Neocon Blues

The furor over Wilson’s remarks border on the asinine. In a free and enlightened democracy, do we really think any politician is entitled to deference and protection from criticism? Rep. Wilson’s outburst may have been tactless in the larger scheme of things, but it is objectively a good thing that a congressman is willing to overlook the traditional pomp and ceremony - and for that matter, the facade of bi-partisan harmony - by calling the president out when he is incensed by his remarks. That some people are calling for Wilson’s electoral defeat over a matter of etiquette is worrying. It shows us how warped our view of the presidency really is, and how much executive power has expanded. Moreover, it belies a latent, “liberal fascist” desire for monarchy and the glamour that comes with it. How else do we explain the revisionist history still in play about the Kennedys and Camelot? How else do we explain the cult of the individual that Obama commands on the left?

What’s worse, our neighbors seem to have bought into the notion of presidential royalty. Alex Massie makes the surprisingly self-evident observation that in the UK, the PM is heckled on a daily basis by the opposition.

Trivial though it may seem, this brouhaha highlights a great flaw in the American system: You elect a monarch. In olden days and on the old continent, criticizing the monarch might limit your life chances. So too, alas, in the American capital today, as the arbiters of acceptable Washington indecency—that is, the Davids Broder and Gergen—decry your shortage of civility and surfeit of vulgarity.

The convention that Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of the President in His Presence elides the great difference known to every Briton—that between insulting the head of state and insulting the mere head of the executive branch of government.

Insulting Queen Elizabeth is one thing; insulting Gordon Brown is practically an obligation. Disrespecting the former is an act of treason; disrespecting the latter and his office, a necessity: Every Wednesday, Brown must endure Prime Minister’s Questions, during which his enemies in Parliament grill him. Prime Minister’s Questions may not be the be all and end all, but it affords an opportunity for “telling truth to power” that does not exist in the regal American system.

America’s problem is that it has combined the head of state and the head of the executive branch into a single office, and it can no longer distinguish between the two roles. Obama’s health-care address was not given in his role as head of state. It was, rather, a political speech made by—pinch yourselves—a mere politician seeking to advance his own political agenda.

Massie’s comments are sadly true. We fought a revolution to break free from the shackles of tyranny. We established separation of powers, checks and balances, and a bill of rights to ensure we would not replace one king or queen with another. We remained aloof from the 19th century intrigues of Europe because we believed they were symptomatic of an old monarchical order that we had transcended. And now, in the comments section of the Daily Beast or Macleans, Brits and Canadians are comparing the president to the Queen. For shame - the founders would be rolling over in their graves.