posted
This is a phrase I've seen around with some frequency lately and I'm wondering if people could explain what they mean by it. I get the sneaky suspicion that it's one of those tricky things, like "supporting the troops", that in common use means the opposite of what I personally think it should mean.
To sort of stake out my posiiton, while I respect that the presidency is a terribly difficult and important job and believe that allowances should be made for this, I don't believe that the President is of greater importance or of a higher class than any other American. Furthermore, I believe that because the office of the president is such an important one and one that carries with it so much power (which is at least theoretically derived from the people), the President must necessarily be held to a higher standard than most other people.
To me, respecting the office of the president, comes first from the president himself in his attitude towards the responsibilities inherent in his position and second, from the people, by only accepting people of demonstrably high character and attainment for the office and by expecting responsible and trustworthy behavior from the holders of this office.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it means they do not want to be questioned or have their authority questioned, so they tell people to hush and that their legit complaints are disrespectful. but it is such a weak argument. After all, the American way is about the ability to criticize our leaders unlike in other countries where you'd get shot or tortured. So if a person who is president cannot handle criticism and address it in a mature manner without having a bunch of people say, "Respect them" they should not be president in the first place.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, an awful lot of the criticism addressed at the President is neither responsible nor mature. In my more perfect world, these criticisms wouldn't be made, or at least not given the weight that they are. Not so much out of respect for the office, but out of a sense of maturity and responsibility, or failing that, at least a basic sense of shame.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some, but what about the cricitism that is on the money? How can they address that, address and fix what is wrong without escaping from it. It seems like you need all sides, even extreme ones to understand the full picture. I mostly find myself displeased with his budget, the handling of Iraq and a few other things.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it means calling him "Mr. President" rather than "shrub," and phrasing disagreement as "I disagree" rather than "Bush can go **** himself."
Really, how is this bad? To respect the office, you don't even have to respect the man occupying it. It just means not talking about him in ways you wouldn't want your sainted grandmother to hear.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Respecting the Office does not equate to respecting the man. When a statement or policy is issued from the Office of the President, it should be treated with a level of respect. When the President does or says something that is not from within that jurisdiction, then there are no obligations that should be expected.
When the President is officiating his duties, one should not consider his views lightly. That doesn't imply that criticism or objectivity is tossed out the window, but that we don't say "Bush IS a poopyhead!" :-) unless we are talking about him the man as opposed to the President.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, I fail to see how this is an important aspect of the presidency qua the presidency. That is, while I agree that talking this way is not acceptible, I think it's not acceptible in pretty much any case and I don't see how it should apply specifically because someone is the President.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard the term “respecting the office of the President” a lot more often during Clinton’s scandals than I do now. I think it comes from a patriarchal view of things in which you respect authority simply because it is an authority. I do not see being an authority as something inherently worthy of additional respect. When that authority is abused, I most definitely lose respect.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Respecting the Office of the President means to respect the Constitution which gave birth to our government. You can hate the man but love the Office...as the Office is part of the USA, just as Congress and the Supreme Court are too. These things form the Republic and America.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it has to do with the fact that you might disagree with President Bush, you might think his policies are horrible for the country, but regardless of whether he personally deserves respect, the office he holds does.
To use a related example that's clearer: I'm not a fan of my US Representative for a variety of reasons. I certainly didn't vote for him, and I don't agree with a lot of what he does. However, he still represents me. I still have a right (and some would argue a duty) to write to him with my concerns, and he certainly has a duty to take those into account while voting. Who he is has no effect on that. While I personally don't like him, the office that he holds represents me and everyone else in my district.
Now granted, a US Representative is meant to be far more responsive to his district than a President or even a Senator is. Regardless of who the president happens to be at this particular point in time, the office of the President is still my face to the world at large. I might not like my nose, or my chin, but it would still be disrespectful to me to cover it with refuse for that reason. Far more effective would be to use makeup to enhance it.
For me the action of respecting the office of the president is equivalent, although not the same as, being patriotic. I don't agree with everything that happens in this country, I criticize what I think is wrong. But I love this country, I think she's beautiful and I would never want to be anything other than a US citizen.
That probably didn't make any sense at all. I'm sorry.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually only hear this phrase in conjunction with perceived breaches of etiquette. Take, for example, Joakim Noah of the Florida basketball team. When they were received at the White House last week, Noah wore his shirt untucked while entering with his arm around two ladies. The argument I heard was that this sort of behavior is appropriate for certain venues, but not for a meeting with the President of the United States. I tend to agree with this, as if I were meeting the President, no matter which President, I would wear a suit. Things like that, along with things like calling the President names or neglecting to call him a sir, tend to be when I hear this phrase come out. I'm not sure it has much, if anything, to do with criticizing specific policies, which has been a part of the Presidency since the Presidency was created.
posted
What is and is not in the realm of due respect for the President is a great debate. This argument first came up, in my knowledge, with President Nixon. As President he would often fall back on "respect the President" when anyone would criticize him or protest against his policies. He greatly abused the idea of Presidential Due Respect, and that has still not recovered.
(His relection campaign centered on "Re-electing the President" not Nixon. Hence, to vote for anyone else would be to vote against the office of the President.)
I greatly dislike the current President's policies, and while I believe he is a man of convictions and honor, I also beleive he has certain character flaws that make him a second rate president. I still refer to him as President Bush more often than I say "Bush". Respect for the position, the highest legal position in the United States, a position of law and honor, is important. Respect for the man is secondary.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it means calling him "Mr. President" rather than "shrub..."
That's part of it. But I think our presidents have, by virtue of their lack of obvious dignity and/or carriage, eroded this sort of inherent respect. When Bush gives insulting nicknames to the press corps or heads out to his ranch for "vacation" for most of the year, or when Clinton or Kennedy have sex in the Oval Office, or when Carter puts on a sweater and invites everyone around a chummy fireplace, they deliberately break down walls between "us" and "them" -- and the kind of respect we're talking about here, the kind of respect inherent in a position rather than in a man or his performance of his duties, depends on those perceived walls. It's similar to what's happened to the British monarchy: once you start acting like the common folk to become more popular, to become "celebrities," everyone's going to treat you like a common person who's become a celebrity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
During the last presidential campaign, I found what, to me, was a very weird phenomenon. I talked to a lot of people that, even though they didn't think that the President was doing a good job, thought that, because he was the President, it was disloyal not to vote for him.
I thought that this was just bizarre.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, they tried a similar campaign to re-elect Ray Nagin. There are these huge billboards everywhere with Ray Nagin's face and "OUR MAYOR" in huge letters.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: When Bush gives insulting nicknames to the press corps or heads out to his ranch for "vacation" for most of the year, or when Clinton or Kennedy have sex in the Oval Office, or when Carter puts on a sweater and invites everyone around a chummy fireplace
I disagree with your opinion about Carter, by the way. I think his fireside chats did nothing to disgrace the office of the president.
And, if I understand correctly, Bush's nicknames for the press corps are not insulting, but are calculated to win them over. It is a feather in your cap to be on a first-name basis with the president, but a nickname basis is even more intimate. Sure, many members of the corps see through this cheap trick, but I believe that there are plenty who are charmed by it.
For me, respecting the office of the president means accepting that as an elected leader of the people, he is entitled to the powers granted by the constitution. Respecting the Office does not, in my mind, include forgiving abuse of those powers, criminal activity, or undignified behavior. I can respect the office without respecting the man, and I can respect the office without becoming an apologist for his misdeeds.
More familiarly, I have had supervisors that were competent and worthy of their positions. I respected them. I have also had supervisors that were incompetent or unethical. I did not respect the person, but I did respect their right to supervise my work, to decide on my compensation, and to make the decisions that are their responsibility to make. I respected the (carpeted, oak-desked) office without respecting the person in it.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read this thread title as "Respecting the Orifice of the President," which puts a totally new spin on the discussion.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:When a statement or policy is issued from the Office of the President, it should be treated with a level of respect.
See, I strongly disagree with this idea. I don't believe that a statement or policy deserves respect merely because it came from the President. I'm not going to refrain from criticizing - quite harshly if I think it's appropriate - Presidential statements or policies that I think are wrong.
---
And on a different angle, as I said, I don't see the President as eing a higher class of person than anyone else. So I don't know why it would be expected to wear a suit to see him. I don't buy into the "President as royalty" forms of honor and respect. From my view, the President is first and foremost a servant of the people. I believe that forgetting this his led to many problems, both with presidents and with people's reaction to them.
But, then again, I a guy who thinks that the Pledge of Alliegence is directly contrary to the principles our country was founded on.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it is my deep respect for the office of the president that causes me to criticize the president's policies. If a sitting president is doing or saying something that I believe disgraces the office, it is my duty to say so.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really, how is this bad? To respect the office, you don't even have to respect the man occupying it. It just means not talking about him in ways you wouldn't want your sainted grandmother to hear.
My grandmother said a lot worse about politicians than I have ever said about President Bush. You should've heard her talk! She also told me that if I ever went into politics, she would hunt me down and kill me. This from a woman who also taught me that there is honor in hard work of ANY kind...
She also threatened to drive her car through the showroom window if they sold her a lemon. Oddly enough, she got great service from the local Chevy dealer. lol.
Tough old bird, my grandmother.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I've only run across the "Respect the office of President" argument whenever I was criticizing his actions, like the war, the No Child Left Behind Act, or the Patriot Act. Never once has it come from my calling him "Bush" instead of "the President." Perhaps it's just my community, but it always comes up when criticisms arise.
My respect for the office of President extends enough to call him Mr. President, instead of "George" or "Bush" or "Bushy" or "The Bushwhacker," were I to ever meet him. Beyond that small courtesy, a President has to earn my respect.
And no, President Bush has not earned mine yet.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Office does deserve respect. I remember how empty it made me feel when a teacher removed a calender with pictures of the Presidents from our classroom because it had that "damned Kennedy's" picture on it. You don't have to agree with policys or politics. But, when he/she is acting in an official capacity, decorum/deference is due from the audience. However, the person in the office also has an obligation to respect the office.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
respect is not resorting to cheap name calling when talking about somone. Its your right to complain about whatever you want but try and do it in a constructive was IE I disagree with this policy because... It could be improved by... this is intelligent conversation but just saying Bush Is A Dumb Jack@$$ idiot etc..isnt showing alot of respect.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Will, I fail to see how this is an important aspect of the presidency qua the presidency. That is, while I agree that talking this way is not acceptible, I think it's not acceptible in pretty much any case and I don't see how it should apply specifically because someone is the President.
Maybe we could have a new phrase: "respecting the office of human being."
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought we already had that. I think it's called "acting like an adult". Unfortunately, it seems to be of much less value in politics than acting in a manner we wouldn't accept in a 12 year old.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So does this apply to all elected officials of the federal government, or only the President? Because I was listening to a certain raving lunatic on the radio today who repeatedly referred to one senator as "Dingy Harry."
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky -- I'm sure in part you are directing this thread at me because I was the one who said something about "respecting the President" in the other thread. You may just be baiting me, however, I'm going to go ahead and answer you honestly anyway.
I have been taught since my childhood to respect authority (not necessarily unquestionably, but respectfully). While some of that may be because my father was in a law enforcement position (which brought about discussions about laws and law enforcers, etc.) more of this thinking was from my spiritual upbringing and my spiritual beliefs.
For instance:
quote:Romans 13:1-2 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
and
quote:Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
and
quote:Titus 3: 1-2 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
and
quote:I Peter 2:17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
etc. etc.
So while I may not always agree with the leader or leaders, I do feel I should be respectful of authorities over me, as a Christian. I do feel in the overall scheme of things, any power that is given to them is given by design toward an overall plan and purpose, whether or not I see it.
In the book of Samuel (Old Testament), King Saul attempted several times to kill David (after he had been anointed but before he had been proclaimed King to replace Saul) but David never plotted to kill Saul for revenge, nor harm him in any way, even though given the opportunity many many times. (I Sam 24:6, 26:9, II Sam 1:14, 4:11) He felt it was wrong in God's sight to lift his hand toward his king. While David was not a perfect man, the bible does record him as being a person that God was pleased with and whose example we should follow, as far as his heart and attitude.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I thought we already had that. I think it's called "acting like an adult". Unfortunately, it seems to be of much less value in politics than acting in a manner we wouldn't accept in a 12 year old.
In *some* circles we have it.
The old media have suggested regulation of Internet; they should be the gatekeepers. What can they do that would earn that role? They could get there first -- but the Internet beats them. They could be more reliable -- but the forged documents scandal, in which every major news organ I've heard of backed Rather, shows they're not up to that. Or they could be more civil. They may actually have an edge there.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, I don't really understand what most of that means. Perhaps you could explain your point differently?
The difference between saying "Can we use respectful dialog, like adults do, instead of childish name-calling?" and "You must respect the office of the President." is, to me, a very large one.
---
Farmgirl, I've encountered this in more than few places lately. I suppose one of them was probably when you said it here, but I don't specifically recall it.
I've also said elsewhere that the panglossian divine right of kings you find in Paul that you referenced there has been strongly challenged by modern theologians, for, as I see it, very good reasons.
To pick one of the more blatant ones, not only are you saying with that that the God wanted Adolf Hitler to become the leader of the Germans, but also that it was every good German Christians' divinely commanded duty to obey him.
Also, again as I mentioned in another thread, the structure of our government is such that, theoretically, all authority ultimately rests in the hands of the entire citizenry. When you consider that, squelching dissent could be seen as directly contrary to the things you quoted. Populist governments present a much more complicated situation, in terms of authority, than the big man calls the shots.
posted
I won't get into a deep theological discussion with you MrSquick. But basically I will respect authority as long as that authority is not asking me to do something directly contrary to God. I would consider murder to be contrary to God, and I would not commit murder if told to by authorities. (etc.)
Even throughout the bible, it talks of very bad leaders who were contrary to God, and very good leaders.
You simply asked what I meant when I say "respecting the office of the President" -- and I answered you what I meant -- but I certainly didn't say you had to agree with me, or that you and I would ever agree on this.
posted
I think it's hardly a deep theological discussion to point out the direct implications of
quote:Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
I'm honestly not sure how this statement is relevant to your answer if you don't actually believe what it says.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe what it says. I simply don't want to get into a discussion/argument/debate with you about it here on this forum.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The incumbent is personally a poster child for the "Peter Principle" and his predecessor is personally a scum bag. But, when the band plays four ruffles and flurrishes and sixteen bars of "The Evergreen Pine," I will stand up and salute. The rest of you should stand and salute also. The Office of the President deserves that.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, I'm not sure you understand Godwin's law.
Farmgirl, If you don't want to discuss it, I certainly can't make you, but I really don't see how you can take a statement that says that anyone in authority has it only because God wants them to and that anyone who rebels against this authority is rebelling against what God has instituted and will be judged as doing wrong and then say "But that only applies when I judge that the authority is not doing the wrong thing." and say you're following what was said.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On ceremonial occasions, I can sort of see what you're saying Artemisia. In that instance, the President is representing the nation. But, that's hardly the full scope of how people are using it.
An example that has come up in disucussion - it's not really practical, but it has wider implications - should you feel obligated to let the President ahead of you in line for the bathroom? I say absolutely not.
---
porter, Well, you used it incorrectly up there nonetheless.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strictly, I did use it incorrectly, since the original version of Godwin's law is "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.", which you did.
But another version of the law says that in any debate/argument/discussion, eventually somebody will compare their opponent to Hitler or the Nazis. This is the version I was using.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, again as I mentioned in another thread, the structure of our government is such that, theoretically, all authority ultimately rests in the hands of the entire citizenry. When you consider that, squelching dissent could be seen as directly contrary to the things you quoted. Populist governments present a much more complicated situation, in terms of authority, than the big man calls the shots.
I don't see where this contradicts anything Farmgirl said. Specifically, she hasn't advocated squelching dissent. It seems you hold the premise that that calling for respect for the President squelches dissent. If you do, I strenuously disagree with that premise.
quote:To pick one of the more blatant ones, not only are you saying with that that the God wanted Adolf Hitler to become the leader of the Germans, but also that it was every good German Christians' divinely commanded duty to obey him.
Only because you are ignoring the whole populist government analysis, which would certainly apply to Hitler, and, more importantly, you apparently don't see a difference between not rebelling and doing everything someone commands.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where was the comparison to Hitler or Nazis that I made?
You didn't make one.
What you did do was make a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis:
quote:To pick one of the more blatant ones, not only are you saying with that that the God wanted Adolf Hitler to become the leader of the Germans, but also that it was every good German Christians' divinely commanded duty to obey him.
While not a strict comparison, I say it falls well within the spirit of the spirit of the law.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The concept of respecting the President has been used to squelch dissent recently - even to the extent of stopping people from voting against him as in my example.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr S I was answering your original question. That is what "respecting the Office of the President" means. There is no reason why we should conform our opinions, stated or silently held, to his/hers. The "Loyal Opposition" should be, in very fact opposition. The loyal part has to do with the Nation and its institutions, not a person or his politics. (Or even worse, his friends.)
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, err...there's slightly more to the quote than that.
quote: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Also, I brought up the populist argument as an example of criticisms of the panglossian divine right of kings.
As an additional point, this criticism doesn't apply to the various awful non-populist governments, or, for that matter, the sects of Christianity that rebelled against the established authority of the Catholic Church, one of which I'm pretty sure Farmgirl belongs to.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, That's not a comparison. That's a real world example of the logical extention of the statements made as well as a case where that specific justification was actually used.
Godwin's law does not apply any time anyone says the words "Hitler" or "Nazis". It occurs when someone makes a comparison - generally an overblown one - to Hitler or the Nazis.
In this case, a statement was presented that said that all authority comes from God and it's our duty to submit to this authority. I countered this by pointing out that this would then apply to the most obvious and universally despised example of authority. That's not Godwin's law at all.
---
Artemisia, Fair enough. I agree that in the case you described, respect is warranted.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
