All of us, if we are of reflective habit,
like and admire men whose fundamental beliefs differ radically from our own.
But when a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of
sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that
they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save
the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and
whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted,
the candidate must either bark with the pack or count himself lost….
…all the odds are on the man who is,
intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly
disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go
to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more
closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some
great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
—H.L. Mencken, “Bayard vs. Lionheart,” The
Evening Sun, Baltimore (26 July 1920) [1]
The coronavirus pandemic should not have
taken us by surprise. In fact,
“Public health and national security
experts shake their heads when President Donald Trump says the coronavirus ‘came
out of nowhere’ and ‘blindsided the world.’
“They’ve been warning about the next
pandemic for years and criticized the Trump administration’s decision in 2018
to dismantle a National Security Council directorate at the White House charged
with preparing for when, not if, another pandemic would hit the nation.” [1]
How did we come to select such a
shortsighted individual as President of the United States? Was H.L. Mencken
correct in his blistering indictment of democracy’s tendency to choose
incompetent leadership? I think so, but not for the reason that Mencken would
have it. His idea was that stupid arises from stupid, but we need not acquiesce
to that curmudgeonly assessment.
Let’s take a look at the job description
of the President of the United States. Article II of the Constitution begins by
saying that the “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America.” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 1) [2] That’s more than
a perfunctory statement. The executive power that the Framers of the
Constitution were familiar with was the king of Great Britain. Thus, when
President Washington issued a neutrality proclamation upon the outbreak of war
between France and Great Britain, Alexander Hamilton defended the action,
arguing that “Article II vests significant powers in the President as possessor
of executive powers not enumerated in subsequent sections of Article II,” [3], writing,
“’The second article of the Constitution
of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that
“the Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America.” The same article, in a succeeding section, proceeds to delineate
particular cases of executive power. It declares, among other things, that the
president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United
States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual
service of the United States; that he shall have power, by and with the advice
and consent of the senate, to make treaties; that it shall be his duty to
receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed. It would not consist with the rules of sound
construction, to consider this enumeration of particular authorities as
derogating from the more comprehensive grant in the general clause, further
than as it may be coupled with express restrictions or limitations; as in
regard to the co-operation of the senate in the appointment of officers, and
the making of treaties; which are plainly qualifications of the general
executive powers of appointing officers and making treaties.’
“’The difficulty of a complete enumeration
of all the cases of executive authority, would naturally dictate the use of
general terms, and would render it improbable that a specification of certain
particulars was designed as a substitute for those terms, when antecedently
used. The different mode of expression employed in the constitution, in regard
to the two powers, the legislative and the executive, serves to confirm this
inference. In the article which gives the legislative powers of the government,
the expressions are, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in
a Congress of the United States.” In that which grants the executive power, the
expressions are, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of
the United States.” The enumeration ought therefore to be considered, as
intended merely to specify the principal articles implied in the definition of
executive power; leaving the rest to flow from the general grant of that power,
interpreted in conformity with other parts of the Constitution, and with the
principles of free government. The general doctrine of our Constitution then
is, that the executive power of the nation is vested in the President;
subject only to the exceptions and qualifications, which are
expressed in the instrument.’” [4]
The king of Great Britain had the power to
declare war, and no consent of Parliament was necessary. In our Constitution,
that executive power was given to Congress. But the power to declare neutrality
was not. Hamilton’s argument, then, was that the President had the power to
declare neutrality in the war between France and Great Britain.
Such plenary power is an awesome
responsibility for one individual. It is only common sense that it should not
be given to an imbecile.
Article II goes on to specifically
enumerate other powers of the Executive.
“The President shall be Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may
require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the
executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their
respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for
Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” (Article
II, Section 2, Clause 1) [5]
Since the President is to be, in essence,
the highest ranking officer in the U.S. military, it would be useful if he or
she had some experience in military affairs, or at the very least be educable
in such matters. An acquaintance with military strategy would be helpful in
order to prevent us from getting into military quagmires, and prevent stupid
deployments.
There are currently 15 executive
departments covering a wide range of areas, from foreign affairs to education.
It is impossible for the President to be knowledgeable about all of them. But
he or she should have an agile enough mind to understand what his or her
cabinet officers are saying when they provide advice. Not only that, but the
President should have the basic humility to know when others have expertise
that he or she does not possess. The President should be able and willing to
learn. Further, he or she should have the good sense to appoint people who are
actually experts in the areas their department covers, rather than political
allies, and should know how to find them.
Moreover, since the President has the
power to pardon, he or she should have something of a judicial temperament. The
President should have the kind of insight and morality necessary for exercising
that power impartially and fairly.
“He shall have Power, by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the
Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United
States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment
of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the
Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” (Article II, Section 2, Clause
2) [6]
Making treaties requires knowledge of
foreign affairs; and that knowledge should transcend popular favor or enmity
toward particular nations. Appointing Supreme Court Justices requires
sufficient knowledge of the law to know whether a candidate possesses the
requisite qualifications, as opposed to being, say, ready and willing to execute
the will of a political party.
“He shall from time to time give to the
Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their
Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may,
on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case
of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may
adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United
States.” (Article II, Section 3) [7]
The State of the Union address has become
a circus act. But the original intent was that the President would periodically
provide Congress with information necessary to perform its legislative task,
and make suggestions as to what actions it should take. Doing that, of course,
requires the ability to keep track of enormous amounts of information and
analyze it. It also requires knowledge of what the law is, so that he or she
doesn’t propose to Congress something that it has already done.
Knowledge of the law is important also in
the President’s task of executing the law. How can he or she execute the law
without knowing what it is? This capability, of course, can only exist in a
general sense, since the law is too voluminous for the entirety of it to be
known in detail. But the most important law, the Constitution, should be known
and understood by every president, who should understand the limits of his or
her own power, along with the power of every other part of government. He or
she should have the knowledge necessary to not encroach upon the rights of
citizens.
Now with all of these qualifications it is
apparent that the President should be a fairly remarkable individual. How are
we to discover such a person? By having politicians argue like idiots with each
other on television?
More, how are we to select such a person
if we don’t understand the kind of knowledge and capabilities that the
President should have? How can we judge of his or her capabilities in the area
of foreign policy, if we don’t understand foreign policy ourselves? How can we
assess a candidate’s ability to be commander in chief of the armed forces, if
we know nothing of military strategy? What can we understand about executing
the laws, if we don’t even know the Constitution?
First of all, let it be said that there is
no shame in not being capable of making a choice. Most of us have jobs, and
those of us who don’t have other things to do besides making the kind of
searching inquiry necessary for choosing the right person as President of the
United States. And the chances aren’t very good that we’ll find such people
among the carnival barkers who are our politicians. The problem with
politicians is that, as a group, they tend to tell fibs; and it is far
preferable to have a president who isn’t so ethically challenged. Truthfully,
it looks like picking the President needs to be a full-time job.
It just so happens that the Framers of the
Constitution agreed. The Electoral College wasn’t originally conceived as a
kind of point system for winning the popular vote in a given state. Instead,
the idea was that the people of each state would choose electors, rather than
candidates as we do today, who were themselves to be entrusted with making the
choice. Alexander Hamilton explained why this method was chosen:
“It was desirable that the sense of the
people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust
was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making
it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the
special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
“It was equally desirable, that the
immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the
qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to
deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements
which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected
by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess
the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
“It was also peculiarly desirable to
afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was
not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of
the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in
the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this
mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will
be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent
movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be
the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each
State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this
detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and
ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they
were all to be convened at one time, in one place.” (Federalist, No. 68)
[8]
Hamilton explained that while the “sense
of the people” should be employed in making the choice, making a proper
selection is a complicated endeavor, and should be engaged in by qualified
people devoted to the task. Additionally, the “tumult and disorder” that
accompanies popular elections should be avoided.
On that last point, one need only to
consider that presidential elections have come to be preeminently
disinformation campaigns. Partisans appear to have come to the conclusion that
their best chances for electoral success are with the use of falsehood and
deception applied to those who don’t have the luxury of time to make a proper
inquiry. Presidential elections have thus become quadrennial frauds upon the
public.
Now it is obvious that the Electoral
College doesn’t operate at all as the Framers intended. People in every state
now vote for one who is “to be the final object of the public wishes,” which
means that they select a group of functionaries of the candidate’s political
party. The result is that the President is chosen by those who aren’t properly
informed, and have, indeed, been subjected to disinformation.
Much better would be an actual election of
electors, as Hamilton and the other Framers envisioned. It would be best if
they were elected individually, in a nonpartisan election to avoid the electors
having party obligations. Since we would want them to devote full time to a
serious inquiry, they would be chosen well in advance of the presidential
election, and would be compensated for their service.
There is evidence enough that there is
something wrong with the way we elect presidents. Perhaps we should try the
system given to us by the Framers of the Constitution.