Respect for the Presidency - Page 2

[JessicaS]

I agree with those that said respect the office but not necessarily the person.

[candiland]

Well, I voted "somewhere in between".
On a spiritual level, I believe that the only way you can change a person - or the world - is to change yourself first. (Alright, easier said than done, as I have done my fair share of Shrub flaming). So by feeding these people the energy of disrespect, anger, hatred, whatever, you are, in effect, making them even more powerful. So I am trying to respect them as sentient human beings... trying to tell myself that no matter how many people they massacre in the name of domination - er, I mean, freedom - and despite the "bad" or wrong choices, that deep down, all people are good. They just don't always choose the highest choices sometimes (or, in this case, the majority of the time: ).

[gossamer]

I do respect the office of the PResidency. Maybe because of being amilitary brat, I was brought up to respect rank. I did not ever respect Clinton as a person or as my president, but I did respect the fact that he help the highest office in the land. I respect Bush the president and Bush the man, but as an American I believe it is ok to disagree with the President and not respect his actions or choices, but the office he holds and represents should be respected.

Gossamer

[El Casey S]

I've always been a bit allergic to the "Respect" order - it always seemed to be used to oppress me and to make less or look over the mistakes of those I was to respect. Which AP parent would say, "Because I said so!" as a response to a "why?" question from our child? So why SHOULD we absolutely respect any office? It seems too much like giving a blank check . . . like saying, "I vas only folloving oerters!"

I am totally opposed at any time to respecting someone only for the title. We should respect all humans the same - and as for those for whom we carry responsibility (like voting, etc.) we need to be able to be free to follow our inner voice/spirit and not feel forced to follow some external command. Should the world be a miltary base? Is the military way the right way?

[nappyhair]

Respect a title?

I don't simply respect titles or offices. What is a title without a person wearing it? How do you respect the office and not respect the person in it? What is an office without the person?

I don't think that simply because this is the way the country is right now is reason enough to accept it. I believe strongly in questioning and challenging positions of power especially when they prove to be historically shady.

This is slightly off topic, but there is soooo much praise for Abraham Lincoln it makes me sad. Slavery was not ended because his presidency felt a moral obligation to end it, but rather because the cotton gin was introduced and slavery was no longer economically feasible.

An excellent historical reference is A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

Peace,
nappyhair

[miriam]

It really does not matter if GWB or Al Gore got the most votes.

America is a representative democracy or republic; the president is elected by the electoral college and once each state has made up it mind which candidate it supports, all of the electoral votes goes for that candidate.

That explains why Clinton and Gore spent lots of time in California (55 electoral votes). I remember Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Kennedy, Dukakis and Bush did the same thing. California is the gold mine of votes.

Candidates hardly ever go to Nebraska (5 electoral votes) and basically ignored Utah and Alaska (3 electoral votes each).

Alaska may not have alot of electoral votes, but it does have losts of oil. People who live there do get a rebate from the oil profits that the state benefits from. So the state is rich in oil, but not votes, but who cares about it?

Anyway, I am just trying to explain to you why it is possible to lose an election despite receiving more of the popular vote. It is the electoral vote that counts. That is why everyone was waiting for Florida's returns to be resolved.

BTW, Gore did not even carry his own home state of Tennessee.

[miriam]

T

Nappyhair:

Lincoln also did not free the slaves with the Emanicipation Proclamation. It was the 13th amendment that freed the slaves after his assassination.

U S Grant owned slaves; he owned slaves while he served as General for the Northern forces. He did not free them until the 13th amendment passed, that is, until he HAD to! He then went on to become president.

BTW, Robert E. Lee DID not own slaves. He was married to George Washington's granddaughter, and Lee freed all of his slaves in 1850, 10 years before the Civil War. His plantation was nationalized and is today Arlington National Cemetary.

It was even possible at one point early in the was that Lee could have lead our Northern forces. He considered himself a Virginian first, and an American second, therefore he felt that he owed his first allegiance to the State of Virginia before the US. He was an able leader, having graduated at the top of his class at Westpoint.

This decision on the part of Lee to lead as a Virginian rather than as an American points up another cause of the Civil War - regionalism and state's rights.

Remember that LIncoln was the only president to order a massacre of Indians in Michigan

Hope that helps.

[sadie_sabot]

I think that it's problematic to respect titles and offices. That's the sort of thig that sets up the systems where a small miority have poser over the majority and exploit that power. Seems to me the concept of "respect the office even if you dislike the man" is just another way to try to illegitimize critique and dissent.

That said, i do agree that everyone needs to be treated with respect. It just bugs me that some how if you have an "office" or a "title" you are MORE worthy of respect.

[1jooj]

See, the way I am looking at it is that the office represents the idea of this elected official representing the US populace.

This is why I say the problem of disrespect seems to begin within the office itself. Now, becoming President of the US is all about power--not humility and serving the people who voted you in.

So, you could say that the lack of respect for the Presidency--by the President--could be seen as a lack of respect for the people who chose him. And of course, couple that with an apathetic population too bored and busy watching TV to be insulted...and here we are.

[El Casey S]

Originally posted by UmmNuh
See, the way I am looking at it is that the office represents the idea of this elected official representing the US populace.

This is why I say the problem of disrespect seems to begin within the office itself. Now, becoming President of the US is all about power--not humility and serving the people who voted you in.

So, you could say that the lack of respect for the Presidency--by the President--could be seen as a lack of respect for the people who chose him. And of course, couple that with an apathetic population too bored and busy watching TV to be insulted...and here we are.

And where is "here"?
For those apathetic ones, they will be watching FOX and "Reality TV", but what about us not bored and TV watching folk? That leaves us scared poopydooless! And frustrated!

[1jooj]

Frustrated and scared poopydooless--exactly what I mean by "here."

[Joyce in the mts.]

OT I know, but your posts reminded me that my mother used to say..."Many a truth is said in jest"...we do try to use humor for comfort, don't we?

Here is some political satire from an acquaintance. This is just a snippet:

(It's a faux R. Party Platform- here are some "planks"...)

"When you re-elect us, we Republicans will continue to implement the following platform:

o We will take the gloves off large trans and multi-national corporations and allow them to run roughshod over you.
o We will give these conglomerate businesses the ability to push down your wages as far as possible.
o We will allow companies to eliminate your health benefits and pensions.
o We will continue to expand the powers of the administrative branch and render oversight by Congress irrelevant.
o We will abolish unions to take away any voice and collective power you have as workers.
o We will create a new class of people called the 'working poor' who work full time jobs but can't afford basic living expenses."

There is much more here:
http://cronus.com/platform/

Check this out...Joyce in the mts.