After President Trump put on a particularly unhinged performance at a campaign rally on Tuesday night, the comically late realization that we’ve elected a narcissistic demagogue to the most powerful office in the world seems to be setting in for Americans.

Reactions to the rally included former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has worked for administrations of both parties, saying that Trump’s behavior was, “downright scary and disturbing.”

Earlier in the day, a New York Times headline read, “McConnell, in Private, Doubts if Trump Can Save Presidency.” At his rally, Trump denounced the “dishonest media,” and the “failing New York Times,” who he claims, “make up stories.”

The Times detailed the White House’s hostile relationship with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and noted the numerous items on which the two aggrieved parties will have to work together in the near future to keep the U.S. government open.

From the article: “A protracted government shutdown or a default on sovereign debt could be disastrous — for the economy and for the party that controls the White House and both chambers of Congress.”

Ultimately, avoiding these potential catastrophes comes down to how seriously Trump takes each issues and whether he’s willing to work with Congress. Of course, a shutdown or defaulting on our debt would only be the latest front in Trump’s war with our institutions.

In his first seven months in office, President Trump has already undermined the constitution in a myriad of ways. He has obstructed justice, thrown the integrity of our national elections into doubt, and violated just about every ethics and conflict of interest rule on the books.

It’s clear that our country is at a critical juncture. People are no longer satisfied with our institutions, and there is widespread sentiment that drastic change is inevitable. This means progressives have a unique opportunity to put forward an alternate path to the right-wing nationalism prescribed by the Republican Party.

This is our chance to propose an amendment to the constitution that would both leave Trump powerless and permanently end the imperial Presidency.

To understand how to fix our constitution, we need to get back to its roots. Having recently fought a war to free themselves from the tyranny of a king, our founding fathers were understandably weary of the position and created the executive branch and the office of President instead.

The problem is that it as the U.S. has grown, the foreign powers delegated by the founders when we were a much smaller and less powerful country have grown, creating an imperial Presidency able to operate with relative impunity in the name of national security. Presidents simply have too much power on the world stage for any one person to wield responsibly.

As a result, history has shown that occupants of the executive branch regularly engage in contradictions of their espoused values and egregious violations of human rights values including, but not limited to, the use of nuclear weapons, secret bombing campaigns, torture, and the deposition of democratically elected leaders around the world.

While the founding fathers had the right intentions when they eliminated the position of monarch, it’s worth noting that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have democracy and still share a Queen today. The key, it turns out, isn’t getting rid of the monarch — it’s taking away their power.

This is a compromise that allows everybody to win. The monarch gets to keep their job and feel important, while remaining as a symbolic reminder to the public of the tyranny that they must never allow to oppress them again.

That’s why it’s time for progressives to propose a long-overdue amendment that would effectively convert the United States to a constitutional monarchy, splitting the office of the President into two — a popularly elected Prime Minister and a Monarch.

Trump would automatically be appointed the first King of the United States per the amendment, with his family and their future descendants continuing to live as royalty. Instead of eventually caving to the never-ending rumors he’ll resign, the amendment would offer Trump an opportunity to cement his place in history and simultaneously continue using his platform to profit, pander to his base, feed his ego, and serve as a living reminder of our country’s worst sins and dangerous flirtation with authoritarianism.

To get the President on board, all progressives have to do is let Trump be Trump. The President will tell his supporters whatever he wants — he’ll be allowed to write policy without oversight, veto bills with no potential of an override, and conduct foreign policy unencumbered. It’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t love the idea of being King, which would include all the attention of the Presidency but none of the work.

Most importantly, the support of Trump’s base would create the national coalition necessary to make the reform a reality. Of course, the actual amendment would leave Trump with only symbolic power, eliminating his ability to further damage the nation while continuing to satisfy his massive ego.

Meanwhile, if the amendment was ratified, a national popular election would immediately be held for the first Prime Minister. This new executive branch would have the same domestic responsibilities of the current President — proposing a budget, responding to crises, setting a policy agenda for their party, and using the bully pulpit to set a course for the country.

The more substantive constitutional tweak would be in foreign policy powers, with responsibilities more equitably distributed between the executive and Congress. Of course the founders’ concern that we need one representative to speak and act decisively on behalf of the nation remains valid, so the Prime Minister would continue to serve as chief diplomat and commander-in-chief.

However, these powers would be tempered with more congressional oversight, including clear and stringent guidelines for when the Prime Minister can use force, and when they must submit a request for authorization to Congress. Crucially, the Prime Minister would not have the same power as the President to launch a preemptive nuclear strike.

Of course, there are plenty of constitutional scholars with countless more ideas for reforms to improve our democracy that deserve to be debated in the public sphere and introduced as well. With a difficult to reach base that supports him unconditionally and no desire to engage in policy debates but an insatiable appetite for attention, Trump might could be the perfect vehicle for the change we need.