Or, Alexander Hamilton on why Elected Representatives are Much more Liable to be Corrupted by Foreign Powers Compared to a Hereditary Monarch
The following is taken from the Federalist Papers No. 75, by Alexander Hamilton, which discusses the treaty-making powers of the President:
It has been remarked, upon another occasion, and the remark is unquestionably just, that a hereditary monarch, though often the oppressor of his people, has personally too much stake in the government to be in any material danger of being corrupted by foreign powers. But a man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank of chief magistrate, possessed of a moderate or slender fortune, and looking forward to a period not very remote when he may probably be obliged to return to the station from which he was taken, might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.
The arch-libertarian Hans Hermann Hoppe made the argument that a hereditary monarch would be a better ruler compared to an elected representative because a hereditary monarch will have an interest to increase the capital value of his own territory over a long time horizon, while an elected representative was merely a "steward" which is incentivised to extract the maximum of personal gain he can get during his limited time in office and diminish the overall capital value of the land.
It is staggering that TWO HUNDRED YEARS before Hoppe Hamilton himself already made this observation, and while his conclusion narrowly pertains to just not letting the US President monopolise the treaty making powers of the US and needs to involve the Senate, it's mind-boggling that he cannot see that his arguments here has a more GENERAL application to temporary elected stewards in general compared to a king.