Maybe part of the problem causing the vicious factoring in our society and in the US government is that the role of the president is beyond the capacity of one man. Today it is all-too-easy for pundits and disrupters to shift the focus from solutions and success to criticism and petty attacks. What happened to pride, statesmanship and the sense of wellness?
The key elements of the US presidential role fall into three categories: domestic affairs, international affairs and economic affairs. Obviously the edges of these categories are soft, and each inter-plays with both of the others. What would happen if we elected three, not one president, each with a specific obligation to one of the three categories? Would each have the time to focus in depth to the issues being considered? Would the attacks and second guessing be diminished because the leader would be able to articulate the breadth and depth of the issues being resolved? Would the three executives form a co-equal and private forum to resolve conflict in and between their assigned area of leadership?
Many countries already have both a President and a Prime Minister with some distribution of function across these two roles.
The UK has both the Prime Minister and the Queen where at a minimum they split political and social functions across the two.
The three roles described in the idea above make logical sense. What would be needed to get us moving in that direction?