represent their clients’ interests in court. Whether retained privately or appointed by the state, these lawyers have a duty to act on their clients’ behalf. This representation does not arise from a popular vote but through professional obligation and consent.

If one were to insist that only voting guarantees representation, one would be forced to ask: what of those who do not vote or who support losing candidates? Are they thus unrepresented? Would laws and policies passed without their direct electoral endorsement be invalid or unjust? Such conclusions are untenable. Representation ultimately rests on consent and authorization, which exist in both active and passive forms.

Active consent typically takes the form of voting and participation in political processes. Passive consent, by contrast, is given when citizens choose not to oppose the existing order, when they accept the legitimacy of institutions, laws, and the framework of governance—even silently or by default. This consent is the implicit acceptance of the social and political architecture passed down through generations, the “unspoken contract” shaping our roles and relationships within society.

Therefore, representation is about authorization—the recognition and acceptance of governing authority—and not solely the mechanics of elections or voting.

​

The Paradox and Promise of Monarchy

Turning to monarchy, we encounter a political institution that is paradoxical and often misunderstood in contemporary political theory. Monarchy, defined by hereditary succession and a singular executive, carries qualities that can appear contradictory yet offer unique advantages.

Our aim is to illustrate why, in light of the challenges facing modern democratic republics such as the United States, a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy—a model akin to the “Limited Monarchy” familiar in previous centuries—may offer a superior path forward.

​

Apolitical Authority Above Faction

One of monarchy’s chief strengths lies in its hereditary nature, which renders it, in principle, apolitical. Unlike elected officials who must campaign, negotiate, and compromise within partisan factions, monarchs ascend by birthright. They do not require electoral mandates and thus stand above partisan politics.

This hereditary legitimacy enables the monarch to act as an impartial arbiter and custodian of the common good, unencumbered by the demands of party loyalty or electoral expediency. Freed from the perpetual need to campaign or curry favor with political bases, a monarch can theoretically govern with a broad and long-term perspective—balancing the interests of diverse regions, classes, and communities.

In contrast, elections by their very nature are divisive. They rarely, if ever, achieve unanimous support; they pit one faction against another in zero-sum contests. Elected representatives inherently advocate for particular constituencies or partisan platforms, which limits their ability to govern as impartial stewards of the whole polity. The cycle of electoral competition encourages short-termism, populism, and factional self-interest—elements that fracture national unity and compromise the common good.

​

The Monarch as Living Symbol of Nation and History

Monarchy is not merely an office; it is the living personification of a nation’s history, culture, and identity. The royal family’s lineage often stretches back centuries, rooted deeply in the soil and traditions of the country. Their ancestors’ contributions—through patronage of the arts, founding of institutions, or financing of public works—remain embedded in the national fabric.

The monarch serves as a unifying figure above the tumult of political disputes, embodying continuity, stability, and collective memory. This symbolic function fosters a powerful emotional and psychological connection between the people and the state, providing a sense of belonging and national identity that transcends transient political disagreements.

Additionally, monarchies often possess an “international” dimension due to the historical intermarriages among royal houses. These ties can forge diplomatic goodwill, cultural exchange, and mutual respect among nations, enriching the monarch’s role as a figure of international prestige and connection.

​

Monarchy as a Craft and Apprenticeship

From the earliest traditions of royalist political thought, monarchy has been seen not simply as a birthright, but as a craft requiring rigorous education and preparation. A future monarch is trained extensively in a broad curriculum encompassing languages, law, philosophy, history, politics, diplomacy, military strategy, the arts, etiquette, etc.

This apprenticeship ensures that the monarch is not only a prime symbolic figure, but a capable and active statesman equipped to navigate complex governance challenges. The Platonic ideal of the “philosopher king” resonates here: rulers should be educated in wisdom and virtue to govern justly and effectively.

Proper education and institutional checks are critical safeguards against tyranny. The monarch’s authority, though strong and hereditary, is balanced by constitutional structures that guard against tyranny and ensure accountability. Historically, monarchs who embraced patronage of the sciences, arts, and education have bequeathed lasting legacies of cultural and intellectual flourishing.

​

Monarchy’s Unique Capacity to Garner Broad Loyalty

Perhaps most strikingly, monarchs command a kind of loyalty and support fundamentally different from that directed toward elected officials. Whereas presidents and prime ministers derive their legitimacy from periodic elections and political platforms, monarchs often inspire affection, admiration, trust, and respect rooted in historical continuity and personal loyalty.

This loyalty transcends factional politics, religious divides, and social cleavages. It is a unifying force drawing support from diverse segments of society—young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural. The emotional connection to the monarch often manifests in a genuine love for the institution as a symbol of national unity.

Why should such loyalty arise for a hereditary figure not chosen by election? In complete contradiction to democratic myths. The answer lies in the unique blend of tradition, ceremony, historical rootedness, and the personal qualities of the monarch as a custodian of the nation’s soul.

​

Why Monarchy for the United States?

The political climate of the United States over the past several decades has demonstrated an increasingly toxic level of partisanship and factionalism. The Founding Fathers warned of such dangers, fearing the corrosive effects of factions on republican governance.

The presidency, once envisioned as a unifying executive, has become deeply politicized and divisive. Electoral competition fuels short-termism and gridlock, and the constant campaign for power distracts from long-term stewardship.

Hereditary monarchy, especially when limited constitutionally (though not necessarily a monarchy derived from a constitution), offers a compelling alternative to this fractious model. By removing the executive from electoral competition and partisan factions, this new monarchy can provide stable, impartial, and unifying leadership. It holds the promise of transcending political divisions and fostering genuine national cohesion.

The historical experience of constitutional monarchies in Europe and elsewhere demonstrates that monarchy need not be synonymous with arbitrary rule or tyranny. Rather, when organized well, it can coexist with elected institutions, foster liberty, and be a vehicle for modern governance.

 

Conclusion

In summation, democracy, as a process of majority rule, is an important but limited political mechanism. It does not guarantee liberty, representation, or justice by itself. These concepts must be understood distinctly and balanced carefully in any system of government.

Representation is not merely the result of elections but arises from deeper sources of consent and authorization. Liberty transcends regime type and demands that authority be exercised with respect for individual autonomy.

Monarchy, far from being an outdated relic, embodies qualities that address many shortcomings of contemporary democracy. Its apolitical, hereditary nature, educational rigor, symbolic power, and ability to unify diverse peoples offer a viable framework for stable and just governance.

For the United States, adopting a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy could reconcile the principles of liberty and representation with the practical need for impartial, long-term leadership—free from the factional strife that currently threatens political stability.