Yes, but the sign says differently

Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:

If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.

What is up with the signs elected officials insist on having at every official press conference? I think they mean to take control of the message, but do they really think a Kinko’s foam-core sign is going to do it? Following up on my earlier riff about the role of head of state, this is so undignified.

capt.dd98ac9c008e45ae8808558418c7f282.bush_whmc101.jpg

Did they learn nothing from “Mission Accomplished”?

Feb 13, 2008 | Comment | Tags: , ,

Obama for Head of State

obama08.jpgToday I took an online political quiz that asked me a series of question about my views on current issues and then ranked the presidential candidates in order of compatibility with my views. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul came up first. Quite surprisingly, Mike Gravel came in second. But most surprisingly to me, however, is that Barack Obama came in last—even after Hillary Clinton.

After a moment’s thought, this isn’t that surprising. So why are many folks of my bent falling for this guy? It’s obviously because of his personality and because of what he represents, which is what he’s running on. But I can’t buy into all that fluff, can I? I think I can, and here’s why.

In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers made the President both the head of government and the head of state. In many other countries the head of state is a monarch or an elected president, while the head of government being the prime minister or some other functionary. The head of state has little power and is the living embodiment of the nation. The King of Spain or the President of Germany, for example.

This is salutary separation of roles that I wish we had. In England, for example, the Queen is owed respect, while the prime minister is just a public servant who is always accountable to the people. This is why they have their delicious Question Time and why British reporters don’t cow before the prime minister. In this country, however, it is difficult to be critical of the President as head of government without at the same time maligning the President as head of state. It’s also common for the President’s conduct as head of government to malign the role of President as head of state.

For almost 16 years the head of state in this country has been an embarrassment, and there hasn’t been a decent one in at least 20. I think one reason why some of us who are ideologically opposed to Barak Obama are nevertheless drawn to him is because we’d like to see him in the role of head of state. To the extent that we are a nation, Obama would be a wonderful living symbol of it. Not only as it is, but of its aspirations as well. Whatever your beliefs, you must admit he’s an inspiring and uplifting force.

So, given the alternatives, I don’t see why it would be so bad to have a President who is good at at least half his job.

Feb 8, 2008 | 4 Comments | Tags: , ,

  •  
  •