By Keith Preston, March 28, 2028

Order the book here.

Jeb Smith’s is not merely a historical work—it is an ideological provocation disguised as a corrective narrative. It opens with a seemingly modest aim: to challenge misconceptions about the medieval period. But very quickly, it reveals its deeper ambition—to dismantle the moral legitimacy of modern democratic regimes and resurrect an older, more fragmented vision of political order.

What makes this book compelling is not simply what it argues, but the direction from which it attacks. Rather than beginning with abstract theory, Smith starts with the battlefield of historical memory. He asserts that our understanding of the Middle Ages has been systematically distorted by the victors of history—namely, the architects of modern liberal and democratic states. In this telling, history is not an objective record but a weapon: a narrative carefully curated to ensure that no viable alternative to the present order is ever seriously entertained.

The Medieval World Reimagined

Smith’s reconstruction of medieval society is the book’s most effective—and controversial—element. He portrays a world that is radically decentralized, where power is dispersed across a network of overlapping authorities: kings, lords, guilds, and the Church. This is not the caricature of arbitrary tyranny typically presented in modern education, but something closer to a negotiated order, where authority is constrained by custom, tradition, and competing institutions.

The medieval king, in Smith’s account, is not an absolute ruler but a figure embedded within a broader legal and moral framework—“one king under law.” This stands in stark contrast to the modern state, which claims total sovereignty within its borders and tolerates no rival sources of legitimacy.

Smith pushes further, suggesting that medieval people may have experienced forms of liberty that are largely absent today: localized governance, limited taxation, and a degree of autonomy rooted in property and community. The implication is clear: what we call “progress” may in fact be a process of consolidation—of power flowing upward into ever larger and more impersonal structures.

Democracy as Managed Consent

The book’s second act turns from history to critique, and here the tone sharpens considerably. Democracy is not treated as the culmination of political evolution, but as a system of managed consent—an apparatus that creates the illusion of participation while concentrating power in the hands of a professional political class.

Smith’s chapters on voting, political parties, and media read less like conventional political science and more like a forensic examination of a machine designed to reproduce itself. Elections become ritualized performances; political choice is reduced to selecting between pre-approved options; public opinion is shaped, filtered, and redirected through institutional channels.

The critique is not that democracy fails to live up to its ideals, but that its ideals themselves may function as a kind of ideological cover. The language of equality, representation, and progress becomes a moral vocabulary that justifies expansion—more regulation, more centralization, more intervention—always in the name of the people.

The State as an Expanding Organism

One of the book’s most persistent themes is the idea that modern governance is inherently expansionary. Where medieval systems were fragmented and limited, modern states are unified and totalizing. They absorb functions once handled by families, communities, churches, and local institutions. Education, welfare, justice, even morality—everything becomes a matter of administrative management.

Smith connects this to warfare, arguing that centralized states are uniquely capable of mobilizing resources for large-scale conflict. The implication is that the very structures we associate with progress—bureaucracy, mass participation, national identity—also enable unprecedented levels of destruction.

This is not presented as an accidental byproduct, but as a structural feature. A system that concentrates power will inevitably seek to use it.

Strengths: A Challenge to Orthodoxy

The book’s greatest strength lies in its willingness to question assumptions that are rarely examined. It forces the reader to confront the possibility that widely accepted narratives about history and governance may be incomplete—or even deliberately misleading.

Smith’s use of historical sources and his effort to rehabilitate the reputation of the medieval period are particularly effective. Even readers who reject his conclusions may find themselves reconsidering what they thought they knew about the past.

There is also a certain coherence to his critique of modern systems. By linking democracy, centralization, and state expansion into a single framework, he offers a perspective that cuts across conventional left-right distinctions.

Weaknesses: Romanticism and Selectivity

At the same time, the book is not without its flaws. Smith’s portrayal of the medieval world often borders on romanticization. While he acknowledges certain hardships, the overall picture can feel selectively curated—emphasizing decentralization and liberty while downplaying instability, inequality, and the realities of feudal hierarchy.

Similarly, his critique of democracy sometimes relies on broad generalizations. The complexities of modern political systems—variations across countries, the role of civil society, the potential for reform—are often compressed into a single narrative of decline.

In this sense, the book risks replacing one oversimplified story with another.

Style and Tone

The writing style is direct, assertive, and unapologetically polemical. It does not seek neutrality; it seeks persuasion. There is a recurring sense that the reader is being invited—not to passively absorb information—but to step outside the prevailing framework and view the system from a distance.

This gives the book a certain energy. It reads less like an academic monograph and more like a manifesto disguised as history.

Final Assessment

Missing Monarchy is not a book that asks for agreement. It demands engagement. It challenges the reader to reconsider foundational assumptions about history, power, and legitimacy.

Whether one accepts its conclusions or not, it performs a valuable function: it disrupts intellectual complacency. It reminds us that the political arrangements we take for granted are neither inevitable nor permanent—and that alternative ways of organizing society have existed, and may exist again.

In the end, the book’s most provocative suggestion is not that monarchy should be restored, but that the range of possible political systems is far broader than we are typically allowed to imagine.