A return to the more general Traditionalist battle.
As of late I have been reading A Return to Order by John Horvat II. The book, primarily, concerns a very American take on the need to return to an organic traditionalist society and goes a long way to pointing out the underlying causes and currents that led to our current state affairs, with a particular, and rightful, focus on the economic insanity we have slowly been delving into since the 1700s. I would recommend the book as part of a wider diet on traditionalist thought and it is heartening to see the roots of the cause take root in America of all places which has never been a friend of traditionalism.
It does however; contain the amusing, I would say adorable, naiveté that one can return to a traditionalist society, more so, feudalist as the book espouses, without a return to monarchism and aristocracy. While it does not express it, the underlying implication in this book, and unfortunately with a lot of newer traditionalists I have found, is that the modern republic was somehow an aberrant evolution of traditional society, aberrant in the sense it defied the downward spiral of civilization and was not, indeed, a symptom of it. It reminds me of the charming belief of many contemporary American conservatives who believe the country's original values were the pinnacle of civilization and the downfall of America only really began with the instituting of the Federal reserve, or the sexual revolution.
This is not to imply John is new to the traditionalist scene, no, I am merely pointing out an additional underlying current I have noticed, using his text as an example.
I am, however, not particularly concerned about this, indeed I see it in the same light I see the enthusiasm of newly converted monarchists. That of unbridled and unshakeable belief in the rightness of the cause and all the benefits therein while subtly ignoring the inherent problems with all the zeal of the convert. That is, before they mature in their thought. I know this because it was exactly how I was when I eventually became a monarchist, although indeed, I had the advantage of coming to my monarchism as a cynic and seeing the inadequacies before my conversion. It involves a lot of thought and re-evaluation of what you hold dear as should any change in ideology, which is why so many of the public, so cowed by consumerism and encouraged not to think are reluctant to do so. After all it only benefits the party system is the public is divided and recalcitrant to change opinions, job security is a hell of a motivation.
So too I believe is the case with new traditionalists. Slowly but surely they might come to realize a republic on the scale of a country is incompatible with the other traditionalist values they cherish, and the living examples of such states lasting the test of time while remaining somewhat traditional can be counted on one hand, (not counting city states), such as Switzerland, although I have heard arguments to the contrary. It’s not guaranteed, after all, I did meet a monarchist one time who was so utterly convinced his beliefs could be married with Marxism. I'll let you figure that one out, as I have no answers for you there.
Granted they're welcome to try, a traditionalist republic would have certainly been the eventual result had say, the Confederate states of America successfully seceded from the USA, which while the slave issue would be eternally regrettable until the CSA's European friends pressured them into giving it up, would have been immensely interesting as a nation. But forgive me if I don't hold my breath, as that outcome seems even more radically unlikely than the restoration of a crown.
With all that said, I do recommend a reading of this book; it provides a necessary economic focus on the traditional battle that is at once different from Distributism and at the same time, complimentary. Always good to have more diversity from the modern, accepted models.