Showing Respect For
The New President
Maybe it’s a generational thing. The previous generation was fighting two unpopular wars: a combative one in
More than 40 years ago, that young generation was split into two groups: one showing respect for the establishment and the other spitting in its eye.
And as time went by, it seems as if each new generation grew bolder in showing disrespect with elected leaders to the point where it went beyond petty remarks to downright nasty comments.
These new attitudes have become increasingly brazen and shameful towards the president in recent years.
Many Americans, sadly, were atrocious and downright belligerent to President George W. Bush these last eight years, as a recent example.
Many have allowed their political bias to take over, causing them to call Bush stupid, a murderer and a warmonger, with little regard to the fact that he is the President of the
A lot of these same people have childishly said that he is not their president because they did not elect him.
And sadly, this same immature demeanor has unjustly been aimed at President-Elect Barack Obama. Because certain people cannot see beyond either his skin color or simply his political beliefs, they have already said that he is not their president.
This type of ignorance is being spread far and wide, from liberals to conservatives, from politicians to voters. It’s the increasing political bias of the people that is creating this near socially accepted disrespect for any elected official.
Believe it or not, there was once a time in this country when saying a discouraging word about any
But where is that respect now? We must respect whoever is in office, whether we have voted for that person or not. Yes, we can disagree with the president. We would not be called Americans if we ignored our First Amendment rights and kept silent about things we do not agree with. It was not what our forefathers fought for.
However, there is a strong, bold line between disagreeing and being disrespectful. We must bring back that level of respect to our elected officials, especially the ones we disagree with most. If not, it just furthers hateful feelings and severely slows the healing process this country desperately needs.
So I welcome, respect and honor Barack Obama as my new president. But I will also respectfully disagree with any of his policies and decisions with which I may take issue.
Hopefully, all of my fellow Americans will do the same in welcoming Barack Obama into the White House as commander-in-chief. After all, it’s the respectful thing to do.
(Editor's Note: This editorial has been edited for clarification.)
6 comments:
I've got to disagree with you whole-heartedly.Respect is earned not just blindly given. The president is an institution, not the individual person representing it for a short period of time, and, as such, if the person occupying that office engages in behavior that disgraces his position its only fair to deny him the respect one would give the institution as a whole.
1) "causing them to call Bush stupid, a murderer and a warmonger, with little regard to the fact that he is the president of the United States of America."
As to Bush's stupidity, take a look at this link and tell me how smart the man is; http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
Any person who kills and doing so breaks the law, is a murderer. Bush broke the most sacred of international laws by preemptively invading Iraq with no provocation, no evidence to support a war, and no support from the UN. Any deaths incurred by that decision, whether they American or Iraqi are, because they resulted from an illegal action, murder. As to Bush being a warmonger, only an idiot could look at the state of current U.S. foreign policy and disagree with that statement. If Iraq hadn't proven so disastrous, both militarily and fiscally, America would now be at war with Iran as well. Sure, let's call Bush a peace loving president.
2)"Many of these same people have childishly said that he is not their president because they did not elect him."
Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed by judicial fiat. Instead of allowing recounts to prove who had actually been elected by a majority of the people (majority rule apparently being something you're deeply concerned with if one reads your newest post correctly) Bush went to the Supreme Court and argued that the recounts would damage him personally (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E5D61338F931A25752C1A9669C8B63)
and asked for an injunction to prevent the democratic process from determining who had actually won the presidency.
How is it childish to see a problem with this and make your concerns known?
3)"So I welcome, respect and honor Barack Obama as my new president. But I will also respectfully disagree with any of his policies, decisions and so forth."
You're an idiot. You don't even know what his policies and decisions will be, but you're already ready to disagree with them. You remind me of the people who ban books without ever reading them first; ignorant, partisan and screaming into the wind. Who knows whether Obama will be worthy of respect, only time will settle that. But you, my friend, are not.
Hello Great Fox Hating and thanks for stopping by my blog. I hope you enjoyed your stay.
But let’s get down to the replies:
“Respect is earned not just blindly given.”
While the old saying is true, to me, that’s a ready made excuse to put on a pair of politically biased sunglasses on and start wailing on any elected official that you simply don’t like. As I mentioned in my editorial, there was once a time in this country where people respected the president, even if they didn’t agree with him.
As far as Iraq, President Bush did not break any international laws. The U.N. resolution, which he wanted to have, enforced previous resolutions, among other things, against former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Because Saddam did not disarm or comply with any resolutions against him, the invasion was legal.
Although, I have disagreed with how President Bush went about though, as I stated a few times in my blog.
“Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed by judicial fiat.”
Actually, you are wrong. It turns out that the recount that Al Gore wanted was unintentionally creating violations of some laws. And according to a New York Times article, the Justices’ intervention was not necessary, since another study of the recounts clearly showed that President Bush won.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1226898000&en=1f717a5060c74182&ei=5070
But I believe you have a few things confused regarding the voting process here in America. While Gore did win the popular vote, it was Bush who won the electoral vote, which is required to win a U.S. presidential election.
“You're an idiot. You don't even know what his policies and decisions will be, but you're already ready to disagree with them.”
No, I’m not an idiot. I’m being realistic. I realize that I’m not going to agree 100 percent with President-Elect Obama, but I’m sure there will be issues that I will. Very rarely does anyone ever agree with someone else 100 percent of the time.
But I will be showing him respect, unlike others. There are some conservatives out there who say that Obama is not their president because they didn’t elect him. After the 2004 elections, I heard the same thing from liberals: “Bush is not my president because I didn’t elect him.”
To me, that’s being disrespectful and I won’t even go into the other things that have been said about these two men.
No, sadly, no one today seems to understand that you can be respectful to an American president and still disagree with him. It seems to be a lost art or the concept is too overwhelming for some people to comprehend.
Thanks again for stopping by and I hope to see you again.
1)"As I mentioned in my editorial, there was once a time in this country where people respected the president, even if they didn’t agree with him."
There was also once a time in the U.S. when women and minorities were denied the right to vote. There was a time when it was acceptable to put 7 year old children to work. There was also a time, thousands of years ago, when it was believed that the best way to relieve a headache was to drill a hole through the skull to let the demons out. I fail to see how referencing the mistakes of the past in a nostalgic fashion gives your argument any weight.
2)"As far as Iraq, President Bush did not break any international laws."
Article 6 of the August 1945 Charter for the Nuremberg Tribunal defined the three categories of crime. Crimes against peace related to violations under jus ad bellum (laws governing the legitimacy of war) and were defined as ‘planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing’.
The U.S. was a signing party to that charter and as such has an obligation to obey its statutes, the Bush administration's preemptive attack on Iraq is obviously in violation of Article 6 and is therefore an illegal conflict.
3)"Actually, you are wrong. It turns out that the recount that Al Gore wanted was unintentionally creating violations of some laws. And according to a New York Times article, the Justices’ intervention was not necessary, since another study of the recounts clearly showed that President Bush won."
Violations of what laws? The Supreme Court of the U.S. granted a stay against the Florida Supreme Court ordered recounts until such time as Gore V. Bush could be heard to determine whether or not recounts could inflict irreparable harm against Bush personally and the nation as a whole. The decision of that case was that there were grounds for the recounts however they were halted because of a constitutional complication that I'll address in point 4.
What further study of the recounts? At the time the Supreme Court's ruling came down there were still 51 counties who's recounts hadn't been performed. With each prior recount the margin that showed Bush as the winner had shrunk, with 51 counties left, well you do the math. And let's not forget the, over 20000, black voters that were purged illegally from the voting rolls because their names were similar to those of convicted felons.
4) "But I believe you have a few things confused regarding the voting process here in America. While Gore did win the popular vote, it was Bush who won the electoral vote, which is required to win a U.S. presidential election."
Bush didn't win the electoral vote. Because the Supreme Court stayed the recount until it heard Gore v. Bush on Dec. 11th, and because the Constitution states that States whose election results can't be resolved by December 12th must be decided by the State legislature rather than the electorate, Bush was awarded the electoral votes needed by way of an unreasonable delay imposed by activist judges. Your implication that I'm confused by the U.S. electoral process is condescending at best and insulting in the extreme. I have a degree in Political Science with a concentration in geo-politics, and it's safe to say I understand more about the democratic process in your country than you do. Perhaps a little less Fox "news" is in order.
As to my comment about you being an idiot; your statement as read implied that you were predetermined to disagree with anything Obama did or said. That kind of thinking is the same sort that led the Ayatolla Khomeini to issue a fatwah against Salman Rushdie for writing a book that, most likely, the illiterate leader hadn't even read. Your clarification of the point is fair and echoes Edward R. Murrow's quote on not confusing dissent with disloyalty, a message many Americans should take to heart. But is it truly possible to show dissent in an environment where people call for respect first and thought second?
Hello Great Fox Hating and thanks for stopping by my blog again.
“There was also once a time in the U.S. when women and minorities were denied the right to vote.”
That is a bit outlandish. You can’t really compare showing respect for the president with how woman and minorities were treated.
As far as President Bush breaking any international laws, one of the U.N. resolutions clearly stated that any means could be used against Saddam if he did not comply with the numerous U.N. resolutions against him. If President Bush did break any international laws, then it is up to the U.N. to enforce them, which does not seem likely, since they didn’t enforce their own resolutions against Saddam in the first place.
As far as the 2000 election, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the recounts were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Any other alleged allegations of misdeeds should be investigated, particularly the 20,000 black voters who were allegedly denied to vote.
I’m glad that you know a lot about politics, but how you phrased your earlier statement led me to believe that you did confuse the political process here in America.
However, I find it interesting how you threw that “FOX News” insult at me, but really didn’t comment about my New York Times article that showed that President Bush did win the election. (If it was a FOX News article, I’m sure you would have made further comments about it.) There were numerous recounts and my point that I made earlier was that the intervention of the Supreme Court was not needed after all.
I would like to point out that I was not trying to insult you earlier when I made the comment that you might be confused with the voting system here in America. I apologize if you took offense to it. However, you are the one who has insulted me first and numerous times at that, while I have been showing you respect and politeness, even when I was disagreeing with you.
I see you are a fine example of the point I was making in my editorial.
"As far as the 2000 election, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the recounts were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Actually the Court found that the different voting standards in each county were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, not the recounts themselves, and that the recounts would address that issue, if only they hadn't granted the stay that pushed the problem up to that Dec 12th constitutional deadline.
:D
Yes, you are correct. The method of how the recounts were being conducted was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. I should have made myself clearer on that.
In the Justices' opinion, they also found that there was no time to find a better solution to meet the Dec. 12 deadline set by a Florida state law designed to handle any election controversy or contest.
Post a Comment