I had dinner with some flying buddies this evening. I mentioned that some readers of this weblog had taken offense at my referring to Barack Obama as “King Obama”, though for eight years I had called our president “King Bush II” without anyone becoming upset. Was it fair to call Obama a king?
My argument was that recent American presidents are like kings in that their experience of life bears no relationship to that of a commoner. A current president of the U.S.
- never waits in line
- never waits in traffic (or drives a car! or gets a car inspected or renews a car registration or renews a driver’s license)
- never waits for a doctor (he has one or more available inside the White House at all times)
- never interacts with a health insurance administrator
- never waits to catch someone’s attention
- need not carry a wallet
- is always served his favorite foods
- does not go through the $50 billion TSA security system at airports
- has an entire 400-seat Boeing 747 for his personal plane
- upon reaching his destination, finds that three helicopters and multiple land vehicles have been flown in ahead of time for his use (when Obama visited England, instead of borrowing Blackhawks from the British military, the U.S. taxpayer paid to have additional cargo planes full of helicopters flown across the Atlantic)
- never has to cook any food, clean any surface, or organize anything in the house
- has a spouse who doesn’t have to do any domestic chores (thanks to the First Lady’s staff of more than 20 assistants)
- never encounters an unemployed neighbor (because he lives in recession-proof Washington, D.C. and in any case does not walk around the neighborhood too much)
- sees only people who are dressed in their best clothing (e.g., at $6000 per person fundraisers)
- when traveling, sees towns that have been scrubbed and polished to the point that they should be considered Potemkin villages
- need not do sysadmin on any home PCs
- need not sort out phone bills or any other bills for that matter
- need never change a lightbulb, call or wait for a Bosch dishwasher repairman
- need never do any yardwork
- does not send his children to public schools (where 90 percent of American children are warehoused)
- need not worry whether his children will be accepted into an elite private school
- never leaves the house without being surrounded by armed guards
- need not worry about future employment or retirement, if only because of the speaking fees available to former presidents
Was it always like this? I’m just finishing No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II. Eleanor Roosevelt, who traveled extensive around the country and abroad, “refused Secret Service protection, believing that their presence made her look more like a queen flanked by an imperial guard” (book). Because the number of servants and staff required by the Roosevelts was so much less than the number employed by the Obamas (Eleanor may have had just one social secretary), the White House had a lot of empty rooms that they let friends, family, and associates use. Some guests camped out for months or years, a familiar experience to average Americans who live in a big house during tough times.
From 1956 through 1960, President Eisenhower took shorter trips in an Aero Commander, an efficient six-seat airplane with two piston engines (source). The 60,000 gallons of fuel that the current Air Force One burns on a trip to England and back would power the Aero Commander for approximately 2000 hours.
It isn’t any actions carried out by King Bush II or King Obama that make it fair to refer to them as kings, it is the fact that they share so few day-to-day experiences with their average subject.
Was this argument convincing? “I had a breakfast meeting in Bermuda recently,” replied a business guy, “and the Prime Minister of the U.K. happened to be vacationing there at the same time. He was sitting at the next table. No security detail. No special service. No special menu. I don’t think it makes sense to call Obama ‘King’. I think ‘Messiah’ is a more accurate term.”
[Note that nowhere in this posting or in earlier postings have I suggested that we dispense with the American monarchy. I have not advocated that we would be better off being governed by one of our peers. I simply believe that the lifestyle of the president has changed so much since Eisenhower that we need a new title for the position.]
Not only that, he told Rick Wagoner “Off with your head,” and off he went. I don’t think it’s inapt in the slightest.
Meh. Are you suggesting that Obama just step out in public without bodyguards and be, like, one of the people? Wouldn’t you say the percentage of presidents who have been injured or killed in office is pretty high?
I’m frankly tired of presidents trying to pander and pretend they are ranchers and what not. But I’m also a bit weary of our expectation that they be “one of us.” They’ve NEVER been “one of us,” though some do come from humbler roots. Being “in touch” has more to it than running antivirus software on your computer.
The office has its privileges, and a lot of them are there for practical considerations. Frankly, I don’t want the president fiddling with his bills any more than I want you to do the work your TAs do for you. It’s not a good use of your time or his.
King Bush II is more apt because Bush has been coddled his whole life and born into a powerful, wealthy family. Obama didn’t have the same thing until he became a Senator. As for Roosevelt, he was the scion of a wealthy family too. He wasn’t president during television or the 24-hour news cycle or the Internet or cell phones with video cameras, either, so I think it’s a bit tenuous to compare his needs to those of Obama’s.
I have a small story about your “kings”, and how Barak benefitted me. I cycle daily on the ring road in Regents Park, London, to go to work. In the park, on the same road, there is mansion used by the US to house the US ambassador, and the very same mansion is used by your presidents when the come round for a quick pint.
When George II used to come to town the road going around the park would be partially closed, and that was it. The road was then quite bad and needed resurfacing, but George was the ‘leper king’, and the least bother people got from him, the better. George II eventually got out of the way and Barak got the throne.
One beautiful day the newly elected Barak was meant to come around to pat the poodle on the head, and he was gonna go stay in Regents park with the ambassador. Well guess what, a few days before Barak’s arrival the road in the park was resurfaced!
I cannot help thinking Uncle Gordon did not want to look like a poor relative. But anyway, I now have a spanking new tarmac to ride my bike on, so long live Barak!
But his oldest son (etc., etc.) does not necessarily succeed him on his death (or departure), though the Bush (and nearly Clinton) experiences make even this increasingly true.
Kings are usually allowed to hold their positions for life, or they are overthrown by some kind of rebellion. Is either of these imminent?
I would say it’s “King Barack” and “King George II,” since reign names are generally taken from first names not family names.
But I think there’s really a difference between the two. The Obamas lived an ordinary middle-class existence, in an old walk-up condo in Chicago, until very recently. The king may not shop for his own groceries now, but he knows perfectly well how to do it. In all seriousness, I can’t imagine what it would be like to go from a life like that (similar to mine, after all) to something like the White House in a couple of years — I would think it would be maddening.
Bush, by contrast, was near-royalty from birth. Growing up with your own family compound on the Maine coast, watching your father march steadily to the top of the political hierarchy, is a pretty different formative experience from what Obama went through.
I always assumed you referred to Bush as King Bush II because he wasn’t elected, but attained office in a manner closer to inheritance. It seems like everything on your list could be said of any sufficiently wealthy person, with the possible exception of towns cleaning themselves to a Potemkin village like status before their arrival and flying vehicles to their destination ahead of time for their use.
I suspect people’s problem with “King Obama” is that it calls into question the validity of his election.
“Bush, by contrast, was near-royalty from birth. Growing up with your own family compound on the Maine coast”
Bush grew up in Midland, Texas.
I do agree with “Messiah Obama”, if only because nobody ever sang hymns to or prayed to President Bush.
Actually, I am not sure any kings lived like that, and I am not sure more than a few of today’s royals live that way with private 747s and fleets of helicopters.
However, many people are rich enough to live as described above, though I don’t know any who choose to; as such what the Presidents do is often forced upon them, not chosen.
The key things that make a king are getting it through heredity, being above the law, and having it for life. The President is getting to be more above the law than has been the case in the past, though nothing approaching a traditional monarch’s ability in that respect. And no, GWB didn’t inherit his position, though his ancestry certainly helped him a lot at getting it. But he did get it, not inherit it.
Brad: “many people” are rich enough to live like a current U.S. president? One of our helicopters shares a hangar with a $22 million Gulfstream G-IV belonging to a guy who is listed in the Forbes 400 article as having just barely missed being on the list of the 400 richest Americans. I.e., his assets of just over $1 billion are exceeded by at most 2000 other people worldwide (out of a population of 7 billion). What’s it like being a billionaire? He does not travel with 500 assistants, sycophants, and security goons. He has the minimum flight crew for the Gulfstream (two pilots) and one flight attendant. Upon arrival at his destination, a car service waits for him. The airport is not clogged with all of the dignitaries in the region and a cheering crowd. When he is not using the airplane, he charters it out to defray some of the costs.
George W. Bush’s public disclosure forms before the 2000 and 2004 elections showed a net worth of around $9 million. Barack Obama in his best recent year earned $4.2 million in household income (up from $1.1M and $1.6M). Assuming a 2 percent annual real return on investment, George W. Bush would have been able to spend $180,000 per year had he not worked. That’s not enough to pay for the cost of getting the U.S. president from the White House to Camp David, Maryland (about a 45 mile trip). For both Obama and Bush, the lifestyle upon assuming the presidency would bear little relation to their previous lifestyle (or to the lifestyle of an average American, as noted in my original post).
Let’s look at Larry and Sergey, the founders of the world’s most successful company (Google). They fly in the back of a Boeing airliner, but it is a 767, they bought it used out of airliner boneyard, and they share it. If the plane is getting an inspection, they’ll have to charter or fly commercial. Barack Obama rides in a 747. If it is down for maintenance, the U.S. taxpayer rolls out Boeing 747 #2. The last time that I saw a Google founder he was walking around a technical conference. He was by himself, without any bodyguards, and talking to ordinary engineers about what they had built.
…has an entire 400-seat Boeing 747 for his personal plane…upon reaching his destination, finds that three helicopters and multiple land vehicles have been flown in ahead of time for his use…
Has anybody done reporting on exactly what these excursions are costing the taxpayers? I used to think “millions”, but hearing of transporting land yachts and choppers may need an extra digit or two.
Philip has already reported on the collateral damage.
J. Peterson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_One says that 800 Marines are required to support the operation of the current presidential helicopters. Assuming that there are also some civilian contractors, some jet fuel, and government pensions to be paid, that’s probably $200 million per year just for helicopter operations. The replacement program for the helicopters themselves is now forecast to cost up to $20 billion (the VH-71 program was recently killed due to cost overruns). Keeping the two Boeing 747s going is probably an effort on a similar scale, so that’s another $200 million. The Secret Service budget is about $2 billion per year (most of which could be saved if the president stayed in the secure White House). You also have the lost work product of a few hundred people every time the president travels, given that travel is disruptive and tiring. Let’s say that roughly $3 billion per year is spent on presidential travel. That’s enough to send each of the 15 million unemployed Americans a $200 check annually.
This seems to have sparked some debate. I think philg’s comment says it all… except I’d say instead of sending $200 to someone else just let me keep my $200.
I think it’s “typical” for politicians. Just see that there is a “Flugbereitschaft” there for “just” carying around our mostly worthless (pun intended) German politicians. But it was even worse as you current President showed up in Germany for the GXwhatevermeeting. I have not idea but Millions were burned for what was it 4 hours or so? The whole “Autobahn” was closed from Strassbourg to Bühl as this “President” came along. It’s not just King but “Kaiser” (aka emperor). I’m so fed up it’s hardly bearable. They do anything to drive all of us back into misery, but hey they “serve” people.
Why can’t I just believe?
Another point of comparison similar to your billionaire hangar mate’s traveling overhead and entourage: When my office was visited last week by a highly-controversial (i.e. “at risk”) billionaire near the very top of the Forbes 400, his entourage was… two people: his assistant plus someone I assume was security. He used a limo service to the airport, but I am pretty sure he flew commercial. Probably not coach, though. Having said that, I think the President does have a higher overhead for travel, but if we are looking at $3 billion, I think he should stay home more and have people visit him. Or iChat.
Most very rich people do not have nut jobs trying to harm them, hence the lack of security. The fully loaded 747 is arguably needed to protect the president and provide a mobile command center in case of a nuclear war. It may not be likely, but without it foreign governments would know the president was out of control during travel, creating a perfect time to strike. I would rather we use our own helicopters than those
I will agree that having the president travel to fund raisers is not something I want pay for the extra security or lost wages on. However I don’t think the president should be locked in the White House for 4 years.
Think of the cost to the country if he was assassinated. The lost wages from the whole country grinding to a halt for a few days would dwarf the travel and security concerns you bring up.
Without knowing what the 20 assistants to the first lady do, I can’t say if they are needed. I doubt they are really there to help her get dressed. Probably more to keep the White House up and respectable for the visitors.
Many of your arguments are similar to the ones people make concerning why CEOs shouldn’t use private jets. But is it really in the companies best interest in having the highly paid CEO waste a whole day on travel. Likewise I do not want the CEO emptying his own trash can, fixing the copier, or even waiting for the dishwasher repairman for the breakroom. What he does on his own time, with his own money, is his own business.
So, no, I don’t think your title of “King” is really appropriate for a sitting president. I will grant you that there is much waste in the process, and I would like to seen some effort to clean it up.
A real king, such as Louis XV would have an official Chief Mistress.
Larry: You’re arguing against something that I did not suggest, i.e., stripping King Obama or Queen Michelle of their royal appurtenances. As for why Michelle Obama needs 20 times as many staffers as Eleanor Roosevelt, it is certainly not “to keep the White House up and respectable for the visitors”. http://mommylife.net/archives/2009/07/queen_michelle.html lists the titles of Queen Obama’s retainers and none are responsible for cooking or cleaning (that staff level probably hasn’t changed much since the time of FDR).
A CEO in a 6-passenger jet with two VPs going to an obscure airport in the Midwest is hardly comparable to King Obama showing up with an entourage of 400 or 500. The CEO is not preceded by multiple cargo planes filled with royal carriages. The local police and military will not shut down roads or herd the peasantry behind barricades.
If the main concern is security, because we cannot bear the cost of Crown Prince Joe Biden (not a King because he travels in a Boeing 757–http://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2009/07/26/carbon-emissions-reduction-vice-president-biden-style/) ascending to the throne, it does not make sense to put our trust in the Secret Service. Despite approximately $100 billion in tax dollars consumed over the years, they have been unable to prevent attacks on various presidents/kings. As no president has been attacked in the White House, the obvious path to increased security is not surrounding the King and Queen with more retainers and more security, but encouraging them to stay at home/work.
But again, I did not argue that the royal family should be kept at home. Nor did I argue that the taxpayers should not have to pay for such a large Court. I only argued that we should call a king a “king”.
Ever since I heard the “King” term here first, I thought Phil was referring to the rate of increase of the presidential power grab that has been going on since WWII or soon after. During the Bush II reign, the Patriot Act, the large number of signing statements, and all the claims of state secrets as grounds for executive opacity were among a number of reasons I whole-heartedly agreed with Phil on that term.
With Obama, I don’t yet see so many blatant (ab)uses of executive power, but I also don’t hear any announcements of these practices being rolled back. Indeed, any sitting President really has no incentive to weaken the position. So, yeah, I think it’s an apt term both because of the lifestyle it brings and because of the magnified power the position has gained.
When people think of a King, they think of 1) someone who was not elected, but inherited the throne and 2) someone who exerts almost limitless power over his subjects.
When you referred to the 2nd President Bush as “King Bush II,” I assumed that you were making a comment about the flaws in his second election (feature 1) and about his efforts to increase executive power (feature 2).
For an example of the latter, consider President Bush’s executive order #12866. Rather than attempt to fix broken regulatory systems without altering the balance of power, the President decided to give himself direct, ultimate authority over any rule made by any (formerly independent?) agency. To many people, myself included, that seems “King-like.”
I haven’t yet seen the same level of abuse out of President Obama, but time will tell. And as Chuck pointed out above, there is little incentive for a sitting leader to limit his or her own power.
I agree with your analysis, but I also don’t think that that is how most people interpreted the “King” monicker. I’m glad you clarified.
I think I would weakly object because there are 2 implied standards. You call him ‘King Bush *II*’, not ‘King Bush’. The key there is the heredity – the widespread perception that Bush was elected in part thanks to family connections. If you were complaining about the perks of office or his power, then ‘King Bush’ is what you would say, or better yet, ‘Emperor Bush’ (so you work in an allusion to American empire-building).
I don’t see any heredity to Obama; the Kennedy endorsement is the closest I can come and that’s a far stretch.