Okay, we get it. America's very founding was based on the rejection of monarchy. So, we've never had a king and don't have one now, regardless of what some may think. Of course, the fact that some on the left believe we have a king and are able to take to the streets over it simply demonstrates the health of our democracy and the vibrancy of our freedoms.
Still, it also shows how hopelessly polarized we seem to be right now.
And in the face of all this, we are nonetheless reminded that our governmental structure is far from perfect.
Yes, America’s Constitution is still a marvel of democratic engineering, but it contains one glaring omission. We have no head of state separate from our head of government. By design, the President is simultaneously chief executive, commander-in-chief, and national symbol—an awesome triple burden in an age of bitter partisan divide the likes of which we have not seen in some time.
Under these circumstances (under almost any circumstances, really) it's difficult for one person to credibly embody both partisan policy and the timeless idea of the nation itself. The result is a vacuum where unity and love of country should thrive.
Maybe it's time for a person who would fill that vacuum; not a king or potentate but someone who we will call our National Laureate -- a non-partisan, life-appointed figure of unimpeachable character who speaks for what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”
This concept is not radical. Most stable democracies maintain a distinction between the ceremonial and the operational. Britain’s monarch, Germany’s president, and India’s president perform dignified works of state—welcoming foreign leaders, consoling the grieving, awarding honors—while elected governments handle the contentious business of lawmaking. These figures do not govern; they represent.
America never created an equivalent. We have instead asked the President to wear both crowns. When the occupant commands broad respect, the arrangement seems to work, most of the time. When the occupant does not, the presidency itself becomes a lightning rod and the country may come to feels leaderless, even when it has one.
A National Laureate would restore balance without altering a single power of the executive branch. This is not to say that we would definitively follow the European model, or any model. Our National Laureate would be uniquely American. The office would be strictly ceremonial, reminding us that there is something bigger than government -- that being the nation itself, as a whole and the state of our national character.
Where appropriate, such a person could lay wreaths at memorials; confer honors; comfort communities after disasters and offer measured, non-partisan reflections on moments of national triumph or tragedy. The Laureate would sign no bills, command no troops, and propose no budgets. The role’s authority would derive solely from moral stature, institutional independence and the unifying power of patriotism.
How would such a person be chosen? The mechanism and attendant process would have to be carefully planned and devoid of partisan interests, considerations or influence. Some have suggested a selection process overseen by the Supreme Court, the one one non-elected branch of our government.
Who could possibly serve in such a capacity? Candidates could be drawn from every walk of life: retired generals known for integrity; Nobel prize winners or those with other distinguished honors such as the Medal of Freedom; civil-rights icons; business leaders who built companies while serving their communities; even poets, artists or historians whose work has defined the American story. Wealth, fame, or prior office would matter far less than a lifetime record of putting country above faction.
History is replete with such figures, such as Benjamin Franklin, Frederick Douglass, Clara Barton, Andrew Carnegie, Eleanor Roosevelt, Bernard Baruch, Norman Rockwell, Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Cronkite and Billy Graham Even more recently, unofficial Laureates such as Coretta Scott King, Lee Iacocca and General Colin Powell have filled the unifying role through sheer moral force.
Formalizing the position would ensure it outlives any single personality. Amidst the political push and pull, the virulent passion of partisanship and frequently changing governments, a National Laureate would provide continuity. What's more, this would give us something which we'll call contiunity -- a newfound call to cohesion and stability, helping to fortify us in turbulent times.
Who could fill this role now? In his later years, former Senator Joe Lieberman likely would have worn this mantle honorably as he had risen above partisan politics and was capable of serving as an êminence gris -- a good gray counselor. The same could be said of the late historian David McCullough. Currently, the wise and soft-spoken Dr. Ben Carson might be a fine choice for this role.
It is true that America still prides itself on rugged individualism and suspicion of inherited authority. But this would not be an inherited position nor the possession of elites. Furthermore, we already venerate permanent institutions—the Constitution, the flag, the national parks—as embodiments of continuity. A National Laureate would simply uphold and personify that constancy, that heritage.
Polarization is not inevitable; in fact, it may simply be a design flaw we have allowed to fester. Perhaps the presidency was never meant to carry the full and complete emotional weight of national identity, especially in modern times. Of course, a National Laureate, would not heal every wound, but it would model the civility and long-term thinking our republic desperately needs.
In an age that too often foments division, we owe ourselves at least one institution that fosters unity. The better angels are still with us. It is time to give them a permanent voice.
No comments:
Post a Comment