I do not respect the office of the presidency independently of the person who holds it.

[cuauhtemoc]

Obviously, there is a long-standing tradition in America of “respect for the office of the presidency.” It’s often invoked by people who don’t like the person who is occupying the office at the time they’re making the statement, as in “I may not respect the man, but I respect the office of the presidency, and therefore I will treat the man with respect.”

But one of the things that kept the office respectable was that people who ran for it observed certain political norms. They ran with the awareness that they couldn’t behave like complete imbeciles during the campaign. Because if someone did behave like that, and then ended up winning the election, the country would have an imbecile for a president, and no patriotic individual would want that. So they tried to be worthy of the office before they held it.

Now, imagine a person with so much lust for the office and the “respect” that attends it, that he’d do or say literally anything to get it. Calling for the assassination and/or jailing of his opponent. Claiming, with no service record, to know more about military strategy than the serving generals of the armed forces. Getting in shockingly childish public feuds with people who aren’t supposed to occupy a president’s time. And on, and on, and on.

I would say that person has “broken” the office of the Presidency. I would say that person has squandered the respect of the office, and is not entitled to it in any measure. I would say that no gesture that would formerly have been considered “disrespectful” to the office of the presidency should any longer be off-limits in reference to that person, as publicly and as often as anyone could feel like making it, whether on the late night comedy shows or the floor of the US Senate. And I would say that any person who, in response to such gestures, appealed for the “respect due the office of the presidency” could be dismissed without a single second thought.

Would you agree?

[PatrickLondon]

All depends on the circumstances, surely? Would you heckle him or demonstratively turn your back on him when he’s presiding over some solemn national occasion (rather than making a political speech)?

[aldiboronti]

@cuauhtemoc

But one of the things that kept the office respectable was that people who ran for it observed certain political norms. They ran with the awareness that they couldn’t behave like complete imbeciles during the campaign. Because if someone did behave like that, and then ended up winning the election, the country would have an imbecile for a president, and no patriotic individual would want that. So they tried to be worthy of the office before they held it.

Don’t know much about American history, do you? Seriously, have you read of some of the 19th century campaigns and the men who won them?

[octopus]

@cuauhtemoc

Obviously, there is a long-standing tradition in America of “respect for the office of the presidency.” It’s often invoked by people who don’t like the person who is occupying the office at the time they’re making the statement, as in “I may not respect the man, but I respect the office of the presidency, and therefore I will treat the man with respect.”

But one of the things that kept the office respectable was that people who ran for it observed certain political norms. They ran with the awareness that they couldn’t behave like complete imbeciles during the campaign. Because if someone did behave like that, and then ended up winning the election, the country would have an imbecile for a president, and no patriotic individual would want that. So they tried to be worthy of the office before they held it.

Now, imagine a person with so much lust for the office and the “respect” that attends it, that he’d do or say literally anything to get it. Calling for the assassination and/or jailing of his opponent. Claiming, with no service record, to know more about military strategy than the serving generals of the armed forces. Getting in shockingly childish public feuds with people who aren’t supposed to occupy a president’s time. And on, and on, and on.

I would say that person has “broken” the office of the Presidency. I would say that person has squandered the respect of the office, and is not entitled to it in any measure. I would say that no gesture that would formerly have been considered “disrespectful” to the office of the presidency should any longer be off-limits in reference to that person, as publicly and as often as anyone could feel like making it, whether on the late night comedy shows or the floor of the US Senate. And I would say that any person who, in response to such gestures, appealed for the “respect due the office of the presidency” could be dismissed without a single second thought.

Would you agree?

Well, if that’s how you feel who am I to tell you otherwise? Let me know what impact it has in 4 years and see if it was worth the mental energy.

[Evan_Drake]

Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa, Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha !

[Bridget_Burke]

@aldiboronti

Don’t know much about American history, do you? Seriously, have you read of some of the 19th century campaigns and the men who won them?

Start at the end of the 18th century. From the Mount Vernon website:

Martha Washington often recalled the two saddest days of her life. The first was December 14, 1799 when her husband died. The second was in January 1801 when Thomas Jefferson visited Mount Vernon. As a close friend explained, “She assured a party of gentlemen, of which I was one. . .that next to the loss of her husband” Jefferson’s visit was the “most painful occurrence of her life.”

She had come to dislike Jefferson for his frequent attacks on President George Washington as a monarchist bent on destroying the rule of the people and a senile follower of the policies of Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson even refused to attend memorial services for the President, saying in private that the “republican spirit” in the nation might revive now that Washington was dead and the Federalists could no longer hide behind his heroic image.

Jefferson was President when Martha indicated her utter lack of respect for him. TJ began dissing Washington when he was Washington’s Secretary of State. Well, he mostly had his surrogates do it–he was creating his public image as the Sage of Monticello. He didn’t fool Martha. TJ’s opinion of Washington mellowed during his long retirement, when he was burnishing his own reputation; Washington didn’t have the luxury of a long years after his national service.

From the earliest days of the Republic, people have talked trash about the President. Even when it was not deserved.

Once the Idiot Tweeter takes the oath of office, let’s see if he earns any respect.

[puddleglum]

The office of the president has become like royalty. His wife gets a title and millions of dollars worth of staffers. His trips to a city can shut the whole city’s traffic down with his retinue of armed protectors.
Every job that is created during his time in office is because of him, he gets credited or blamed for the actions of people thousands of miles away he has never met.
People call him the leader of the free world, and people think he runs the country.
This despite that fact that the presidency has been filled occasionally by horrible people like
JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton and total incompetents like Carter and Obama.
Politicians have earned our distrust and the president as the most powerful politician of all should not be trusted in the least.
There should be no automatic respect or consideration owed to the president until he earns it and then it should only be given reluctantly.

[Clothahump]

@cuauhtemoc

snip…
And I would say that any person who, in response to such gestures, appealed for the “respect due the office of the presidency” could be dismissed without a single second thought.

Would you agree?

In a word, no.

[Morgenstern]

Honestly, if he came up to shake my hand, I’d turn and quietly walk away. I wouldn’t call him a misogynistic prick, pathological liar or bigot. I’d just walk away and sit through the National Anthem.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Morgenstern

Honestly, if he came up to shake my hand, I’d turn and quietly walk away. I wouldn’t call him a misogynistic prick, pathological liar or bigot. I’d just walk away and sit through the National Anthem.

Agreed, not my president so (partially) not my problem but I think that a blanket expectation of “respect the position not the man/woman” is bullshit and I’ll make my own decision on what amount of respect to give any individual. With no prior knowledge of a person’s character I’ll give a set amount of respect that I’d expect them to give also to me. Anythting beyond that has to be earned (or can be lost) by both parties through words and deeds.

[Ravenman]

@cuauhtemoc

I would say that person has “broken” the office of the Presidency. …

Would you agree?

For one thing, the American people are really the ones responsible for the damage.

[JRDelirious]

I respect the office enough to deplore the holder’s indignity for it. If I consider the holder to be morally bankrupt I will not applaud the man nor seek to put myself in a position of having to show him any deference, and I will oppose his policies. OTOH any legitimately *lawful *actions proceeding from the presidency, will have to be observed in the usual manner, if at all possible without referencing him.

[igor_frankensteen]

@cuauhtemoc

Obviously, there is a long-standing tradition in America of “respect for the office of the presidency.” It’s often invoked by people who don’t like the person who is occupying the office at the time they’re making the statement, as in “I may not respect the man, but I respect the office of the presidency, and therefore I will treat the man with respect.”

But one of the things that kept the office respectable was that people who ran for it observed certain political norms. They ran with the awareness that they couldn’t behave like complete imbeciles during the campaign. Because if someone did behave like that, and then ended up winning the election, the country would have an imbecile for a president, and no patriotic individual would want that. So they tried to be worthy of the office before they held it.

Now, imagine a person with so much lust for the office and the “respect” that attends it, that he’d do or say literally anything to get it. Calling for the assassination and/or jailing of his opponent. Claiming, with no service record, to know more about military strategy than the serving generals of the armed forces. Getting in shockingly childish public feuds with people who aren’t supposed to occupy a president’s time. And on, and on, and on.

I would say that person has “broken” the office of the Presidency. I would say that person has squandered the respect of the office, and is not entitled to it in any measure. I would say that no gesture that would formerly have been considered “disrespectful” to the office of the presidency should any longer be off-limits in reference to that person, as publicly and as often as anyone could feel like making it, whether on the late night comedy shows or the floor of the US Senate. And I would say that any person who, in response to such gestures, appealed for the “respect due the office of the presidency” could be dismissed without a single second thought.

Would you agree?

You have completely mixed up the concepts you are ranting about.

You have either bought into, or played your own word-games here, in order to ignore the fact that the Office is ALWAYS independent of the person who holds it.

Perhaps this is because you didn’t know the best way to respond to the manipulative people who wanted you to ACCEPT a complete jerk, and everything the jerk wanted to pull as being made legitimate, simply because the jerk held the office.

The best way to respond is NOT to half-way take the jerk-side of things, by declaring the office itself to be “broken.” It is to stand fast for the positive principles that the office is SUPPOSED to represent, and continue to call for the person holding the office, to either change, or resign.

In other words, a person CAN continue to have high regard for the OFFICE of the President of the United States (or whatever office you are concerned about), WITHOUT at any time, submitting to someone who is ABUSING that office. If anything, your respect for the office should increase under such circumstances, and your demands on the person in it should increase accordingly.

[Guest-starring_Id]

@JRDelirious

I respect the office enough to deplore the holder’s indignity for it. If I consider the holder to be morally bankrupt I will not applaud the man nor seek to put myself in a position of having to show him any deference, and I will oppose his policies. OTOH any legitimately *lawful *actions proceeding from the presidency, will have to be observed in the usual manner, if at all possible without referencing him.

Mic-dropper of a post, especially what I bolded. Waiting for little Baron to finish his school year before the First Lady moves into the White House already sounds pretty weak to me, and Jan. 20 is still a way’s away (E.T.A.) before other developments I’ll look forward to.

Maybe he’ll turn it into The Gold House.

[Johnny_Ace]

This is the first time in my memory that I have no more respect for the office than I do for the man, which is to say none. He hasn’t even taken office yet and he’s already trashed its dignity. If he had the temerity to offer his hand to me, I’d pull that fake handshake to the side of my head move, turn, and walk away. And I’d hope he’d fume about it for the rest of his life.