A Modest Proposal: A King and Queen for America

The main point is that the symbolic and ceremonial responsibilities of reflecting the character and attitude of the nation fall on someone with a real job, while most other countries have a separation of concerns. On the other hand, the United States has a long-standing tradition of treating the government as an enemy rather than an extension of national identity, so we wouldn't actually have that much for such a figurehead to do. The closest that you get is the First Lady taking up A Cause and enacting change at the philanthropic and national-awareness level.

[1] The original "Modest Proposal" put forth the idea of eating Irish babies as a solution to feeding the poor in London, and is regarded as one of the finest satires in the English tradition. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

I really enjoy having a Queen as head of state; and I wish the role hadn't become so namby pamby (basically as described in this article). Here the Queen has "effective"/moral power - but it is just accepted she wont use it.

This is a departure even in recent times; go back 60/70 years and that sentence would have read: Here the Queen has "effective"/moral power - but it is just accepted she wont use it if the politicians behave. I wish we could go back to that.

But, anyway, that is to one side - I meant to explain the idea of royalty. You see a lot of people consider it quaint and ye-olde English. But really in modern times the Queen is just our version of American patriotism. You know that patriotic support for ones country etc. I've always liked that; the idea of believing in an "ideal" (even if the reality is a bit rubbish).

I wish there was more of it, instead of less and less.

(I realise this is mildly tangential to the point of the piece; which actually, IMO, had a solid point to make)

Actually, it's the other way around, we've taken everything but the ceremonial duties from our monarchs.

Also, the countries with non-elected heads of state usually frown upon political statements from them.

As an American, I can see how having a head of state with decades of experience who's nominally higher than the chief of government, but with no formal power might help check corrupting influences and promote accountability. Of course, it's rife with problems of its own.

I would argue that his actions are coming up short too. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama is presiding over a country that is allowing its largest businesses to gain immense profits at the cost of its taxpayers. A few examples include Goldman which is arbitraging the markets with funds borrowed at a near-zero Fed discount window and oil companies such as BP whose profits (6.2 billion EBIT in Q1) clearly indicate that the leases on which it is drilling are priced far too low and don't possibly cover the external costs of drilling.

http://tv.yahoo.com/the-west-wing/show/episode/15164/recap&#...

When the President of the United States thinks that BP is the best we can do, we are all well and truly boned. Not because that is obviously not true, but because the President has more or less abdicated his power.