(1) European history is lush with wars by and between monarchies. Those wars are not the fictions of Whigs and Marxists.
The European political figures whose principles I most admire were fiercely critical of monarchical corruption. Edmund Burke -- the ur-Tory -- spent much of career fighting the corruption of the Hannoverians and the East India Company -- which, I note, was a monopoly. Frederick Bastiat was a staunch democrat, not a monarchist. And so on.
As for the larger point about whether democracy or monarchy is more congenial to socialism, most observers attribute the US's relative distate for socialism as due to the absence of any history of monarchy and a concomitant hereditary class system. This point is reinforced by the observation that in the modern Tory party, the "wets" who opposed Thatcher and her free market reforms tended to be from the British upper class and to have the covert sympathy of the royal family. Thatcher and many of her core supporters were unashamedly plebian with a determination to persuade the country to support their reform program.
The gloomy tone of the article treats socialism as if it is a fatal condition with no hope of reversal in a democracy. But Ireland has prospered through relatively a low tax rate and regulatory burden, and in most of Central Europe -- and in Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic Republics especially -- newborn democracies are slashing taxes and regulations and rolling back socialism.
For brief account as to Poland, see the following:
http://www.wbj.pl/?command=article&id=26683&
I refuse to believe that American voters are less capable of rejecting socialism than are Irish, Polish, Czech, and Latvian voters.
(2) We are not by any means a "winner take all democracy." We are instead, a 50-50 democracy, or perhaps a 51-49 democracy. Congress, the last time I looked, is led by Republicans but still infested with ever troublesome and obstructive Democrats.
I too have at times felt alienated from the political system and have my own large stock of criticisms and complaints; but it is morally vain and self-defeating to stand apart from news and issues as hopelessly compromised by propaganda, from politics as utterly corrupt, and from the civic life of this old and sturdy Republic as pointless because we are in inescapable socialistic decline.
I prefer to be governed by elected officials instead of unelected royals and their hangers-on.
When you talk about the merits of the reforms of Ireland and Central & Eastern Europe, you are getting into the argument between Supply Side economics and Hoppean analysis.
The supply siders, many of whom I greatly admire, primarily Jude Wanniski, do not care about the size of government. As long as that maximum point of revenue generation on the Laffer Curve is attained, they do not care. They would advocate that government has to grow as an economy grows. Most of them would admit that socialism does work as long as there is a greater primary emphasis on economic growth rather than economic redistribution. Only when the redistributive impulse overtakes that of growth are there problems. You could be on the low end of the Laffer Curve and still have socialism. Furthermore, supply siders would advocate raising taxes if on the low end.
Private property anarchists like Hoppe (I prefer the term "polyarchy" because a citizen would select which system to live under) represent the most pure form of anti-socialism. The "governments" are competing with each other and have an incentive to protect their people very well. Because it is based entirely on private property, many social problems would be solved - there would be an incentive to stop illegal immigration and crime would go down. Because slothful and unproductive behavior would no longer be subsidized, general manners and morality would improve. There would be a rise in the fertility rate as people, no longer slaves to a socialistic state, would now have the financial freedom and free time to dedicate to childrearing. All of the problems of the Western world are directly or indirectly tied to socialism, which is a result of the increase in democracy since the time of Marx. The democratic impulse originates on the left. That is why the neoconservatives, the first generation of which used to be communist, are so in love with it - they are still statists and socialists.
But I can't do Hoppe justice. If you are interested, you need to read Democracy: the God that failed.