Obviously, Commonwealth states are going to have a little devolution of head-of-state powers given that the Queen is not about to fly over every time a new ambassador needs receiving… I suppose it’s a little odd that the PM receives people instead of the Governor-General, though.
It’s not at all odd. It’s simply a concrete example of how a head of government who is explicitly not the head of state is perfectly capable of performing this governmental function without any metaphysically negative consequences.
“Metaphysically negative consequences”?
You’re having an argument with yourself here, I think. Nobody is saying that having a head of state is a good idea; just that it’s how things are done. It bespeaks a certain sort of arrogance to suggest that America doesn’t have to because “we’re a democracy and everyone is equal”, simply because in international relations you have to have someone who speaks for your state.
It’s not the same as domestic politics, where you can have a dozen (or millions of) different people who speak for, say, the Republican Party; at least not until we start approving treaties by referendum.
Whence arrogance? We appoint a representative to represent us. That person, unlike in other countries, is not the “embodiment of the nation,” but merely an official functionary. Was it arrogance for us to adopt a system in which there was no sovereign who ruled by divine right?
As I said, there must be someone empowered to make decisions on behalf of the government, because governments interact with each other in international relations. You implied some sort of dire consequences if this role was taken on by someone who is not a head of state. I sarcastically labelled them as metaphysical.
No; it’s arrogant to make everyone else conform to your system, though.
Where did I imply dire consequences? I merely asserted that That’s How Things Are Done.
On the contrary, I would go so far as to say that government-to-government interaction is handled by heads of government, not heads of state; Hs of S are for ceremonial stuff. However, regardless of which hat he’s wearing, the President does represent us to foreign powers and is therefore worthy of our respect, in general.*
I think we’ve lost the original question in all this, which (I think) was whether or not we should bow and scrape to the President.
Obviously, you don’t have to; this is America, and you need not bow and/or scrape to anyone if you don’t feel like it. However, IMHO, you should, in the same way you should avoid giggling at funerals or inserting your dollar bill into the stripper’s ear and so on.
The United States (according to my thesis) has no head of state and no individual embodies and symbolizes the nation. We do, however, appoint an individual to interact with representatives of other governments. How is this “mak[ing] every else conform to [our] system?”
You said that an individual has to personify and embody the nation. The implication is that if somebody doesn’t then … what? I filled that in with “metaphysically negative consequences” and “dire consequences.” You tell me. What happens?
This isn’t an argument. Things are done in all kinds of ways. There are countries with sovereigns. There are countries without. Everyone does things slightly differently.
He or she is worthy of respect in the same way that any other member of society is, regardless of occupation.
We should bow and scrape to the president? Really? I’ve never actually seen that happening.
I should think we should treat the president in the same way we might treat any other stranger upon meeting, with simple courtesy.
Well, apparently the right-wingers find it easier to swallow if they can attribute their loss to white guilt, anything except the fact that Obama is a better candidate with a better platform and greater popular support. But I don’t think that makes what I said any less true. At least from observing other liberal white people I know, they’re all patting themselves on the back for defeating centuries of institutional American racism by electing Obama. With all due respect to Obama’s own struggle, his story is not the same as people whose ancestry has been obliterated by the African diaspora and suffered through all the plagues that ensued. When I hear one of those people’s stories ending at the White House, then I’ll believe racism is behind us.
You have to remember that ol’ Pillhead Rushbo trotted out the ‘Halfrican American’ line a good two years ago.
-Joe
When he does that ceremonially, he does it as Head of State. It’s not arrogant that we have a President who fills the role of HoS and HoG; it’s simply arrogant to assert that we don’t have a Head of State.
Foreign dignitaries (and populations) will appoint one for us. Generally, they choose the President. I suppose somebody out there is waiting for his audience with Michael Jordan or something…
Countries without sovereigns have Presidents, who are their heads of state. Some just have Prime Ministers, which is a bit of an odd title to give somebody if you don’t have a sovereign. Still, there’s always somebody wearing the HoS hat, even if they also wear an HoG hat.
Er… would you be just as honored to be invited to a PTA dinner as a White House dinner?
Obviously, “bow and scrape” is a bit of hyperbole, but I would address the President as “Mr. President” even if it’s a goofy form of address (which it is). I wouldn’t address anyone else as “Mr. Your Title”, aside from a few other government officers.
I certainly won’t argue about extending simple courtesy to strangers.
As “impassioned do-gooders” are generally motivated by vanity and care little about the practical consequences of their do-gooding, it is entirely appropriate to use the term as an epithet.
This is conclusory.
How is it arrogance, exactly? And how is it more or less arrogant than asserting that we don’t have a hereditary sovereign who rules by divine right?
Will they also appoint a king? Or a pope? Or a chancellor of the exchequer? Or a lord high executioner? And how do they go about doing so? When they make such an appointment, how does it affect us?
“Dear Diary, today I chose the president of the United States to be the embodiment of the American people as a nation. Your faithful correspondent, Daisy Meeks, Hounslow, Mdsx.”
So nobody looks forward to meeting the prime minister in a country that has a separate head of state? The head of (a branch of) government is a position of authority, not diminished by the fact that that head of government is not also a head of state (or that a head of state might not exist).
How is that relevant? An invitation to the county bar association dinner carries less honor than an invitation to the American Bar Association dinner. So what?
Gawrsh, Davey, what if their mission is to make sure everyone has their very own firearm?
-Joe
Four “Ruffles and Flourishes” and “Hail to the Chief” are played for the American Head of State.
Nobody I know is saying that Obama’s election defeated racism. It is an important milestone that shows racism’s decline, but there are still one fuck of a lot of people who think anybody without white skin isn’t quite as good.
In fact, the only whites I know claiming that the election proves racism has been conquered have been people who have been pretending that racism has already been a non-issue for years.
Who, by and large, aren’t liberals.
Bzzzt! Wrong!
Link (From this very thread, btw.)
Oh, yeah…and you left out the part about how my brain doesn’t work right. 
(Can you say, “Hoist on my own petard?” Yeah, I thought that you could.)
Schmuck.
Well, yeah, I guess the people I’m really talking about are white liberals who are throwing their arms out of joint patting themselves on the back for making such a “bold step forward” or being “so proud of America”, etc. Don’t get me wrong… I feel the same, or at least similar. For me it’s more of a feeling of a relief that America did not screw up the easiest possible chance to confront its racist history. We still have miles to go before we sleep, IMO.
So, how do you discern the distinction between being justifiably pleased at progress and “throwing their arms out of joint patting themselves on the back…”? What’s the tip-off?
Why, the beret, of course.
-Joe