Cool link. I’d agree insofar as he imagines a monarch as a “neutral power.” Grammatically, that doesn’t make much sense. I like how you shift neutrality into inertia — probably more like what Constant was after.

But insofar as a king will not stay above the fray, I’m not convinced. I want to say that a king can stay above the fray. So long as he recognizes his only role to be a collective interlocutor, he cannot possibly pick a side.

That still leaves untouched how the Socratic (or grammatic) method necessarily holds power. How does a bobbing cork direct the waves?

I’d say that a collective interlocutor cannot direct events but can direct attention. And so long as that attention is not divided into factions — which an interlocutor cannot do — then the king is the dialectic method itself.

It’s hard to argue with your conclusion — that the option of inertia naturally rests with the consumer.