The President as Homecoming King

Mark Graber

The Framers anticipated the President would be a distinguished American who would rise above party to ensure a faction-free politics. No contemporary politician fits that description in large part because the unforeseen rise of the two-party system in 1800/1828 made most original intentions obsolete. John McCain probably comes closest. John Kerry can at least point to a solid to good long career in public service. George Bush led an undistinguished existence until the 1990s and has demonstrated no capacity as president to rise above party.

The twentieth century presidency pioneered by Theodore Roosevelt emphasized an executive sufficiently immersed in policy to govern the administrative/welfare state. By this measure, Kerry fares quite well. Good faith disagreements exist on the merits of what Kerry would do as President but no one thinks he is uninformed or uninterested in the major issues of the day. Bush is a disaster when judged by the T. Roosevelt model of the presidency. Outside of his election, major league baseball, and possibly the oil industry, he exhibits little knowledge or interest in the details of any policy, from health care to the Sudan.
The best way to think of the Bush presidency is that the United States is in the process of transitioning from the president as policy leader to the president as homecoming king. The metamorphous began under Reagan, is fueled by the modern media, and is being perfected by Bush. The main responsibilities of the president as homecoming king is to cheer lustily for our team. In every way, the president must communicate that our nation is number one (whatever that means), has no serious flaws, and is capable of overcoming any obstacle. Bush does this well. Kerry rather poorly.

Consider how recent events highlight the presidency as homecoming king. Only partisan Democrats care that Bush used family connections to limit service during Vietnam. Past achievement, after all, is a qualification of the presidency envisioned by the Framers. The homecoming king must be well liked, but need not have a record of any achievement. By comparison, Kerry has been damaged by revelations that he complained of atrocities during Vietnam. Of course, everyone knows American soldiers in Vietnam did commit atrocities and war crimes. The only serious issues are how pervasive was such behavior (both then and in Iraq) and what can be done to limit future atrocities. These questions are matters for a president expected to exhibit policy leadership. The homecoming king never acknowledges that our team has any faults (or what faults exist are to be blamed on a few individuals).
Bush fell from grace only once during the campaign, when he indicated that the war on terrorism could not be won. Had we been in the era of the Roosevelt presidency, a sensible debate might have followed on how terrorism could best be contained over the long run. As we move to the era of the president as homecoming king, such statements must be recanted. Presidents must assert that our team will fully triumph over all foes. No nuance is permitted in public. That everybody knows such triumphs are utopian matters not in the least.

As a fan of high school and college football, I like homecoming kings and queens as much as the next person. A reasonable case can be made that they serve national purposes. Witness the English monarchy. But England also has a prime minister, who acts as a Rooseveltian policy leader. Elections are more about policy than popularity. The greatest danger in the presidency as homecoming king is that public debate over policy in the United States is rapidly being reduced to who can cheer the loudest for the home team.

Posted 8:58 AM by Mark Graber [link]