(Long reply, might turn into a post) I think proposing monarchy over fascism as a viable alternative to democracy for normiecons has some potential. The average conservative has a visceral knee-jerk negative reaction to fascism/national socialism etc. due to the way WW2 has been framed as "true American democracy vs evil foreign fascism" (I have some problems with those ideologies myself for other reasons), plus the way nativism and anti-mass immigration views are paralleled with Hitler's anti-Jewish policies.

Sure, anti-monarchism is also deep-seated in the American founding mythos due to the way the American Revolution has been framed as democracy vs monarchy, but more time passed since then, and the concept of brave American patriots fighting an evil king is becoming increasingly associated with the right rather than being as universal as anti-Nazism, partly due to the left's slow but steady efforts at demonizing the founders, traditional concepts of personal liberty and the entire American historical tradition. But it ultimately comes down to the fact that most people don't have an instinctive hatred of monarchy like they do with the other systems. You have far-leftists who hate it due to their radical egalitarian views, and a lot of right-wingers due to the modern British monarchy's association with the global elites (imo the entire banker class/globohomo started because of Britain's greed, but I think the political class contributed more to it that the monarchy), conspiracy theories about them being pedophiles etc., but most normies are just "eh, it's kind of outdated" about it.

Plus there's many more examples of monarchical systems throughout history, and it has demonstrably worked for the majority of human history. You could even argue the middle class, meritocracy-based governments and the reduction in the traditional class gap came as a result of absolute monarchs wanting to create a new political base separate from the nobility to help them centralize power. There are also some good libertarian arguments in favor of monarchy, from Hans-Hermann Hoppe and this.

You just have to find a way to frame monarchism in a way that convinces normiecons that it's the best way to secure the traditional values they cherish compared to democracy. Also, red pilling them on the fact that the founders were not as anti-monarchy as they've been taught, and how most unjust actions King George III has been accused of were a result of the British Parliament usurping a lot of the king's authority. And of course, as you said, demonstrating that what we call today democracy is just a system for the elites to secure power and control and hide behind a system. Pretty much every pro-democracy outcome in recent history was instigated by, and benefited, the elites. And your argument about democracy in its current form weakening nations is also a good tool to use.

Another argument: You mention the people of western countries not being consulted about a lot of nation-changing and harmful policies that have been instituted by their leaders, despite supposedly living in democracies. If you look at how monarchies lost power in the past 200 years, most of that was not legitimate either. Just like mass immigration and bank bailouts, there was never a national conversation about them, just a class of elites consolidating their power and imposing their agenda. Check out Emperor Pedro II of Brazil, King Gustav III of Sweden, King Constantine II of Greece, or King Umberto II of Italy (hell, the referendum to remove him was practically rigged), their overthrows and replacement with republics/ceremonial monarchies were totally illegitimate, and only became normalized in the public's mind because of the passage of time and victors writing the history.