I mean if you place meritocracy as the highest value... I really don't

because in that situation the monarch is incentivized to care about the health of the sovereign as a whole and in the long term as well

In theory perhaps.

though i would add a caveat that in an absolute monarchy at least the incentives can become perverse if the monarch is too incompetent

But there is a reason why Monarchies fell.

but i mean of course we aren't subject to absolute rule by capital either

so a more fitting comparison would be a monarchy similar to say morocco

i think it's because they were dealt two major blows

Undoubtedly so, however the monarchy system's fatal flaw is the idea that everyone in the line of descendants upholds the health of the sovereignty as a whole. It has no ability to correct for incompetence in the event of a terrible leader by awarding authority based solely upon heredity.

one, from the ascent of capitalism, the bourgeoisie, and liberalism

and then from WW1

and perhaps you could say WW2 to an extent as well

sure i agree with that

to an extent at least

Yes. Nepotism would be the fall to a system that devalues meritocracy.

an elective monarchy might be preferable

but the thing is is that nepotism is restricted

because it's not in the interests of the monarch to allow for the health of the institutions that support the sovereign to be compromised by such things

and often they have a fair degree of authority to stamp out such things

i mean of course they might be nepotistic toward their family

but there would be many more situations in which nepotism would be more viable under a more diffuse system of power

A system of elective monarchy with restrictions on nepotism, which also upholds the interests of the sovereign, is essentially the idea behind a Democratic Republic.

if you really stretch the concept of what a monarch is sure

True, but the very idea of an "elective monarchy" is a stretch in itself

At that point you're just arguing over term limits

but the problem is that like an american president is only concerned about the effects their policies will have at most 4 years into the future

and of course the system is also entropic

the more the president matters the less coherent the system is in the long term as well

since it produces constant changes in leadership

I wouldn't be opposed to scrapping term limits if the people had the right to hold an emergency vote of removal once for every 4 years.

It still affords the swiftest means for correction. 8 Years is the most a president can serve in their position, with a considerable election every 4 years in which the public if afforded the ability to elect a replacement if necessary.

But I'll agree, the constant changes in leadership by two parties with opposing viewpoints can be terrible for long-term policies.

I would say make 8 year term presidencies.

With that exception above.

the problem is you kind of miss the window for establishing effective long term leadership in a mature republic that produces a divisive political scene such as our own

Well it wasn't like term limits was a concept to the founding fathers.

the problem is is that the system was not designed to be efficient

which was fine when it had a lot less on its plate to manage

but historical progression changed that

yeah they were introduced after FDR

There is a strong argument to remove them.