Democracy as Monarchy Inverted

"Democracy is Monarchy inverted, and the modes of addressing the multitude are the same as the modes of addressing crowds. The more powerful and jealous the sovereign, the more unbounded is the eulogy, the more extravagant is the tribute."
--Sir Henry Maine, Popular Government

Now, note that while a monarch might be on guard against such flattery, given the position that he is in, the people are nearly never on guard against such things, because they do not see themselves as sovereign.

In any event, if I were to praise a dissolute sovereign, I would praise his honorable and courageous ancestors (because my praise would be true) and I would praise his great and glowing potential (because my praise could not be shown to be false). And I would praise them with rhetorical flourishes that remembered all the emotionally-charged events of his dynasty's history, even while I anticipated similar events in his dynasty's future.

Apparently the current leader of the United States agrees with me in this policy.

Metaphysics and Monarchy

Arguments against monarchy--and authoritarian, non-representative government in general--tend to focus on the possible evils of such a government. The argument generally goes something like this.

(1) In monarchy, if you get a bad monarch, then the whole country might easily go to hell for the next half-century.
(2) In democracy, if you get a bad president, the whole country (probably) won't go to hell for the next-half-century.
(3) So democracy is better than monarchy.

One might question the premises of this argument: presidents can also easily convert themselves into despots. But leaving that aside, the argument at least appears to work. Why?