Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 06:50 PM Oct 2013

Should the ceremonial duties of the Presidency be a separate, non-governing office?

This doesn't sound like a very compelling issue at first glance, but look deeper. A lot of a President's time is taken up doing things that have absolutely nothing to do with Executive governance: You'd be shocked and appalled by how much time Presidents have to spend in state dinners and receptions, not to mention en route to or from such functions, and actual "Presidenting" normally has to work around these things. They might be canceled in an emergency, but otherwise it's a big hassle requiring a delicate ballet. And I have to wonder if it's at all necessary.

Part of the advantage held by constitutional monarchies is that they have a ceremonial leader who handles all the pageantry and foofaraw without exercising any real authority, and then an elected leader who manages the executive and governs along with the legislature. For instance, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has more time to personally spend on policy, working with their appointees, and working with legislators than a President of the United States does.

Obviously we don't want a monarchy, but maybe it would be useful to at least separate the ceremonial functions currently handled by Presidents into a separate, non-governing office. After all, none of those things has anything to do with the Constitutional duties of the Presidency, so it wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment. In fact, a President could make it happen arbitrarily with an Executive Order establishing a ceremonial office.

It's true that to a minor extent the Secretary of State can do some of this stuff, but not really - that office doesn't really hold any ceremonial gravitas, and the American people don't invest it with any particular significance. And also it's a real Cabinet position with important political and diplomatic responsibilities, so it too would be compromised having to spend too much time on ceremony. So think about this: How about a Master of Ceremonies of the United States of America (M.C. USA)? In fact, since it holds no legal authority, you could maybe have it be elected in some kind of American Idol-style informal election - perhaps with some high majority threshold so that they really do represent our national spirit and are a unifying presence.

Their job would basically be Entertainer in Chief: A showpiece figurehead representing our culture (such as we have one), who flies around the world getting their picture taken and announcing good news about totally uncontroversial things while the President focuses on actually accomplishing things. Since the sort of people who would be elected MC USA would probably already be filthy rich pop stars, we probably wouldn't even have to pay them that much out of taxpayer money. And the fact that they might embarrass us by doing the sort of things celebrities do would just add to the fun.

Some ridiculous celebrity in a silly outfit would represent us to the monarchs and other figureheads of the world, superficially confirming every stereotype about childish Americans...and yet in reality our government might actually be a little more effective because the President could focus on real things. I think it would be brilliant, and a lot of fun at minimal cost. And, of course, there's no reason that an MC USA might not actually be a smart, charming person who would positively contribute to our image. For every laughable, drugged-out celebutard who ends up in the office, there could be another who is an artistic genius who everybody adores.

We're already represented to the world by our pop culture to a major extent, so why not just make it official? Also, it doesn't have to be someone from music. Movie and TV stars might also be game, as well as comedians, athletes, and other people with a high cultural profile. I'm totally serious - this could work, and would get politically apathetic people involved to some shallow extent in a quasi-government function. Maybe it could be a "gateway drug" for some of them to get involved in real politics.

The 50 states could also do their own version of it: Have an MC California, MC New York, MC Vermont, etc. Like a poet laureate, but elected and actually relevant. The whole thing would be like a trivial, highly entertaining, completely republican (small 'r') version of figurehead monarchy, with all sorts of pageantry, costumes, and other nonsense specific to the given office. And while the dumb people are distracted, some actual governing could occur in the Constitutional offices.

What do you think? And if we did have such an office, who would you nominate for MC USA? I, being a Geekimus Maximus, would nominate Joss Whedon.

Just a fun little thought. But I do think it could work.

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should the ceremonial duties of the Presidency be a separate, non-governing office? (Original Post) True Blue Door Oct 2013 OP
Didn't we appoint Dennis Rodman already? jberryhill Oct 2013 #1
There could be a different office for celebrities we just want to go away. True Blue Door Oct 2013 #4
I thought that was one of the First Lady/VP/VP's wife unofficial duties?? Blue_Tires Oct 2013 #2
Sure, but they're not really suited to it. True Blue Door Oct 2013 #6
no true, the First Lady is able to get attention for causes like Michelle OBama and healty eating JI7 Oct 2013 #15
Yes, they can bring attention to causes. But so can any other celebrity. True Blue Door Oct 2013 #16
i don't think others would have as much influence JI7 Oct 2013 #19
This came up back during Reagan's admin. Gidney N Cloyd Oct 2013 #3
Naturally, being an actor. True Blue Door Oct 2013 #7
The U.S. Presidency is the only office in the world that combines the heads of government and state. KamaAina Oct 2013 #5
Yeah, it's probably not a good idea over the long-term to have cultural and political power unified. True Blue Door Oct 2013 #8
Many countries combine the roles. There's a reason "presidential system" is a term. (nt) Posteritatis Oct 2013 #9
What do you think of the MC USA idea though? True Blue Door Oct 2013 #10
Also the Philippines, Liberia, Kenya, most of Latin America... Recursion Nov 2013 #24
I think it's a good idea, but the person should be appointed to the office by the President, because shraby Oct 2013 #11
The Secretary of State represents the President. MC USA would be a purely ceremonial office. True Blue Door Oct 2013 #12
No, some of these ceremonial things is part of what makes the President be seen in a certain way JI7 Oct 2013 #13
I don't think a President needs to be seen in that way. True Blue Door Oct 2013 #14
The power of accreditation and pardon generally lie with the ceremonial head Recursion Nov 2013 #26
Maybe get rid of the office of president, altogether? JEdwards8th Oct 2013 #17
Strangest thing that I have ever heard. Why don't we elect co-President? bluestate10 Oct 2013 #18
yup JI7 Oct 2013 #20
I like the idea of Hillary focusing on policy while Bill handles the ceremonial stuff (nt) Nye Bevan Oct 2013 #21
No Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #22
separation of patriotism and state now! MisterP Nov 2013 #23
Generally in systems like that the head of state has at least theoretical authority... Recursion Nov 2013 #25
California has a reporter who could serve as a double... fadedrose Nov 2013 #27
Since Vice-Presidents no longer do the job they really were supposed to be doing PoliticAverse Nov 2013 #28
No. The First Spouse does a lot of that ribbon cutting and hand shaking crap. MADem Nov 2013 #29
no gopiscrap Nov 2013 #30
Don't be so conservative. Think about the proposition. True Blue Door Nov 2013 #31
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
1. Didn't we appoint Dennis Rodman already?
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:21 PM
Oct 2013

How inspiring it must be for young men to dream, "Some day, I'll starve millions of people, so I can get to meet Dennis Rodman."

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
4. There could be a different office for celebrities we just want to go away.
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:39 PM
Oct 2013

It would give new meaning to the term "special attaché." They would be very special attachés. Rodman would of course go to North Korea; Mike Tyson goes to Iran; the Kardashians would be assigned to Turkmenistan, and so on.



Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
2. I thought that was one of the First Lady/VP/VP's wife unofficial duties??
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:29 PM
Oct 2013

One tradition I would like to see end is the sports champions' white house visit (unless it's really special or unique circumstances like USA Hockey winning gold or USA soccer winning the world cup...

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
6. Sure, but they're not really suited to it.
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:43 PM
Oct 2013

And nobody really invests them with any cultural gravitas. FLOTUS is just some lady who happened to marry the guy who ended up becoming President, and VPOTUS is just some also-ran politician who got thrown a bone by the victor for electoral math or ticket-balancing. Nobody really cares what they do, and so-called "important" ceremonial functions still have to involve the President.

Gidney N Cloyd

(19,829 posts)
3. This came up back during Reagan's admin.
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:34 PM
Oct 2013

Lots of folks who didn't like his politics or just thought he was too damn dumb to be president reluctantly admitted he was great at the pomp and circumstance functions.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
7. Naturally, being an actor.
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:44 PM
Oct 2013

I think having an MC USA could divert suave empty suits like Reagan from entering real politics, and stay focused on the things they're good at - i.e., things that don't matter one damn bit.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
5. The U.S. Presidency is the only office in the world that combines the heads of government and state.
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:42 PM
Oct 2013

Although many people (e.g. Soviet leaders) have held both positions simultaneously.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
8. Yeah, it's probably not a good idea over the long-term to have cultural and political power unified.
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:48 PM
Oct 2013

Presidents should represent the interests of the people, not embody the nation symbolically. There's a lot of danger over time when the two roles are invested in the same person.



shraby

(21,946 posts)
11. I think it's a good idea, but the person should be appointed to the office by the President, because
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:41 PM
Oct 2013

that person will represent the President. Therefore it should be someone the President feels comfortable representing him.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
12. The Secretary of State represents the President. MC USA would be a purely ceremonial office.
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:50 PM
Oct 2013

They would basically be "head of state" with no authority whatsoever, like the King of Sweden but elected and with a term of office.

JI7

(89,244 posts)
13. No, some of these ceremonial things is part of what makes the President be seen in a certain way
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:54 PM
Oct 2013

things like state dinners are also about building close ties with nations.

and as you said they can be cancelled or someone can fill in easily if required.

but i don't think it's an important enough matter to have some other office deal with it.

and isn't it one of the reasons we have a VP .

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
14. I don't think a President needs to be seen in that way.
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 09:35 PM
Oct 2013

They're just supposed to be the top public employee, not the embodiment of the nation.

And that's certainly true of VPs also. They're just a spare in case anything happens to the President and a Senate tie-breaker, not themselves culturally significant.

State dinners serve a purpose, but I don't see why someone whose time is precious should be involved in it, or someone who carries absolutely no cultural weight.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
26. The power of accreditation and pardon generally lie with the ceremonial head
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 01:28 AM
Nov 2013

Because, as much as it's not how you see it, they "embody" the state legally (either through the constituted office or a corporation sole in monarchies).



I don't know; I kind of like little historical idiosyncracies like that.

 

JEdwards8th

(25 posts)
17. Maybe get rid of the office of president, altogether?
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 10:23 PM
Oct 2013

Thanks to the longevity and inertia of the Federal bureaucracy - and the demands of media to look good. Y'know, less one pull a Nixon. But Jefferson had a hairlip and never gave one speech - see that happening today? The office is a figurehead, a decoy, a pinche potentate... a scapegoat to distract us from the real source of power:

The entrenched bureaucracy itself - especially the military-corporate infrastructure which changes nada while Presidents come and go. And now that bureaucracy dances to Cheney and Rummy's heartless eye twitches, as they have been since, well... Nixon.

The Neocon/Evangelical movement swelled their already oversized privileged egos.

Time to pop the balloonheads.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
18. Strangest thing that I have ever heard. Why don't we elect co-President?
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 10:30 PM
Oct 2013

A lot of important diplomacy happens at so called ceremonial events that the President attends. An agreement on chemical weapons in Syria came about because President Obama and Putin talked on the sidelines of the G20 meeting, John Kerry or the Russian foreign minister would not have had the power to order follow up actions.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
25. Generally in systems like that the head of state has at least theoretical authority...
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 01:27 AM
Nov 2013

... to replace the government, and must at least theoretically give assent to legislation. I don't know that the US would like "I have these vague powers but won't use them".

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
28. Since Vice-Presidents no longer do the job they really were supposed to be doing
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 01:37 AM
Nov 2013

(presiding over the Senate), they can do the Master of Ceremonies job instead.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
29. No. The First Spouse does a lot of that ribbon cutting and hand shaking crap.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 01:37 AM
Nov 2013

State dinners are so that leaders of foreign countries can meet with the POTUS. The dinner is a bonus at the end of the meetings, if they're done right-Bush didn't know how to do it; JFK, Clinton and Obama did--ya gotta have THE BEST entertainment...the absolute BEST.

Foreign dignitaries don't want to meet with some ceremonial assclown. They're not just here for the food, they're here to do a little work, too.

It's not a good idea. Expensive, wasteful, pointless. One more jerk on the payroll.

We do occasionally appoint ambassadors-at-large for this or that...cultural stuff, health, disasters, etc.

Even the PM of UK doesn't fluff off all the diplomacy on the Queen, and the only time she gets a state dinner over here is when she's touring and looking at horseflesh. UK PMs get "official" dinners here, too--same shit, different name. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/white-house-dinner-for-david-cameron-an-official-dinner-not-state-dinner/2012/03/09/gIQABxPd5R_blog.html

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should the ceremonial dut...