I noted earlier this week that the American Constitution is an outlier in not separating the head of state from the head of government. If that’s a serious flaw, then how did we manage that problem for so long?
The answers largely sound in political customs that gave the President the appearance of being above politics in some sense. These include:
- George Washington and some of his successors stayed above the fray and emphasized their ceremonial role.
- Presidents and presidential candidates did not campaign for that office until the end of the 19th century. It was seen as undignified or gauche.
- Presidents did not campaign for another candidates. When Andrew Johnson did this in 1866, his efforts were widely panned and he was impeached, in part, for acting in a way that was beneath the dignity of the office. The taboo held until (I would say) 1948 and Truman’s attack on the “Do-Nothing” Congress.
- When party conventions became the way of choosing candidates, those vying for the nomination typically did not appear at the convention and did not give an acceptance speech. This custom started eroding toward the end of the 19th century but did not end until 1944.
- Party bosses were seen (or blamed for) the mechanics of the party. They chose the President and had significant independence from him. The thought that the President was the party boss did not emerge until after World War II.
- The Cold War gave post-World II presidents an aura of sorts as the “leader of the free world.”
The end of the Cold War left the head of state fiction on shaky ground, which finally collapsed in 2016. Is there anything that can bring it back? I’ll explore that issue another time.