When I tell people I'm a neo-monarchist, the usual response is to question my motives: “Oh, so you wish you were king?” No, I don’t actually (jester, perhaps, but certainly not king).
It’s an ugly side effect of democracy: the assumption everyone must be grubbing after power, stemming from our being taught, falsely, that in a democracy all have equal chance of acquiring power. The response also reflects how democracies (must?) propagate the repulsive notion there is no difference between kings and tyrants. Very few people in democracies truly wish to be kings, but many, if not most, desire to be tyrants.
But it is entirely legitimate to ask who, if we were to have monarchy, should be king. Because the answer is by no means obvious. As I little need to remind my readers, idiots, frauds, and fools surround us on all sides. Given the current putrid state of politics, academia, and the arts, it can be safely assumed anyone presently in any of those fields is automatically suspect, and should be disqualified. Our businessmen are little better: the honest ones lack the imagination to be king, and would, by nature and habit, at the very least impose some form of bureaucratic tyranny.
After considerable thought, it occurred to me there was a man, intelligent, honest, traditional and conservative by disposition, yet at the same time innovative and adept at calculating and taking risks. A man at ease with all classes and types of people, literally from the lowliest of laborer to landed gentry. He is thoroughbred horse trainer Richard Mandella. Son of a blacksmith, elected to the NTRA Hall of Fame in 2001, winner of four races in the 2003 Breeders Cup, his most recent success training the Tin Man, winner of last Saturdays Grade I Arlington Million, Richard Mandella is the man who should be king.