Speaking as someone who doesn't actually need the president to assuage my fears, rub my back, and tell me that it will "be OK," I'm a little disturbed by Beltway anticipation for President Obama's address at the University of Arizona this evening, as typified by this headline at The Hill, "Nation turns its eyes to Obama as mourner in chief in Arizona:"
Obama will be walking in the footsteps of former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, who in moments of tragedy were able to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to unify a nation with words.
The nation remembers Bush standing on the rubble at Ground Zero, a key turning point for a president who came into office after losing the popular vote. Bush's approval ratings in the aftermath of 9/ 11 skyrocketed to 90 percent in late September of that year, turning what looked like a lame-duck presidency into his second term. [...]
Moments like Wednesday's provide a natural advantage to the incumbent in the White House. No other office in the country comes with that level of prestige, power and responsibility.
The power and responsibility is deserved. The prestige? I'm not so sure. The president is a citizen who serves the public, not a monarch. Unfortunately, by vesting the office with the prestige of a monarch, we create a situation where -- as Jon Chait puts it -- "It is in the interest of the president to make himself into something exalted, a national father figure and symbol of the government." Which, as he notes, can have "insidious anti-democratic undertones."
On a practical level, "presidential prestige" makes democratic accountability a little more difficult. The president isn't the only actor in our government, and depending on the situation, congressional leaders -- or even the rank and file -- can have more power and influence than the president. But the public doesn't know that, and with the president's prestige and visibility, it's more likely that the average person will attribute the good and bad of government to the president. Instead of focusing their ire on a representative or senator, voters direct their anger -- or admiration -- to the guy who may have been least important to the issue at hand.
This is all to say that I'm on board with Matthew Yglesias' support for a constitutional monarch in the American system. I'd rather hire someone to attract the adulation of the nation and let our public servants be public servants.
-- Jamelle Bouie
