The people that want functioning heirarchies advocate for forms of heirarchy historically proven to work. I am shocked. She is a typical marxist that thinks jargon makes demonstrations of ignorance a profound insight.
There is a difference between an existing monarchy with traditions and grafting it onto a place that has no (recent) history of it. For example, monarchism was correct in 1870s France, but to import the pathetic, bleating sheep of the Bourbon line of Spain would be madness.
Regime change is rare, but history is full of it. Aristotle posits that the order of regimes is monarchy into oligarchy into anarachy into monarchy, although this is obviously wrong as shown by Ceasar, Cromwell, etc.
The US does have a history of monarchs, which could also be characterized as constitutional executives, with Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. It's about time for another one, but any post-liberal regime will definitionally have to be more radical than any of the previous monarchically established iterations.
The people that want functioning heirarchies advocate for forms of heirarchy historically proven to work. I am shocked. She is a typical marxist that thinks jargon makes demonstrations of ignorance a profound insight.
There is a difference between an existing monarchy with traditions and grafting it onto a place that has no (recent) history of it. For example, monarchism was correct in 1870s France, but to import the pathetic, bleating sheep of the Bourbon line of Spain would be madness.
Regime change is rare, but history is full of it. Aristotle posits that the order of regimes is monarchy into oligarchy into anarachy into monarchy, although this is obviously wrong as shown by Ceasar, Cromwell, etc.
The US does have a history of monarchs, which could also be characterized as constitutional executives, with Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. It's about time for another one, but any post-liberal regime will definitionally have to be more radical than any of the previous monarchically established iterations.