King or President?

When the dust of the Revolution had settled, and the attention of newly-minted Americans turned to hammering out a new form of government, there was much discussion about the power, role and even the title of the president.

Some felt he should be a king, equal in power and title to any ruler in the world. But others felt strongly that a government of the people should be led by one of them, not elevated above them. This seed of "anyone can be president" was sown.

When George Washington was unanimously elected president, he was urged to take on the title of "Your Excellency." (factoid: the governor of New York's official title of address is "Your Excellency.") But he understood the dangers of absolute power, and insisted on taking on no elite titles. He declined a third term because he understood that the office needed to be more important than the person in it.

All this came to my mind last week when I heard the McCain campaign chair say that Sarah Palin would not do interviews until the press treated her with more respect and deference.

I thought that was an odd term to use, so I looked for definitions of the word. Here are some that I found:

"Great respect; The willingness to carry out the wishes of
others"

"courteous regard for people's feelings; 'in deference to
your wishes';
'out of respect for his privacy'

"complaisance: a
disposition or tendency to yield to the will of
others"

So it seems that the McCain campaign feels that the press, which was established as free and independent from government, should forget all that constitution nonsense, and do what they are told.

Deference is paid to the queen, or to the big donor or to the guy who can get you fired. Presidential candidates, whether the pres or veep candidate, should expect and even welcome scrutiny. When we allow the press to defer to the wishes of the candidates, we lose a free press and take the first step to a totalitarian state.

And isn't that something the Republicans hate?