In his recent biography of George III, The Last King of America, the British historian Andrew Roberts argues George was no tyrant (Click Here ). Roberts' point is undeniable considering George was not an absolute but rather a constitutional monarch. By the time of the American War of Independence, the role of the monarchy within the British state - and its various overseas colonies including America - had been rendered mostly ceremonial. As constitutionally constrained, the king relinquishes any claim to exercise absolute political control over the levers of state power.
Defending George from the quite unfair charge of tyranny, Roberts does not argue that America should abandon its constitutional republicanism, restoring a constitutional monarchical system. His failure of advocacy for a monarchical restoration in America makes it all the more surprising that some - in the contemporary US - are now explicitly calling for a return to monarchy. That is, they are calling not for a restoration of toothless constitutional monarchy but rather a democratic movement to install an absolute monarch as future King of America.
Indeed, the computer programmer turned internet 'celebrity thinker,' Curtis Yarvin, proposes Americans should embrace the principle of absolute monarchy to address core problems of democratic disorder in the US; problems ranging from race riots to burgeoning criminal homeless encampments in major US cities (Click Here ). According to Yarvin, absolute monarchy offers contemporary Americans their best hope for a return to order, coherent public policy, and governmental efficiency. Based on the model of a technocratic Silicon Valley CEO, he contends a single executive - or 'king' - must redirect 'the smartest people [from] making toys' and computer/video games to creating a more orderly, efficient society.
As for the American people, Yarvin insists they should use their democratic power 'only once' to elect a just such a CEO-king, say, Elon Musk. Such an elected king would then appoint a board of 'prominent individuals' (tech-gurus, entrepreneurs, and engineers) possessing 'exactly the powers... of a normal corporate board of directors.' At first, King Elon I of Musk would appoint to the board only those people whom he trusts. However, each of his appointees should then retire in 'favor of someone [else] fully hidden.' The identities of the subsequent board members are kept secret.
The secrecy. or anonymity, of board members guarantees they cannot be 'coerced' or 'corrupted' by King Elon I, or any of his successors, say, Jeff of Bezos or Bill of Gates. Moreover, any subsequent members of the elite accountability board are expected to retire if they are 'doxed,' as a further safeguard of integrity and incorruptibility. That said, Yarvin's elite accountability board does not exercise any political power over the levers of state. It cannot command the terrifying 'death drone swarms' by which King Elon, or his successors, enforce their absolute sovereign decisions.
Consequently, the accountability board does not 'develop any attachment to the process of government, only the results, which they can evaluate neutrally and at a distance.' Nevertheless, its members can remove the king from office should these results prove lacking and replacing him with a better king (thus substituting Elon with Jeff or Bill I?). The board's role is limited to holding king - and successors - to account for how they exercise absolute power. As 'hypermodern illuminati,' the accountability board members converse anonymously with each other, elect new CEO-monarchs based on their knowledge, expertise, but ultimately their success solving 'engineering problems.' They also designate their own successors to the political accountability board; 'other distinguished figures in their social circle' (Click Here ).
However, Yarvin's proposal for an absolute but accountable monarchy in the US encounters some basic feasibility issues. Even if they are drawn to the idea that only an absolute concentration of power can guarantee social order, the people surely have reason to doubt the accountability board's incorruptibility. For example, if he has high-tech death drones as his disposal, then wouldn't the absolute but elected king also have the technological capacities to identify, surveille, and ultimately blackmail the board members?
Moreover, because of its anonymity, the board is effectively unaccountable to anyone or anything besides itself. Developing attachments to power, its membership might begin strategically voting down kings, routinely giving them poor job evaluations, before announcing themselves more competent to wield political power than the elected king. If indeed its members designate their own successors 'from within their social circle' (of family, friends, associates), then the likely result could be an increasingly inbred dynastic oligarchy as opposed to an 'accountable monarchy.'
Aside from feasibility issues, Yarvin risks indulging a neo-reactionary political fantasy imagining a mass popular movement will form to use its democratic power only 'only once,' with the 'goal' that democracy should no longer 'have to exist.' It might be that a mass popular movement will tip American democracy over into some form of political absolutism. Based on the findings of the January 6 committee, the MAGA movement very nearly produced just such an outcome. However, as Yarvin himself would doubtless attest, the events of January 6 have nothing to do with his technocratic model of absolute kingship. MAGA is a fascist movement based on a dynamic interaction of mob and charismatic strongman. The strongman derives legitimacy from mobilizing the 'democratic mob,' rather than answerability to an elite board for competency in securing public order through solving social 'engineering' problems.
Why, then, should anyone any pay attention to Yarvin's fantasy about democratically installing an absolute but accountable King of America to end democracy? Yarvin captures a deep anxiety about democracy on the neo-reactionary right. Democracy and fascism tend to go hand-in-glove. Plato indeed warned that democracies are unsustainable, creating increasing levels of social disorder before eventually flipping over into tyranny (Click Here).
American is clearly not about to restore a constitutional monarchy based on a powerless, toothless king; neither is it about to install an absolute monarchy along the lines sketched by Yarvin. That, however, is no reason to dismiss Yarvin's proposal or his concerns about the necessity for absolute, if accountable, concentrations of political power to restore order. If the current efforts of the January 6 committee to restore public confidence in the norms and procedures of a constitutional republic should prove a failure, then the most likely future of America will be some form, or other, of absolute 'kingship.'
Whether this turns out to be King Donald of Trump or King Elon of Musk, King Bill of Gates, etc., the prospects for a constitutional republic - along with any popular democratic control over the exercise of governmental power - look frighteningly dim.
