Let's say that the social order that you desire comes into being tomorrow, by magic. What do you predict would be your social status, and would you expect to feel satisfied in it?
Probably much the same as it is now. The great illusion of democracy is that it deceives people into thinking they actually have some stake in the political order through their vote, when in reality their vote is meaningless when it comes to altering the elite who govern society (and even then, ones vote only affects the legislature, not the vast bureaucracy, and the unelected institutions which form the main locus of power). A shifting of factions it may achieve, but your average voter does not have the power to affect fundamental change in the ruling class of a given society (or even alter the ruling ideology, even in America where everything seems so bipolar, your ideological choice is simply between different interpretations of the same fundamentally ideological principles).
What are you currently doing in order to bring said social order into being in real life? Are there any organized movements or whatnot that are attempting to do so?
Various traditionalist views are maintained by various politicians and political parties around the place to a lesser or greater degree. And of course there are groups of people (online and elsewhere) I suppose who associate and engage with eachother on the basis of those beliefs. Certain groups also tend to be more inclined to traditionalism than others (political traditionalists like myself, tend to be over represented amongst traditionalist [in religious terms] Catholics, such as myself, for example, even though the latter is not synonymous or coterminous with the former)
So your emphasis is on tradition, am I correct? Then what traditions do reactionaries such as yourself hold dear, that you feel are being destroyed?
And do you want to protect all traditions? I don't know if the traditions of Australia are that awesome that sticking to them is the best case scenario in all ages, but America used to have a tradition of racism and slavery. I certainly don't want to keep that.
And in India, the caste system and child marriages are two traditions I'd rather not keep either.
First of all, you are confusing tradition with generic custom. They are two distinct albeit related things. Tradition as I noted constitutes that subset of customs which 1) make a moral claim and 2) establishes a bond among those who observe it by 3) allowing the members of the community to collectively recognize some objective good in a culturally particularized way. Your examples of "negative traditions" aren't traditions at all, but rather detrimental customs which were never obligatory and morally binding the way tradition is. One was never morally obliged to have slaves for example in America, and one wasn't bad for not having them. Now a tradition can indeed be corrupted if people lose sight of the good it serves to reveal; in these cases than of course reform and renewal are called for. However dismissal of tradition is a grave error, since then we lose sight of the goods they exist to instantiate in our lived human experiences.
This leads us back to the first question. Which I would answer by referring primarily to religious tradition, and values of modesty and sexual morality. Which in being systematically undermined and damaged have progressively resulted in many people in society losing sight of the goods these traditions served to maintain, such as for example a recognition of the divine order of existence (which lost, has resulted in rampant individualism and egotism, perhaps best epitomised by the current celebrity cult), and the dignity of human persons (as seen by the increased objectification of women) and the devaluation of the human life and the sanctity of the sexual act [seen in contraception, abortion, the surrogacy industry. All of which treat children as accessories secondary to ones transient pleasures, an even as things to be bought and sold). As to the protection of tradition, I believe that each culture should preserve its tradition (its unique way of collectively understanding some good) and that each has a right to exist. I don't believe they are all necessarily equal however.
Without question the best government for all concerned would be a universal benevolent despotism. The problem is maintaining a series of benevolent despots. Not wanting to be offensive, but I see this 'reactionary' longing for a powerful monarchy as ignoring the reality that most monarchs have in fact been very far from benevolent. In fact the odds seem to lean heavily towards capricious megalomaniacs.
On the contrary, a democratic polity is more likely to result in megalomania amongst leaders precisely because the process of getting elected necessarily requires the person to have rampant ambition and an inflated sense of self-worth if they want to get through the top fighting their way through all the factional squabbles the party system entails. Not to mention the empty promises and outright lies politicians to a tee have to engage in if they want to bribe enough people with concessions to beat their opponent. Monarchy then, in which a person becomes head of state solely by providential chance, is far more inclined to induce a sense of humility in leaders. I think this reality can be seen by the numerous crackpot dictators and lunatics who have been elected into office over the years, while one occasionally gets a mad roman emperor (a perfect system being impossible for human beings to achieve), such circumstances are no more or less likely than the people electing a Hitler to office for instance, or getting stuck with a narcissist like Kevin Rudd (such as we had down here in Australia for a while). Not to mention hereditary monarchy is the only system which recognises the equality of all human beings, precisely since one gets the job by random chance and not by virtue of being the best, the most popular or the most intelligent.
Secondly, you also ignore the fact that no leader has completely absolute power. The rule of society and the state is a systemic thing and not entirely invested in a single person or even in the formal organs of government (bureaucracy for example is a powerful force). Thus there are always institutions in place, as was particularly the place in more modern times which had the convenience of easy accessibility across the realm, to ensure things didn't go south. Austria for example, one of the most autocratic empires of old Europe had Emperor Ferdinand I (the benign) who was incapable of ruling due to mental deficiency. The situation was dealt with rather smoothly.
Thirdly, at least in my case I see the monarch as preferably sitting in a repository capacity rather than a legislative one. While I think the monarch should have the power to veto legislation and have control over aspects of foreign policy, I think legislation should best be left to a legislative chamber, be it elected or formed by some other means of selection. A monarch in this repository position (as compared to a president who is elected) is uniquely suited to the role, since his hereditary status makes him independent from outside influences, flattery and coercion, both popular and expert. Something particularly important given sometimes the people need to be reminded when they err.
