What is the most dangerous thing you can do? Idolize a president.

In many American minds, the system of constitutional monarchy has always appeared more similar to ours than it would seem at first glance. Despite the “window dressing” of kings and queens, we imagine that constitutional monarchies have a political culture rather similar to our form of a republic, all else being equal.

Yet there is one key difference at the highest level. A constitutional monarchy does not invest its head of government with the same prestige as its head of state. It has become clear in recent years that the modern news cycle has turned such intangible royal authority into a very real component of the national life.

The United States has no such division between its heads of state and government. Our president, whoever he is, has always held both titles. As in business, such a “chairman and CEO” system is supposed to boost the function of both roles. Yet the uncivilized nature of modern electoral politics has rendered the daily activity of the government increasingly incompatible with the maintenance of the concept of “the state” apart from its political parties.

For example, the ludicrous farce of President Barack Obama’s “beer summit” would be unimaginable in a constitutional monarchy — one cannot picture a queen getting so deeply entangled in a local matter, or inviting the participants in said matter over for tea and crumpets. Were the prime minister to attempt such a summit, he would be laughed at — and rightly so, for such micromanagement is incongruous with the circumscribed authority of the prime minister’s office.

In contrast, it is rather easy for a democratic republic, such as our own, to be governed by a series of tawdry publicity stunts to the detriment of actual governance. These range from mildly annoying things such as the aforementioned beer summit or naming legislation after children to more disruptive acts like the Lewis Gates affair, Obama’s rhetoric-heavy speeches, or Bush’s premature “mission accomplished” declaration.

Indeed, the last three presidencies our generation remembers well — those of Clinton, Bush and Obama — have all been characterized by the president’s supporters (and increasingly the president himself) attempting to exploit his prestige as the head of state to further his functions as the head of government, with ruinous results.

Supporters of the government accuse opponents of being obstacles to “the will of the people” by refusing to agree with the course chosen by those in power. Those in the minority, meanwhile, complain that their patriotism is being questioned. This fuss on both sides arises from the fact that our system of government cannot formally distinguish between supporting the government in particular and supporting the nation in general.

In constitutional monarchies, the government and its critics are both defined in patriotic terms, the title of “loyal opposition” being the most obvious sign of this. We would like to imagine that such notions underpin our politics as well, but in reality, the “American people” more often serve as a political bludgeon with which both parties beat each other on national television. Politics in a constitutional monarchy can be incredibly acrimonious and polarized, but such negative energies can be more easily directed to the betterment of the nation than in a republic.

Of course, the legitimacy of constitutional monarchies must be upheld by the sovereign — and it may well be that the monarchs of tomorrow lack the integrity of the monarchs of today.

Therefore, democracy must save itself, impossible though it may seem.

Reach columnist Russ Wung at opinion@dailyuw.com.