The American presidency combines two roles that are separated in many countries: head of state, and head of government. Our combination is probably not a great idea.
Heads of state personify ongoing political systems and are basically ceremonial officers. Heads of government run domestic and foreign policy.
In England, Charles III is now head of state. The head of government is Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
During the reign of Elizabeth II 15 people served as prime minister. During that same period, the United States had 14 presidents.
Why do former presidents establish presidential libraries or other memorials, while former prime ministers do no such thing? Perhaps this is because we exaggerate the importance of presidents, thanks to their combined roles.
One wonders how long we can continue putting up libraries for each former president. During most of our history this was not done.
This is just as well. Where would we put 45 libraries? Would we really benefit from libraries dedicated to Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding or Martin Van Buren? These were all substantial people in their own time, and may have had many virtues, but really!
Combining the roles of head of state and head of government makes it hard for Americans to understand the concept of a loyal opposition — a vital part of a functioning democracy.
In England it is easy for someone to combine "long live the king" with "down with the prime minister." That is the attitude of a loyal opposition — loyal to the country as personified by the king, but opposed to the current political leadership.
But it would have been awkward to say "long live Richard Nixon in his capacity as head of state" while adding "impeach the rascal in his capacity as head of government."
Recent presidential campaigns have featured claims that electing the wrong person will cause disaster. This could sometimes be true, but the victorious candidate may often not make much difference in the long haul.
Even people who occupy the White House have strong limits on what they can accomplish, and over time their political differences may come out in the wash.
If we could separate the roles of head of state and head of government, it might help us stop exaggerating the importance of our leaders. And the head of government would no longer need to spend valuable time entertaining visiting dignitaries, visiting places that suffered major disasters, and pardoning turkeys at Thanksgiving.
My 1966 doctoral disseration studied the role of monarchs in six modern European democracies. It concluded that constitutional monarchies had several advantages over presidential republics.
But I demurred when Gottfried Dietze, my thesis adviser at Johns Hopkins University, suggested that I advocate turning the United States into a constitutional monarchy. I thought that the costs of changing would outweigh the benefits, but that democracies already having monarchs would be crazy to get rid of them.
Lately, I am not so sure. A monarch would separate the two roles and allow presidents, freed of ceremonial duties and the undue reverence they get as heads of state, to get on with running the government.
The late Henry Kissinger was asked once whether as a naturalized citizen he resented being ineligible to be president. Dr. Kissinger replied that he didn't mind, since nothing in the Constitution would prevent him from becoming our emperor. (Technically, he was wrong about that, but never mind.)
King Henry I. It would have had a nice ring to it!
A newly separate head of state would not have to be a monarch. But one way or another we really need to think about giving these two important jobs to separate officials.
Paul F. deLespinasse is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Computer Science at Adrian College. He received his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University in 1966, and has been a National Merit Scholar, an NDEA Fellow, a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, and a Fellow in Law and Political Science at the Harvard Law School. His college textbook, "Thinking About Politics: American Government in Associational Perspective," was published in 1981. His most recent book is "The Case of the Racist Choir Conductor: Struggling With America's Original Sin." His columns have appeared in newspapers in Michigan, Oregon, and other states. Read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.