Who's in Charge?

Although I have many British friends and have long been an Anglophile, I must admit that I resolutely refused to watch the coronation of the new king. I have nothing against Charles per se, it's just that we fought a whole revolutionary war to be able to ignore kings. And would-be kings like Der Furor, too.

But the whole king thing got me to thinking about who gets to be in charge.

In the UK and in some other countries, there's a distinction between the head of state (a king, president, or suchlike) who is the representational and symbolic leader, and the head of government (a prime minister or suchlike), an elected or appointed political figure who runs the day-to-day business of governing the nation. Here in the US of A, however, our Constitution combines both of these functions in a single individual - the President of the United States, often referred to in military and governmental circles as the POTUS*. 

It has occurred to me to wonder if we might not be better off if the old saying "two heads are better than one" applied to our government as well.

Our elected president is a political creature, chosen because they** represent the views of that part of the electorate which voted for them and of the monied class that paid for them and expects a return on its investment. As the nominal head of a major political party, the president embodies that party's philosophy of government and works to advance its agenda which, by definition, appeals mainly (often only) to that party's voters.

A head of state, on the other hand, represents the entire nation. The king/queen/president/etc stands above the political fray to provide gravitas, a voice of moderation, a symbol of national unity and integrity, and an embodiment of the nation's core values and principles. 

During the unfortunate reign of Der Furor, our nation became a laughingstock in part because the unhinged and irresponsible language and behavior of the president symbolized to the world not only the bankruptcy of his party's policies, but an America that was angry, fearful, insular, dismissive of its own Constitution, and uninterested in its responsibilities on the world stage. There was no calm and dignified head of state that could provide a moderating counterweight to the ugliness and banality of the head of government.

Sadly, we'll never change to a system like this, for a few reasons. 

One is our view of the eternal and unchanging sacredness of our Constitution, and the deliberately cumbersome process by which it can be amended. If we can't do something about a bastardized Second Amendment that has caused such horrific loss of innocent life, or a system of representational allocation that allows gerrymandering to prioritize party power over voters' desires, we'll never change the whole leadership structure.

Another is the basic question of how the head of state is chosen. There are essentially four ways it can be done: (1) direct election by the population; (2) indirect election or appointment by the national legislature; (3) hereditary succession; or (4) - as in dictatorships - seizing the position by force. 

In a social and political system as warped as the one we have in America today, the first option is probably a non-starter, as voters would almost certainly select along party lines, and the elected head of state would likely be viewed by voters of the losing party as just another political hack. Appointment or election by the legislature is a possibility, but the number of votes for a given party in a House stocked with representatives of wildly-gerrymandered districts would likely result in a selection by party affiliation rather than merit and lead to the same dismissal by supporters of other parties. Hereditary succession is, of course, a non-starter, although we do have a few political dynasties (consider the Adamses, Roosevelts, Bushes, and Kennedys). Seizure by force is the last option, and - until January 6th, 2021, would have been considered unthinkable.

Third is that heads of state tend to rely on all sorts of ornamentation to emphasize the singularity and grandeur of their positions. These may include colorful sashes, maces, robes, official seals, chains of office, ornate crowns, coats of arms, scepters, orbs, thrones, or combinations thereof. Americans historically have eschewed such garish symbols of office, although the previous administration seemed to have a predilection for huge displays of  boorish and tasteless flags, and many of our fellow citizens would consider the Holy AR-15*** 

to be the American equivalent of Charles III's crown, orb, and scepter.

Sigh. 

For good or ill, we're stuck with a system that combines the two offices in one person. When that one person is basically good and decent - a Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Obama, or Biden - all is well, even if some portion of the electorate remains unhappy. When that one person is an unqualified, self-absorbed, useless buffoon - an Andrew Johnson, a Buchanan, a George W. Bush, or Der Furor - the result can be disastrous for both the nation and the world.

So ...

To my British friends, congratulations! Although Charles III may have no real power in your constitutional monarchy, he provides a calm and reasonably stately alternative to figures like Boris Johnson. I wish we could have someone like that to be the adult in the room the next time we wake up drunk and learn we've elected a DeSantis or - god forbid - Der Furor again.

Have a good day. Please vote for rational adults.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* We also have a FLOTUS, or "First Lady of the United States." Should we ever get around to electing a female president, we might have an unpronounceable FGOTUS ("First Gentleman of the United States") or FSPOTUS ("First Spouse of the United States"). And should we ever elect an openly gay president, there could even be a FSSPOTUS ("First Same-Sex Partner of the United States"), although this would probably result in the widespread explosion of heads on the social and religious right. 

** I'm using the pronouns they/them/their in their newly-fashionable roles as non-gender-specific terms when specificity of gender is not germane in the context. It sounds weird and awkward to my 1950's-vintage ears, but times and customs change. Get used to it.

*** Lemme hear you say, "Halleluja!!"