Inauguration Shouldn't be a Coronation

Americans fought an eight-year war of liberation against not only the most powerful monarchy on earth in 1775 but against monarchy itself. Yet once the dust settled and it was time to write a Constitution compromises left America a legacy of monarchy now gone from most of Europe.

Among the kingly powers still residing in the American presidency are the pardon, the veto and the title Commander-in-Chief. Add to that list the Inaugural celebration we are about to witness in Washington, DC. None of this has any place in a democracy.

Unlike in Europe, whose time for Empire has come and gone, the United States combines the practical power of head of government with the symbolic power of head of state. It is a frightening combination.

But that is the point: to instill fear. It is part of how rulers rule, how leaders manage populations. A mere mortal, albeit one with mortal power over other people's lives, is transformed through ritual and ceremony into a super-human figure who is not to be messed with.

As the chief executive he holds in his hands the state's monopoly on violence -- both domestic and foreign. That fear of potential violence buffers an American president from criticism. It takes courage for someone -- a cabinet official, a journalist or an ordinary citizen -- to stand up to a president while he's in power. Only now we are hearing from a judge who says Bush was a torturer.

The threat of violence is hidden. It's always there in the background if the foreground strategy fails: the obedience-inducing symbols of power. It all kicks off with the Inauguration.

Any American president's legitimacy -- including Obama's -- should ideally rest on his performance alone, not his branding in ceremonies reminiscent of enthronements.

In 1727 Georg Frederic Handel wrote four anthems for the coronation of King George II. Now we've got Bruce Springsteen.

In a parliamentary system real power resides with the prime minister who is not glorified in ceremony, title and song. He is also more accountable to the people. A major screw up and a vote of no confidence can bring a new government at any time.

If the people still need some parental-like figure ruling over them better that person be stripped of political power -- like the kings, queens and ceremonial presidents of Europe today -- than the man and or woman who can still command armies in the field.

In a representative democracy we want our leaders to be as much like us a possible -- not in the Sarah Palin sense of dumb as the average common denominator. No, smarter than the norm but remaining among us -- not set apart.

A speech on the steps of the Capitol should be enough. Tell us what you are going to do and then drive -- or walk -- down Pennsylvania Avenue and start doing it.

Comments

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

Thank you, Joe. A form of royal "coronation" is indeed what the modern presidential inauguration has become - with enthusiastic assistance from Corporate America's media subsidiaries.

How many Americans would even recognize photographs of our handful of new Senators? How much attention has the corporate media paid to those powerful new members of our national legislature - the ONLY body in our federal government charged with representing we, the people?

We're insidiously led to believe that the president - the man charged with faithfully EXECUTING Congressional policy and law under our Constitution - is instead the single man charged with DEVISING that law on our behalf. Such that Congress is reduced to a ceremonial legal drafting department for Executive Branch-generated legislation. Dangerous indeed, IF one believes in self-government and Republican democracy.

Even worse, and to their great shame, this extremely unwise transformation of our American Republic into an American semi-Monarchy has been accomplished with the help of Members of Congress themselves, including natural-born Democratic Party autocrats like Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Barney Frank and Harry Reid.

Nevertheless, the federal legislature is OUR legislature, NOT that of the two corporate-funded political parties - whose craven leaders have together conspired to place a chokehold on the will of Congress, and thus on us, and on our Constitutional rights and powers to govern ourselves as we see fit. It's way past time we acknowledged that fact, and acted to reclaim our federal legislature from the presidential groupies who now rule it unchallenged.

[Joe Lauria - Huffpost Blogger]

An historical inaccuracy in Obama's speech. He said: "Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."

Actually only 43 have. Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president.

Add to my list of kingly powers executive orders. This is a clear holdover from royal decrees and does not exist in a parliamentary system.

When apartheid South Africa was under international pressure to end racial discrimination in the early 1980s it changed from a ceremonial president to an American style presidency in which the president was both head of state and goverment.

[IndyProd]

“In a parliamentary system real power resides with the prime minister who is not glorified in ceremony, title and song. He is also more accountable to the people.”

Yes, let’s redo the constitution, eliminate the presidency and replace it with a Prime Minister. A constitutional convention would give us the opportunity to rethink our ersatz monarchy. And let’s get rid of the inaugural circus. Don’t we have enough spectacles what with the Olympics, the Academy Awards, and the Super Bowl?

Now moving from the presidency to the President: Obama is not a liberal. He is a corporate centrist like Billary. His appointments prove that. Not one Progressive in the lot. I’ll feel good about Obama if he undoes those executive orders that Dictator Bush put in place – like the Homeland Security Presidential National Security Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20 – that gives the President absolute power in a crisis to suspend the constitution. And let’s see Obama return war making powers to the Congress. Then we might have a presidency I could believe in.

[yappnmutt]

you are right. the gov't of the usa was built so that there would be ample opportunity for the gov't to fear the people and little opportunity for the people to fear the gov't. no president(or congress) should get a free pass to do what they want. that's the clearest lesson of the past eight years.

[slemay]

It appears that Obama is doing exactly what you said. Yes, he's going to some inaugural balls, but his cabinet and staff already went down the street to start work.

In extreme circumstances, people often find solace and refuge in over-the-top celebrations--like this one. Give us that small chance.

We are celebrating Obama's election and inauguration, but, if you check carefully, you'll find that we also expect a lot from him, more than simply doing better than the last guy, who lowered the bar. But it's okay if he starts tomorrow.

[zjr909]

Thank you Mr Lauria!

[philko]

C'mon people -
The writer of this blog is pointing out the dangers of the OFFICE, not the INDIVIDUAL.
Whether Obama gets "corrupted by absolute power" or not does NOT make the Office of the President less powerful or give it less potential to corrupt.
Bush pushed the limits. He used the "I'm C-in-C. We're at war. My word is law." approach in far too many circumstances. And he did it with impunity (at least at the time and, IMO, he will remain unpunished). The reason that he got away with this (especially given his abysmal approval ratings) was that his actions were (arguably) legal actions for a President to take.
So now Bush is gone. Great! It's worthy of a celebration.
And now, with Obama, we probably have a leader who has enough integrity and respect for the Constitution to not strut around acting like a monarch.
But what about the next President? Or the one after that? We were robbed, people, and telling ourselves that we live in a nice neighborhood doesn't protect us from being robbed again. Installing burgler bars does. And that is what I believe the author of this blog is suggesting that America ponder.

[Ronju01]

How about calling it celebrating democracy and people's power.

[WorkingClass]

I wish we had a chief executive answerable to the people instead of just a new emperor. But I do not begrudge the people their joy in the expectation that the new emperor will not be cruel and stupid like the last one.

[breakingpoint]

The American People have to want it first

[splinky]

Deep breaths. It's called a celebration and transition. It's a psychological rite of passage from the [horrifying] old to the hopeful new. You say yourself in a response to a comment that you opened a bottle of champagne when Obama won. Why did you do that? Wouldn't it have been enough for you to read the news the next morning and then drive to work and do what you do? Was it perhaps to mark the occasion for yourself with a traditional act of celebration, one that is customarily used to mark a beginning, like a wedding, or an acknowledgment of achievement, like a victory?

[fromNina]

Things are bad, people don't want to think, they want a daddy to think for them and to fix eveything.

I'm afraid to see how anyone who expresses any constructive criticism about the new President will get treated, and all the horrible things they will be accused of.

I hope this will not turn into another nail in the coffin of free speech.

[Joe Lauria - Huffpost Blogger]

The Senate's official inaugural web site at

http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/daysevents/inauguralball.cfm

says Wilson did away with the Ball as too expensive and after that a charity event was held until Truman returned to tradition. The Inauguration is another opportunity for corporate and other wealthy backers to set up favors from the White House down the line. In this time of suffering for so many Americans out of work, it is also a bit insensitive. Carter had the right idea too.

"In 1913, the city's Inaugural organizers began planning the ball to celebrate Woodrow Wilson's Inauguration ... but President-elect Wilson thought otherwise. He felt the ball was too expensive and unnecessary for the solemn occasion of the Inaugural, and asked the Inaugural committee to cancel it. ...

"President-elect Warren G. Harding also requested that the Inaugural committee do away with the elaborate ball (and the parade as well) in 1921, hoping to set an example of thrift and simplicity. ... Subsequent Inaugurations followed this trend, with charity balls becoming the fashion for the Inaugurations of Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"President Harry Truman revived the official ball in 1949. ... President Carter attempted to strip the balls of their glitz and glamour in 1977, calling them parties and charging no more than $25 each, but by the 2nd inaugural of President William Jefferson Clinton in 1997, the number of balls reached an all-time high of fourteen."

[ouroborous]

Although I agree with many of your sentiments (the cult of personality surrounding Obama is worrisome to me, and I'm also nervous that the urge to "throw a big party" is blinding people to the very real danger the nation is in right now), I think you're overlooking the most monarchic President ever:

George W. Bush.

Obama's cult of personality is staggering, but if you want to talk about a President who governs like he was a king issuing edicts, Mr. Signing Statements takes the cake.

[Joe Lauria - Huffpost Blogger]

Absolutely, but I am not taking aim at any particular president here but at the symbolism and ceremony itself and its effect on the presidency and the public.

[Gidster]

We have just fought an eight year war against an ideology who's strength was in divisiveness, fear and secrecy.

Soon, Obama will either work for us and we will see changes begin, or he will show himself to be all rhetoric and he will be a one term president.

Give folks their outlet and get the rancor and the stench of Rovian politics out of their systems.

[Celtchief]

I would argue that Lincoln was the president who was the most monarchic. He even suspended peoples rights within the North during the Civil War, allowing him to imprison American citizens on American soil. Not even Bush did that....

You can make an argument that it was war time... well, of course it was... that was the excuse for locking up the Japanese descendants during WWII as well. So... maybe FDR was the most monarchic.­...

And then there was LBJ who created a war from the now largely debunked incident at the Gulf of Tonkin....­.

You know, when a president you like abuses power, it is still abuse of power.... and when a president you don't like abuses power it is no more a crime then it was for the president you liked.

[SethBLiNK]

Sorry, Joe, but this is America and in America we celebrate things... like birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, and... oh, I don't know... the greatest affirmation that our system of democracy works since our country was founded.

So, I'll enjoy the party and hope for the best starting the next day.