Charles III has been crowned as Britain’s monarch. I have not watched a moment of the ceremony nor any of the attendant hoopla. If I wished to torment myself, I would go hiking or something equally ridiculous. However, the occasion of this event raises an issue I’ve periodically noodled … how should we treat our ‘leaders.’ Just how should we judge them and, more importantly, select them.

I was a child when the last coronation took place. I have this faint recollection of watching some repeat of that ceremony on a grainy black and white small TV as my father cynically made a couple of snide comments. He was 100% Irish and our tribe were supposed to hate the Brits. While there is ample justification for such animosity, Anglophobia, like virtually all the other prejudices, never took root in my heart. (Correction: I despise Republicans). Besides, Elizabeth was young, attractive, and appealing. Phillip, her consort, was handsome and dashing. The ceremony, as I recall, was nothing like we had here.

However, monarchical dynasties have one glaring flaw. They are populated by real people. Few, if any other families, have public relations efforts to rival the Windsors. At the same time, few families (except maybe for the Kardasians) have as much attention paid to their every move. No group can withstand such a complete immersion in the public eye without being tarnished. That is axiomatic.

Harry and Meghan have provided more than enough ammunition to the dynasty detractors and scandal demanders. If it were not them, someone or something else would offer up salacious gossip and innuendo to a public demanding the dirt essential to taking down the elite and the privileged.

Now, I have no real opinion on the Royals. Mostly, I am noodling the emotional attachment we place upon our so called leaders.’‘ There remain several democratic monarchies in the world where the king or queen retain little political authority but serve as a symbolic head of state. In other regimes, a President is elected for a set period of time though real power lies with a body of elected officials who select a Prime Minister from among the majority party. In that case, the ‘President’ often is involved in forming a governing coalition especially if multiple parties compete for power.

Only in America does the President, or ‘head of state,’ exert so much executive power and authority, except in those countries where your garden variety autocrat remains (like Putin). Though the Constitution tried to balance and distribute authority between the executive, a bi-cameral legislature, and the judiciary, power has evolved up to the Chief Executive over time. Our first President tried mightily to strip the office of monarchical overtones but distributed power has always felt inefficient or confusing. People, especially in times of difficulty, want strong leadership and clear accountability.

In a pure sense, our Chief Executive is supposed to be merely an executive, someone who manages the ship of state. They are not necessarily supposed to don a higher mantle of authority nor wield dictatorial powers. I’m sure the Founding Father’s would be appalled by what the office has become today.

Over time, ironically, kings have become weaker (or disappeared) especially after WWI. The British Monarchy remains because it accepted a gradual loss of authority with appropriate while the U.S. struggles against those who would take the final steps toward replacing a limited executive with an outright autocratic.

We often want to invest those at the top with way more than formal authority. I watched a marvelous movie last night (Darkest Hour). It was about the days after the Nazis turned west and invaded France, British PM Chamberlain was dumped, and Winston Churchill installed in his place. In short, when most even in his own party wanted to sue for peace with Hitler as British armed forces were huddled at Dunkirk, he held firm and rallied the nation. He was larger than life. Imagine history if England had not held out.

We also like to look back at strong or charismatic men in our past … FDR’s fireside chats during the depression and JFK’s charm and charisma during the height of the Cold War. We want to replace them with contemporary equivalents. In effect, while we have a Chief Executive, we still look toward the occupant of that chair for something more than mere administrative skill. We want to be inspired, to have someone in office who elevates and motivates us. We also want someone who seems to care about us.

When I first shook Bill Clinton’s hand, he seemed to be looking into me as if I mattered, which I didn’t of course. All the stories about him were true, he was magnetic. Hillary never had the same skill at ‘connecting’ and paid a bitter price.

But do we need a substitute king as our President. In the old days, the Monarch was an expression of the country and the people. Today, we should be beyond such infantile needs. As a people nominally governing ourselves, should not we focus on competence over charisma? No corporate CEO prtforms all the task essential to the business nor does he or she often sell the companies products with their personality. Their main task is to make strategic decisions and, more importantly, select good people to do the real work. If they can present well to the larger world, fine. But is it essential?

Here’s the bottom line. We want leaders to be competent, to be approachable, and to be inspirational. Now that’s a good trick. If I had to pick, and we always do, I would go with competence. Trump is inspirational to his base, but it is hard to imagine a more incompetent and dysfunctional executive.

So many have told me in recent years that they just didn’t like Hillary. Some did not vote for her for this reason. I would always think ‘you didn’t like her.’ So freaking what! You were not going to marry her for crying out loud.

In choosing a leader, selecting someone with values you respect is critical. But you don’t have to agree on everything. Another of my favorite mantras is ‘if you want the perfect candidate, you will have to run for the office yourself.’ No one will be perfect in your eyes. That is a given! But, for God’s sake, don’t support someone merely because they bring out your worst instincts or hate the same people you do. Republican candidates today campaign on the basis of pure bile … which can stir up the greatest froth among the following herd. But that is NOT governing.

Where am I going with all this? This morning I read that Biden’s low ratings give Republicans a shot in 2024. Many question his mental acuity. I will repeat. He doesn’t have to be perfect. I am confident in his overall values and that he will pick good people. That alone will put him way beyond any Republican candidate.

As with Charles, I am not a Biden devotee. But I wish both leaders well.