Any good pro monarchist and counter revolutionary argument's?

[u/Wilhelm19133]

Just a monarchist interested in discussion.

[u/TutorTraditional2571]

Monarchism means a lot of things to a lot of people. 

The draw, from my perspective and honestly, is that there is a long-term executive who has the ability to affect the governmental system. In my ideal, there are checks and balances. 

A monarch should be charismatic and display a degree of humility. People remember sneers. 

But overall, it provides a sense of stability whereas elections can change stances. We are eliminating one source of instability. 

[u/PerfectAdvertising41]

I would approach the topic from a particular perspective, in that monarchy is the best form of government if one is concerned about the preservation of culture, traditions, and social unity. Better than democracy which naturally inclines division and hyper-partisanship. Better than dictatorships which are more grounded in an individual's power rather than the traditions and customs of a people. And better than oligarchy in that the monarch is a person who is tied to the land as a person who is born into the position of leadership and has the responsibility of representing both past, present, and even future generations of people rather than a person who was merely appointed into a position that may seem like a glorified job.

Monarchy can also be more efficient than something like democracy since monarchs have a longer time in power and thus can develop long-term solutions to complicated problems without having said solutions trashed when they lose an election. Representative politicians have fewer incentives to care about the long-term outcomes of their decisions since they know they won't be in power for long and can escape responsibility for their actions. Moreover, the partisanship and manipulation of the masses towards certain political ends can hinder efforts to solve problems, and instead prolong the effects of issues for generations. For example, American illegal immigration has been an issue for decades, both Republicans and Democrats have flipped-flopped on this issue of what to do and have largely failed to come up with a compromise on how to deal with it. The media and other institutions haven't made it any better since they are also partisan and run propaganda for a particular side, thus hindering our capacity to better conceive the issue at hand because one group says one thing and another the opposite. The masses are led in different directions and are discouraged from seeing things from the other's POV. So the problem lingers on and on until one party wins in a landslide for a time and unilaterally gets to make decisions. But even this is not enough, as a president can only serve for so long, and with the election of another president, everything the previous president has done can be nullified, thus prolonging the issue. Monarchs who have political power are not affected by this short-term stop-and-go style of politics and can make a prolonged decision that can be overseen for a long period of time.

Furthermore, monarchy, more than nearly any other major formulation of government, can truly claim to represent the people and their best interests. Democracy, if one buys the Iron Law of Oligarchy argument, grants the illusion of freedom and representation, but the reality is that certain groups will inevitably rise to control how things are done irrespective of the people's will and that representative government will eventually assume more power and control over the people, who are supposed to be sovereign. Modern democracy claims popular sovereignty but the only people who truly have a chance of making a successful presidential or representative run within the state or federal government (here in the states at least) are people who have loads of financial backers who have their own reasons for donating to your campaign or people who vastly wealthy before running for office. So people who have money, power, and influence are the only ones who can truly run things, no different than an oligarchy, which doesn't represent the people. Dictatorships also make the claim of being popular governments, the dictator believing himself to be the pure representative of the people's will (Mussolini argued this, as did the thinkers of Fascism). But the reality of dictatorships is that the only person the dictator truly represents is himself. Not the people, as they are simply a means of justification and reaffirming his power. A king, in contrast to all, is again a person who is tied to the land not by popular vote but by tradition. They don't just represent the present wishes of a particular political party or group, but all people within their society as well as their values and customs without being partisan. Thus being a real representative in light of them representing something that unites all people rather than a few.

[u/Kangas_Khan]

Monarchism has its flaws, just like any system, however, (in my opinion) if there was a middle ground between republicanism and monarchism, that should be the open pathway.

[u/agekkeman]

revolutions are violent, chaotic, and destabilizing. Humanity advances through evolution by incremental change

[u/xanaxcervix]

Finding a job, being rich and successful and having a big happy family and a lot of healthy monogamous sex with your beautiful wife.