De Monarchia Americana

I had never heard of Curtis Yarvin before today, when he features in the article linked from the Guardian on 'the New Right' in the USA.

In the video, also linked, Yarvin lays out his view that Monarchy is the best form of Government that the US can hope for. He argues that Monarchy is rule of one, Oligarchy rule of a few, Democracy the rule of many. He also argues that historically, Democracy has been the most dysfunctional form of government, and that what the US has in reality is an Oligarchy.

His model, for someone with work experience in Silicon Valley, is the dynamic CEO of a company that gets things done, and is prepared when necessary to strip out layers of 'bureaucracy' to take the company into new areas, not far from Dominic Cummings' ideas in the UK.
Contrast that with the bloated Federal and State bureaucracies which, moreover, are inculcated into a Liberal political culture that informs the Media and the 'Harvard' brand, and not just in law.

In the details, Yarvin shows his ignorance -he thinks it was regrettable that Charles the First was executed, but Oliver Cromwell, though not a King, as designated 'Lord Protector' was a Monarch, so what actually changed? Cromwell changed a lot, but was in the end an ineffective leader and died before any lasting changes took hold. As for the US, whatever he thinks of the CEO mentality of Washington, he has nothing to say about Race and Slavery, just he doesn't want to think through the impact of the industrial revolution on society and how this changed the landscape of politics.

He is also wrong to suggest Rex Tillerson did nothing at State, where he stripped out layers of expertise, just as Trump caused much damage to foreign policy, and in signing a deal with the Taliban that committed US troop withdrawals, sealed the fate of that country as far as the Taliban is concerned.

In the end, it is Thomas Hobbes dressed up in contemporary jargon. but without the intelligence needed to unravel the complexities of Hobbes entirely rational head of state. For this, please spend a more useful hour of time with Quentin Skinner, one of the finest philosophers we have produced in the UK in the last 50 years.

As for the US, I really don't think Monarchy has real appeal, and creating one would require another revolution, whereas I think the gradual end of the Union into a hotch-potch of autonomous States is more likely, whether or not those States will dismantle existing politics for a monarchical system is debatable.

The Guardian article is here-
The ‘new right’ is Trump’s toxic legacy – and it could shape the future of British politics | Jon Allsop | The Guardian

The interview with Yarvin is here-
Curtis Yarvin: Why America should become a monarchy - The Post (unherd.com)

Quentin Skinner's lecture is here-
A Genealogy of the State: Quentin Skinner - YouTube