The argument of the original post is, more or less, that leaders of modern democracies (like the President of the United States) have more power and are more authoritative than kings of the past, and that a return to a monarchy would result in less governmental power. As it says:
"Anywhere and everywhere around the world, as governments transitioned from monarchies to democracies and republics, they quickly became vastly more powerful, controlling and authoritarian. In other words, if Trump were a monarch, he would be far less powerful than he is as president."
However, there are severe problems with this argument.
If it is saying Trump would have less power if he were a king in the King Charles sense, sure. But then that makes the article's whole argument irrelevant. Charles's lack of power doesn't mean the government has less power, it just means he personally doesn't have it; the power is wielded by the parliament, in particular the prime minister, instead.
The actual argument the article appears to be making is to assert that monarchies were less powerful, controlling, and authoritarian, and a return to that--an absolute monarchy--would fix that. Thus, if America went back to a monarchy, it would be less controlling.
The article's whole argument, however, suffers from a major issue. It is comparing modern Presidents (or prime ministers or other such positions, but I'll say President) to past kings. Perhaps kings in the past did have lower power--but even if so, it is not the past anymore, but the present. So instead of comparing modern Presidents to past kings, how about comparing modern Presidents to modern kings? Why isn't it doing that?
If we look at modern monarches--actual monarchs with real power, not guys like Charles who are just figureheads--we don't see governments that are less "powerful, controlling, and authoritarian". We instead see Saudi Arabia and Oman, countries that are (domestically, at least) more powerful, controlling, and authoritarian than the United States or as far as I am aware any modern democracy is.
I would say the actual reason for governments being more directly controlling than the past isn't because monarchism somehow restrained the king. Practical realities were what did it; the length of time for travel or communication meant a king couldn't exert direct control on much outside of his most immediate lands. As anyone who played The Oregon Trail knows, back in the day it took months to get from Missouri to Oregon. Nowadays someone can go from Washington D.C. to Oregon and back in less than 24 hours. Due to the slow rate of information travel, Britain didn't even know about the US's July 4 Declaration of Independence until August; nowadays I can read news about events in Nigeria the same day they happen. This dramatically increased level of communication and travel allows rulers to be far more direct in their power than they ever could have been before.
So, sure, maybe if Trump (or any modern US President) was a king a thousand years ago, he would've had far less power. But a king in the modern age? That would just make him and the government as a whole way more powerful.
