Thanks, but don’t you have, you know, some kind of actual argument to make?
The General Human Pattern of social organization is a head male and usually his mate in charge (a king, football quarterback, dictator) with his loyal inner circle (the royal court, the in kinds, the junta). The rest of the population is “out”. The guy in charge stays in charge as long as:
1. He controls a critical resource, like Chinese water empires or trade routes, like Mohammed and his merry band of theives
2. Has recognition as such (divine right of kinds, enough guns to outgun the competition)
3. Doesn’t kill so many underlings that the rest vote with their feet to leave
This article suggests that we should be happy with another Clinton or Bush as President, because, hey, they’re born and bred to rule. As long as the trains run on time and we all get our annual visit with the socialized medico, life is good, so having a say doesn’t matter so much.
Of course, power corrupts, or it attracts the corruptible. And those who seem given a divine right (or A-OK to do anything) will do anything. Ban the religion you don’t like, execute those who annoy you, raze buildings to improve your view.
Democracy is an improvement over the General Human Pattern in that it recognizes that underlings have rights. Constitutional limits and checks and balances on powers help protect those rights.
Saying we should be A-OK with a fall back to more primitive patterns of behavior while keeping our modern technology is like terrorists who force women into burqas because Mohammed did it, but explosives and AK-47s are acceptable. Picking and choosing, taking the worst from the past and enforcing it into the present with the most advanced technology.
I hope this article is a joke. Because anyone who believes a “let the idiot rule because his father did a decent job, screw the better candidate because he has the wrong name” is a step in a very wrong direction.