We've been headed towards a centrally controlled police state ever since the Civil War. Actually, since long before that, but that was the point of inflection.
The problem is that governments want to control. In fact, that's almost the definition of a government. So they tend to be run by people who are interested in control. Those people may have other goals, but control is their common goal. And advancing technologies have made increased amounts of control realisticly possible. (Please note that I didn't say anything about "human rights". Libertarian societies can be incredibly oppressive in that area. And controlling governments can be rather generous.)
FWIW, I distrust all centralized locii of control. Each one is a single point of failure. This is why I consider the GPL to be the best license. And this is why I would favor a democratic government. (It's not because democratic governments don't make truly horrendous decisions.) But do note that democratic governments are unstable. Simple democracies tend to yield to tyrannies. (Both "tyrant" and "democracy" are from the Athenian dialect of Greek...and Athens oscillated between them.) A constitutional democracy was an attempt to stabilize it. Reasonably successful as such things go. But "plurality rules" voting was a major blunder. It needs to be "majority rules" so that the voices of those with non-central intrests are represented.
The potential benefit of monarcy is that the government will look after the long-term interrests of the country. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a very good track record in that regard. At least not when the monarch has been powerful. (Weak monarchs have a much better record in this regard.) The US government shows no more regard for the future of the country, however, than did Louis de Roi Sol. Perhaps less.
To make a sailing ship go you need both sails and a keel. (You also need a few other things that would extend the metaphor too far.) I.e., you need a propulsive force and a stabilizing force. If you lack either, then you are guaranteed disaster. OK. You also need a rudder, i.e., you've got to be able to steer a reasonable course. But governments tend to steer for increased control. Always. The only exceptions I can think of involve either incompetent hands on the rudder (which Britain was blessed with) or the collapse of the government.
If you grant the prior paragraph, then the obvious conclusion is that we need to decrease the strength of the sails. Perhaps the currents will carry us to a better destination. (Not likely, admittedly, but possible.) We don't want to destabilize things, as that yields massive fatalities.
But there are lots of problems with this simple solution. The main one is that it's not likely to lead us to any place better. But I don't think I can do anything better with this metaphor.