Head of state.

Recently, David Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy noted:

Like France, but unlike the Ireland or the United Kingdom, the United States combines the job of Head of State and Head of Government into a single person.

…and then went on to praise Barack Obama as a potential Head of State, without taking a position on his fitness as Head of Government. 

It’s an important distinction, and one that I wish more people would make, because a lot of Americans appear to be thoroughly confused by the concept that "head of state" and "head of government" are distinct roles (as evidenced by the comments in the thread that followed, e.g., by "Titus Pullo,"  "I find it hard to believe that a poster on this website would get all weak in the knees for Obama. What about principles? Do they mean anything?"  Well, duh, that goes into the "head of government" category.   (Here’s Wikipedia on "Head of State.")

I find it more useful to categorize presidents and potential presidents according to three more-or-less independent sets of criteria:

1. fitness as "head of state" 
2. competence as "head of government"
3. morality, justness, and efficacy of policies

"Fitness as head of state" includes such criteria as character, charisma, communication/speechmaking ability, and "embodiment of national values" as Wikipedia puts it; it is important both for the president’s ability to lead the nation and for the president’s ability to represent the nation to others.  "Competence as head of government" includes criteria such as ability to get bipartisan support, ability to work with people critical of the administration, ability to choose wise advisors and other appointees, experience in the executive position, things like that.  "Morality, justness, and efficacy of policies" is, I think, self-explanatory.

I believe policy to be the most important, followed by governmental competence, followed by fitness as head of state.  I think there’s room to disagree about this ranking, especially the latter two; I’m open to arguments that the fulfillment of the symbolic role of the head of state is more deeply and permanently influential than the fulfillment of the executive role as head of government.  And then there’s the argument that you want a good executive if and only if the policies are good, and you want an incompetent executive if the policies are bad (so they’re less likely to succeed).  I’m not sure I agree on principle, but in terms of realpolitik there’s certainly something to that.

(Policy being the most important is often what makes it tricky to decide between two candidates, because it’s almost guaranteed that Candidate X is superior on some of the issues and Candidate Y is superior on others.  Candidates are much more easily ranked according to their probable fitness as head of state, which is why — I think — so many people make their decision based on an emotional response.  Head of state is largely defined by emotional response.  I reject the easy decision as the right way to decide.)

My position on GWB is that he’s proven a poor head of state and a marginal-to-poor head of government.   As for policies?  Overall I’d say "tolerable, and probably more tolerable than what we’d have seen under Gore or Kerry."  Some good, or at least good considering the constraints.  Some, very bad.   Feel free to disagree in the comments.  I know there are still some people around who think he’s been a fantastic head of state, and likewise some people around who won’t concede he’s accomplished anything that isn’t totally poisoned. 

Because it’s the easy part, here are my impressions on the head of state job alone, and remember this is independent of policy and executive competence:

Among the Democrats: 

Mr. Obama — I think he’d make an excellent head of state.  Said to be a good and charismatic speechmaker, likable, probably well accepted by other nations as a representative of the U.S.  As a symbol that the U. S. has moved past most of its interracial hatred, very important, perhaps even more important to other nations than to us.   

Mrs. Clinton — She’d be a terrible head of state, in some ways not directly through her own fault.  Half the country has an emotional reaction to her that is little short of revulsion, much as (mostly the other) half of the country as a similar reaction to GWB now.  Whether that’s rational or not, it makes her a bad symbol of the country, unless you think divisiveness is an essential characteristic of the U. S., which I suppose is an arguable point.   And then there’s the Dynasty Problem, which we already have in spades thanks to the two Bushes.  We do not want to be a country that appears to pass political power around in dynasties.   And even if you think it would be wonderfully symbolic to have a woman president right now — is this really the First-Woman-President symbol we want?  She’s heavily laden with Bill-baggage of all kinds.

Among the Republicans who are still viable:

Mr. McCain — Unpredictable, fitting for someone who’s constantly described as a "maverick." He might turn out an excellent HOS.  He’s not a very good symbol of the Republican Party (lots of division there) but has a track record of getting bipartisan support for stuff, which (though it technically falls under the "competency" heading) means that he has at least grudging respect from both Democrats and Republicans (though not the extreme end of either wing), and you know what?  after all the hating inspired by Presidents Clinton and Bush, a little "grudging respect" would be a step up.    On the other hand, he risks getting everyone to hate him for the same reason.  His former POW status will play into his emotional acceptance when it comes to armed conflicts.  I’m not exactly sure how, though.   A big question mark.

Mr. Romney — Um, he just looks like an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, smooth politician to me.  Smoothness works in your favor for head of state-ness, as long as it doesn’t cross the line into a perception of "slick."  He’d probably be a decent HOS:  no surprises, just sort of ordinary presidential-ness.  Nothing really special, controversial, or inspiring either.  Just your basic POTUS.  (ADDED:  And he has the squarest website, too.  Scare quotes around "BLOG?")