The Human Embodiment of a Nation: The Tie Which Binds
Patient reader, I offer up a thought which is much on my mind as we approach the final Presidential debate of 2016. I do so with full knowledge that some of you may dismiss this as the trivia which captures the interest of a lawyer who has spent his professional life studying the details of our constitutional government. But please bear with me.
Tonight we will hear about the President as Head of Government, what will he or she try to accomplish? We will hear about the President as Commander in Chief, how each candidate will approach this life or death responsibility. These are vital questions, but there is a third power that goes with this office. One which is not usually discussed on these occasions, but I urge you to think about it as you compare and contrast these two candidates tonight. The person we pick as President will also be Head of State.
Many countries separate the roles of head of government from head of state. Great Britain is a good example. The head of government is the Prime Minister, the head of state is the Queen. The former attempts to steer the ship of state, the latter is the human embodiment of the state. The former might steer the government’s response to a natural disaster, the latter will attempt to speak for the whole nation in sharing the grief of those who lost loved ones in the incident. Some will say this is not an important role, I believe in a nation as diverse and as dynamic as our own, its importance cannot be overstated. And I believe, on some unconscious level, the voters agree.
Let me make clear what I am saying. I did not then and do not now, believe Ronald Reagan was a good head of government because I do not agree with the direction he lead the country. On the other hand, I think he was a great Head of State. Consider his personal leadership through the Challenger disaster. I think George W Bush was one of the worst heads of government we have ever had in the White House, but he was a good head of state. After 9/11, leading a stricken nation while telling our people not to turn on each other.
Thoughtful people approach the office of President with this responsibility much on their mind. Let me offer one example. Barack Obama spoke out against the Iraq war before it was launched. He ran for President with that fact front and center. But he was always very careful not to say the American soldiers who died in that war, died for nothing. Quite the contrary he has praised them for meeting every challenge thrown at them. Some might condemn this as “political correctness” I see it as someone aware of his duty to convey the thanks of a nation to the families who have given their greatest treasure.
Since he was elected, many who voted for him have urged him to prosecute Cheney and Bush for the war and to release the most gut wrenching details of the torture carried out on their orders, President Obama has had none of it, because he believes being the glue which holds a nation together is a more urgent task than litigating the past. And I say that not unmindful of the good that might have been served by a full accounting. When the Obama administration caught up with Bin Laden the President's first call was to Bush. When the new African American wing of the Smithsonian was opened, George Bush spoke as the former President who signed the bill.
As we look back on Presidential elections, this factor has not been important because both men seemed qualified by judgement and temperament to do a good job. McCain and Romney would have carried out the role of head of state in a fine fashion. This year it is different. Hillary brings traditional deference and respect. Trump has shown neither the skill or the desire to unite his party, let alone the country. I would think this difference would matter to everyone who loves this nation and wants to protect the frayed bonds which hold us together and particularly those of us who want every citizen to feel valued and included in our national family.
Tonight we will hear about the President as Head of Government, what will he or she try to accomplish? We will hear about the President as Commander in Chief, how each candidate will approach this life or death responsibility. These are vital questions, but there is a third power that goes with this office. One which is not usually discussed on these occasions, but I urge you to think about it as you compare and contrast these two candidates tonight. The person we pick as President will also be Head of State.
Many countries separate the roles of head of government from head of state. Great Britain is a good example. The head of government is the Prime Minister, the head of state is the Queen. The former attempts to steer the ship of state, the latter is the human embodiment of the state. The former might steer the government’s response to a natural disaster, the latter will attempt to speak for the whole nation in sharing the grief of those who lost loved ones in the incident. Some will say this is not an important role, I believe in a nation as diverse and as dynamic as our own, its importance cannot be overstated. And I believe, on some unconscious level, the voters agree.
Let me make clear what I am saying. I did not then and do not now, believe Ronald Reagan was a good head of government because I do not agree with the direction he lead the country. On the other hand, I think he was a great Head of State. Consider his personal leadership through the Challenger disaster. I think George W Bush was one of the worst heads of government we have ever had in the White House, but he was a good head of state. After 9/11, leading a stricken nation while telling our people not to turn on each other.
Thoughtful people approach the office of President with this responsibility much on their mind. Let me offer one example. Barack Obama spoke out against the Iraq war before it was launched. He ran for President with that fact front and center. But he was always very careful not to say the American soldiers who died in that war, died for nothing. Quite the contrary he has praised them for meeting every challenge thrown at them. Some might condemn this as “political correctness” I see it as someone aware of his duty to convey the thanks of a nation to the families who have given their greatest treasure.
Since he was elected, many who voted for him have urged him to prosecute Cheney and Bush for the war and to release the most gut wrenching details of the torture carried out on their orders, President Obama has had none of it, because he believes being the glue which holds a nation together is a more urgent task than litigating the past. And I say that not unmindful of the good that might have been served by a full accounting. When the Obama administration caught up with Bin Laden the President's first call was to Bush. When the new African American wing of the Smithsonian was opened, George Bush spoke as the former President who signed the bill.
As we look back on Presidential elections, this factor has not been important because both men seemed qualified by judgement and temperament to do a good job. McCain and Romney would have carried out the role of head of state in a fine fashion. This year it is different. Hillary brings traditional deference and respect. Trump has shown neither the skill or the desire to unite his party, let alone the country. I would think this difference would matter to everyone who loves this nation and wants to protect the frayed bonds which hold us together and particularly those of us who want every citizen to feel valued and included in our national family.