Support Our President: A Duty or A Danger?
Oct 6th, 2009 | By Laura Ashley | Category: All Content, PhilosophySupport Our President: A Duty or A Danger?
By: Laura Ashley Fannon
October 6, 2009
It seems like almost everyone has got an opinion regarding the authorization of the American government. However, the one common opinion that I’ve repeatedly noticed during any fiery debate between two individuals (of differing political views) is this predictable ice bath: “Well, the president is our president and we should support him anyways.” I can’t help but wonder is this a cop out? Or is this a legitimate argument?
Perhaps the best way to answer this question would be to start with the context of the word “support”: “to bear all or part of the weight, to endure or tolerate, to be capable of fulfilling (a role) adequately…” [source: New Oxford American Dictionary] Basically, based on this definition, we should “tolerate,” “help carry the load” and ‘fulfill a roll” for our president. These words sound more like the words of servitude as opposed to a sense of duty. Mules are the image that comes to mind.
If this notion is true, let’s examine this concept in the most extreme way. If Saddam Hussein was our president, should we tolerate him, help carry his weight (which I assume would be national struggles) and fulfill a roll for him? I sure hope the answer to this question is no. I would hope if a man like Saddame Hussein was president, the American people would do anything, but support him.
As virtuous as the belief is, it is also a dangerous one. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” So, perhaps the better notion is this: our president is there to support us. He should be the one whom tolerates us, helps carry our loads and fulfills a role for us. Not vice versa.
Photo Credit – MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images
Last 5 posts by Laura Ashley
- Obama's Fox Hunt - October 26th, 2009
- Highly Offensive - October 20th, 2009
- Our President's Accomplishments. Get The Facts Here. - October 13th, 2009
Related posts:
America is a democratic country where the majority elect our officials and therefore the government is the voice of the people. Just as individuals disagree we cannot agree with all of our politicans but collectively all our voices are heard. I strongly believe it is biblically sound that we are required to support and pray for our President. Fortunately we live in a country that would never tolerate leadership like that of Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler. Even with our different beliefs we have the freedom to express our thoughts and take action by voting. I personally will pray for and support our President whether or not he is the individual I voted for.
Great comments guys! Thanks for speaking up about the error. I appreciate it.
When I think of national pride, or “duty” I usually start thinking about the kamikazes of WWII. Or maybe those regimes in the past century that called its citizens to fight for the motherland. In America, I can only believe that our duty is to uphold the Constitution. The President is a public servant. Being American means you live for freedom, not an emperor.
and furthermore, duty that we act upon should only be instilled in us as humans, not because we’re sympathetic people that are swayed by propaganda.
When George W. Bush was President I noticed that people of a liberal view point did not support the President and in fact went out of their way to try to discredit him and make him look stupid. Now that someone of their own view point is in power they expect us (Conservatives) to support him…I find that highly hypocritical!
Disagreement with the president is your right and it is encouraged. I don’t think anyone is advocating that all Americans are expected to support the president. Respect is expected, but support is not. Even though Bush was discredited and made to look foolish, it was often replays of his own words, rather then opinionated commentary. When a news anchor calls our president a racist, that is unacceptable. Yes, Kanye West said that Bush doesn’t care about black people. However, we expect Kanye to say stupid things. Glenn Beck called Obama a racist, saying that “he has a deep seeded hatred of white people”. This is absolutely unacceptable. Debate and disagreement results in change, so valid well fact researched disagreement is encouraged. At least I like hearing it and I am sure Obama does as well.
Laura, you can delete my comment about the error since you fixed it now :)
While I agree that it is not a productive statement to call our current president a racist, how is it ever productive to cut down a president? Where is the “equal” treatment that everyone on the Left seems to call for?
When Bush was in office, it was ok to say anything you wanted about him. I could not go a day without hearing about how horrible a person (not to mention president) and that he should be put in jail for his “war crimes.”
There is no such thing as equal treatment in politics. Each side always feels as though they are getting the short stick. It has gotten to the point where we no longer expect Kanye to say stupid things: we expect EVERYONE to say these things. There is no accountability. A politician can promise to lower taxes for 95% of the American Public only to raise them in his first year in office and there is zero accountability.
Personally, I believe we should support our President regardless of creed, sex, or race. But I am an idealist ;)
Kris,
The call for Bush as a war criminal came (and still do) from abroad. I haven’t heard anyone with any merit ask for that. I have heard it inside the US, but only from the crazies and who listens to them anyway. Even MSNBC which is the most liberal, would never approach advocating for that because it would set such a dangerous precedent, I did not agree with starting the war in Iraq, but this was a decision made by a country as a whole, not just by Bush. Also, yes, with blogs and increased cable news, we do have an expectation for people to give polarized opinions, mainly to promote themselves as radical so they can get more money for more interviews. There are a few people in cable news that I trust to back up their thoughts with facts. I recently started watching Rachel Maddow, because I read her biography and personally think she is brilliant. So when I watch her show, I expect higher of her to only portray fully researched information.
Lastly, I agree with you Kris, that a President’s creed, sex, race or sexual orientation (or any other protected classification for bias law) is any reason to not support them. However, I will not hesitate to disagree with my President’s policy. It is mine and your right as an American and makes me proud to admit that I have that right. In North Korea, I would be killed, but they would let you live :)
Disagreeing with is not the same as not supporting.
There are people in my life that I will support until the day I die, but I disagree with them all the time, probably moreso than not :)
I disagree with 99% of politicians, but I still believe it to be the right thing to pray for and support those who daily make decisions that directly affect Americans. I question what I would do if I lived in a place like N. Korea. When I think of these scenarios I can only thank God that I am an American.
Democrats and Republicans work for SAME special interests. Right/Left media they do the exact same thing, come on. Watch Sean Hannity and Keith Oberman and their tone is the same.
Agreed. Hannity and Olberman are equally annoying.