Saturday, May 01, 2004
Mad Social Science idea: A dual executive for the US, with a twist
First a quick reference. Unlike a lot of modern democracies, the US has a single office combining the functions of head of state and head of government. Where in, say, Britain, the monarch is symbolic head of state, the prime minister actually makes the policy decisions and runs the government. Constitutional monarchies in today's world leave little for kings to do (other than perhaps giving the nod to a particular person to begin the process of forming a government when no party has a majority). Republics like France with dual executives tend to give the president (head of state) a bit more to do, especially in the foreign policy department, but still leave the task of running the state itself to the prime minister (France is complicated, but a little beside the point).
My mad social science (TM) idea is to create a dual executive in the US: a presidential head of state, to serve as symbol of the nation, moral exemplar, and "unifier", for those who want that sort of figure, and a prime minister, to do all the real work of government, for those who mainly care about policy. Want a man or woman for your kids to "look up to", someone who shouldn't be having any sex scandals, someone who is an "ordinary person" like you? That would be the president---constitutionally powerless, but full of pomp and ceremony. Want someone smart, competent, and policy oriented? That would be the prime minister---utterly deprived of ceremony, nose constantly to the grindstone.
Here's the rub: you can only vote for one or the other. If the President's dalliances are ticking you off (or you worry about the moral fitness of the challenger to the throne), then you'll have to cast your vote in the presidential election. But that means you can't vote for prime minister at all. Leave that to people who don't care about appearances.
How is this direction of attention to the president to be managed? Easy---just nominate some outrageous media magnet to run for the office, someone who will shock the sensibilities of the heartland. Presidential elections would be officially non-partisan, of course, so we could get California recall like free-for-alls, with the colorful cast of characters that entails.
What's the downside? Well, that it might work, and push the business of choosing and implementing policy even further out of the public mind. But it's so far out already, perhaps this would just sort some of the most ignorant voters into a more appropriate use of their input.
Would it help conservatives or liberals? Well, if you believe George Lakoff, the former are more concerned than liberals with having leader who serves as a symbolic father figure---someone lives up to the shared personal values of the community, especially sexual mores. On the other hand, maybe college educate middle class Republicans would be less likely to fall for the presidential gambit. And if celebrities run for president, maybe young voters would defect to the presidential ballot in droves. Who knows? Hoepfully, we won't find out. It's just a mad social science idea, after all.
My mad social science (TM) idea is to create a dual executive in the US: a presidential head of state, to serve as symbol of the nation, moral exemplar, and "unifier", for those who want that sort of figure, and a prime minister, to do all the real work of government, for those who mainly care about policy. Want a man or woman for your kids to "look up to", someone who shouldn't be having any sex scandals, someone who is an "ordinary person" like you? That would be the president---constitutionally powerless, but full of pomp and ceremony. Want someone smart, competent, and policy oriented? That would be the prime minister---utterly deprived of ceremony, nose constantly to the grindstone.
Here's the rub: you can only vote for one or the other. If the President's dalliances are ticking you off (or you worry about the moral fitness of the challenger to the throne), then you'll have to cast your vote in the presidential election. But that means you can't vote for prime minister at all. Leave that to people who don't care about appearances.
How is this direction of attention to the president to be managed? Easy---just nominate some outrageous media magnet to run for the office, someone who will shock the sensibilities of the heartland. Presidential elections would be officially non-partisan, of course, so we could get California recall like free-for-alls, with the colorful cast of characters that entails.
What's the downside? Well, that it might work, and push the business of choosing and implementing policy even further out of the public mind. But it's so far out already, perhaps this would just sort some of the most ignorant voters into a more appropriate use of their input.
Would it help conservatives or liberals? Well, if you believe George Lakoff, the former are more concerned than liberals with having leader who serves as a symbolic father figure---someone lives up to the shared personal values of the community, especially sexual mores. On the other hand, maybe college educate middle class Republicans would be less likely to fall for the presidential gambit. And if celebrities run for president, maybe young voters would defect to the presidential ballot in droves. Who knows? Hoepfully, we won't find out. It's just a mad social science idea, after all.
