The question arises, “Should one support the President?” Let me venture, with transparent methodology, my answer.
If one were to always support the President, this would be a simple conversation indeed. But that cannot be the case. It is generally accepted that a President can legitimately and deservingly lose the support of his constituency, but to say this alone would be assuming the conclusion.
Adolf Hitler was democratically elected and, though he seized power undemocratically, it offends our intuitions to say that the German citizens under him were obligated to support him throughout his tenure. Likewise, rulers much less offensive are undeserving of the support of their electorate, whether they have committed crimes or abused their power in other ways. It makes sense that one should support a President, but when in the absence of offensive circumstances.
The response that a “solid front” ought to be presented holds a small amount of water. In the case of warfare or national crises, certainly it is valuable to appear united to each other and to a nation’s collective enemies. Yet we find that, in these situations, a President usually generates his own support. For example: the days immediately following September 11th, the Great Depression, etc. It is after either time or an action of the leader (or a combination of both) that the populace’s fervor begins to wane: it is either when a President does nothing to keep the support of his people, or when he does something actively to lose that support.
Reiterating: it is valuable to appear united against a common cause. But that value, as we saw by allusion to Hitler, cannot be overriding, otherwise we would always be compelled to support the President. Certainly, as we have seen, there must be other considerations, the sum of which can override the benefit of a ‘united front.’ For a short list of such offenses, I offer: gross abuses of human rights, warrantless domestic wiretapping, wars of aggression, etc. These offenses in concert, and arguably, if sufficiently radical, alone, can trump the necessity for a united front.
In these cases, when the actions of a leader may gain the overwhelming and passionate censure of the world, it may be in the national interest to disagree vocally with a President. If it were possible that one’s enemies could understand that, e.g. America’s President doesn’t speak for the people, it may be in the interest of the citizens to mitigate the hatred of their enemies by communicating just such a message. Certainly it would appear better to the world for a majority of the citizens of a country to visually disagree with the policies of their leadership than to acquiesce, especially when such acquiescence is a very real material threat.
We have seen that it is not always the case that a populace should stand behind their President, and that certain gross abuses warrant a vocalized dissatisfaction. But perhaps there is a distinction to be drawn between a President’s actions and his office. Perhaps we should, as it were, ‘love the sinner but hate the sin.’ How quaint!
However, I know of no way to judge a man but by his character, informed in turn directly by his actions and words. I choose then to proportion my support for a person based on their character. Indeed, we often hear of a President having ‘disgraced the office.’ In this case, we see the President [qua a person] and his actions judged at once, and yet disconnected from the Office of the President itself and the honor that it is due. In this sense we tend to think that the Office, as it were, deserved better than such and such a person.
There is no doubting that a healthy patriotism demands a respect for the ideals of this country, the virtue and prescient wisdom of the Constitution included. Therein lies the demanded respect for the Office of the President, but blind support placed behind a potentially destructive and sinister — and ultimately, undeniably fallible — human being is no patriotism. It is wrong and it is dangerous, and it has no place in serious political discourse as an overarching principle.
Well, what makes our country “democratic” — or at least in our modern description — is that one can voice his distaste for the government, or the president, or whomever isn’t steering the country in the right direction. But although you make a good point in saying that respect for the “Office of the President” shouldn’t equate blind support FOR the president, I think that this “respect” for the institution allows those in power to take advantage and ultimately do what they please (as in the case of Hitler). It’s one thing to disagree with the president (we have a lot of that today), but it’s a completely different thing to challenge the institution, as that would be unpatriotic. But I think it’s this very mentality that won’t allow us — or our government — to change.
I distinguish between respect for the position of president and respect for and trust in the individual holding the position.
I advocate respect for the position, and I think those who work for the government need to do their jobs, in order for this country to operate the way it’s supposed to. But that doesn’t mean violating the Constitution because the boss tells you to, or keeping silent when a leader is doing something illegal.
As Americans our patriotism is about the country itself, not the president. I also think that each person who works for the government is responsible first to the people, the Constitution, truth, ethics, and the law.
If leaders are being dishonest, breaking the law, or abusing their positions, speaking up about that is the patriotic thing to do. Not always the safest thing to do, certainly. There’s always a risk in doing so. Because of that, unfortunately, the tendency is to keep quiet until things become so blatant and obvious that anyone can see the wrong in them. When that happens, whoever kept quiet all along really is complict in the wrongdoing to some degree. Speaking up about wrongdoing is always the right thing to do.
The whistleblower safeguards were instituted in order to protect those in government who spoke up about wrongdoing and abuses of position or power. This administration has chipped away at those protections ever since this president took office.
I think this president himself has exhibited disrespect for the position of president. It’s a position of trust, and he’s violated that trust and abused his powers as president, by not always acting in the interest of the people, the Constitution, ethics, truth, and the law.
Long ago I learned that a good leader was one who put the well-being of those he led ahead of his own and facilitate people doing their jobs. This one refuses to listen to his experts unless they agree with him, gets in the way of people doing their jobs, doesn’t exhibit any interest in our well-being (except in trite, repetitive verbiage), and has finally lost our trust.
Loyalty should be a two-way street. This president is only loyal to those who are first loyal to him and agree with him no matter what he does. It reminds me a lot of how corporate America today views loyalty — expecting the employee and customer to be loyal while business leaders consider only themselves and the bottom line.