“The Anglo-American philosophers of the 17-19th centuries were lovers of Tanach who saw it as the blueprint for the ideal state.”
That isn’t really true. Thomas Jefferson certainly did not believe that. Nor did Benjamin Franklin. Nor did Ralph Waldo Emerson. Nor did Adam Smith. Nor did David Hume. You could make a small case for John Locke, but he was more interested in Christian scriptures.
And if you believe that monarchy is mandated by the Torah (clearly the majority opinion), it is really hard to make a case for the Tanakh’s monarchy having been ideal. Every single monarch of the Northern Kingdom did evil in they eyes of HaShem, as did most of the monarchs of the Southern Kingdom. That contributed to the loss of our Temple and freedom.
And, here in the last day of Chanukah, we recall that that was true of every one of the Hasmoneans who declared themselves to be a monarch — with the singular exception of the one woman who reigned, Shelomitzion, who is praised effusively by the same sages who would also state that women can’t reign. (Baruch HaShem we hadn’t accepted that opinion, as she probably saved Rabbinic Judaism!!!)
Over 200 years later Rebbe and Antoninus would have an interesting discussion as to the virtues of an inherited monarchy. Rebbe insisted that it was a good thing. Up to that point, the position of Roman Emperor was not generally passed on from father to son (Vespasian to Titus was an exception) but Antoninus made sure that his son would succeed him. That son turned out to be a disaster, and the Roman Empire was never again the same, with a long list of Emperors who were every bit as bad as the Kings of Israel! Maybe Rebbe was the person who triggered the decline and fall of the Roman Emperor! Was he deliberately deceiving his friend the Emperor?
The best source on this is Abarbanel, who has a lot to say about monarchy. Of all our sages of the past two millenia he probably knew more about monarchies than any other. He lived through their horrors.