Chief Executive and Head of State: Is This Wise?

This year, on the day before Thanksgiving, the President of the United States pardoned a turkey. I don’t know exactly why he did it. It’s not an old tradition. It seems to have started with President George Bush (41) as a bit of fun. Not so much fun for the unpardoned turkeys. But it seems that nowadays, it is the duty of the Chief Executive of the United States, or is it as the Head of State, to offer a pardon to a turkey. Can you imagine Theresa May pardoning a turkey on Christmas Eve? Mind you, at the rate she is going, she’ll be the one looking for a pardon.

I am about to commit heresy. It is my opinion that the framers of the Constitution got things wrong. The Founders erred by allocating to the President the joint roles of Head of State and Chief Executive. You might think that, in the 1780s, this was hardly a hot topic. You’d be wrong. The Founders debated long and hard on the title for the new head of state. ‘King’ was a serious contender. If you don’t believe me, please read Federalist 64 of the Federalist Papers.

To be fair, I’m using hindsight. I doubt that Franklin and his colleagues thought closely about governance. If you read Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President is afforded the title of Commander-in-Chief and is required to report on the state of the nation from time to time but the vast majority of Presidential powers are subject to checks and balances by Congress.

There have been strong Presidents, such as Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, who exercised considerable influence and sway over Congress but it was not until Teddy’s cousin, Franklin, took control in 1933 that the Presidency was changed for all time. FDR seized the reins of political power in the face of a compliant Congress. After him, all Presidents have been expected to lead.

But should they lead both as Head of State and Chief Executive? There are good reasons for separation. In the corporate world, the board of directors, headed by a chairman, monitors the operations of a company and ensures it is being run with the will of the shareholders. An independent audit committee provides corporate oversight. The chief executive is responsible for day-to-day matters, working within the confines of budgets and directives from the board.

The same applies to some western political systems, where royal families actually have their uses. In the UK, the Queen is head of state. The Prime Minister heads the executive. The same is found in Scandinavia, The Netherlands and Belgium. In some countries like France, Switzerland and Italy, the Head of State is elected. The essential point is the roles of Head of State and Chief Executive are separate. However, in Germany and Israel, the leader performs both functions.

America requires its President to perform both roles too. Often, Vice-Presidents are given the more formal, least important events but if you take a look at President Trump’s calendar, he doesn’t escape. In the past few days, amid intelligence, security and finance briefings, crisis meetings, travels to France and around the USA and attending G20, he hosted a Halloween White House party, met with the Future Farmers of America at their Annual Convention and he signed several Presidential Memoranda, such as providing reliable water supplies in California. That last is surely a sine qua non. Doesn’t every state require a reliable water supply?

When Trump was about to start his term of office, there was a sense of foreboding about how well he would do as Chief Executive. He has mostly lived down to expectation. Has Trump done a better job as Head of State? The role requires pomp, circumstance and grandeur, which are qualities that would seem to fit this man of the gold leaf peccadillo. Clearly, Trump enjoys the pageantry of the Presidency: riding Air Force One, the motorcade and so forth. If there was any dimension of the presidency that Trump would embrace, surely it would be its symbolic moments.

So it is noteworthy that it is in his role as Head of State, Trump has also proved wanting. On occasion, his conduct has been truly awful. His recent failure to attend a Veterans’ ceremony at Arlington Cemetery elicited this apology: "I should have done that. I was extremely busy on calls for the country, we did a lot of calling, as you know...I probably in retrospect I should have and I did last year and I will virtually every year." What does this gobbledegook mean? In short, “I screwed up,” while ‘virtually’ means there is no guarantee he won’t do it again. 

 

 

This error highlights the difficulties Trump has had in his interactions with the military. It is not limited on passing on the Veterans Day ceremony this year. He bailed  on joining German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and French President, Emmanuel Macron, at a wreath-laying ceremony during his recent Paris trip. He has failed to visit troops in war zones such as Iraq or Afghanistan. 

 

It would be knee jerk to suggest that America change its Constitution and separate the two roles. There are more serious constitutional problems for the US to face, for example a proper revisit to the Second Amendment and its nonsense that all American citizens have the right to bear arms.

However, the world will have to put up with unlimited Trump gaffes probably until January, 2021, when a new man or woman might take over in the White House.