The fact that we are able to openly mock the president is one of the best things about this country, I think. When I get really pissed off at Bush, I remember that Colbert was able to completely humiliate (as the OP states) him in a most public manner, without negative repercussions.
My husband is in the Air Force, and this is our first time living overseas (it’s a blast, thanks). One of our “benefits” is free military satellite TV, which selects the most popular shows from the major networks in the 'States. These include the Daily Show * and The Colbert Report*, shown twice daily. I think that’s kind of great. When I get completely pissed at Bush’s antics, I remember that the government still pays to mock him daily in front all the U.S. military personnel and their families.
Of course if I met the Bush I wouldn’t spit in his face or anything. I wouldn’t do that to anyone. But I think it is more dangerous than beneficial to say we shouldn’t voice complaints about our elected officials. Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights we have.
I only hear this phrase from Republicans when a Republican is President.
I.e., pure political BS. In the case of the OP’s friend, there’s a lot of people who are in deep denial nowadays and are grasping at the tiniest straws they can find.
When there’s a Democrat in the office; the Democrats are busy saying it ;).
I agree that a certain amount of public composure is required. I can call the President a fucking moron among my friends, or in a pit thread, but in public, I refer to him as President Bush, the President, or (occasionally) Bush. If I were to meet him, I would address him as Mr. President. It’s not so much about respecting him, it’s just part of living in a polite and ordered society.
I live in a very liberal town, and consider myself to be quite liberal. A few months ago, I was standing in line at the bank watching a bit of a news show, and one of the other customers made a big show of calling President Bush a “monkey in a man suit.” He was disruptive and immature. I was embarrassed to be there, and would have said something, but I couldn’t figure out a way to say it that wasn’t “Shut the hell up, you’re making us all look like fools.” But I think that “Sir, have some respect.” would have been appropriate.
I don’t have much use for symbols. George Bush is just some dude with a tough job. Yeah, I think some other folks might do a better job at it than he does, but they’d just be folks with tough jobs too if they did have it. I don’t see what the point is with all the pomp and fuss.
I don’t respect an office. How is this even possible? It does not compute. The office has not done anything. It just is. I don’t even understands what it means to respect the office of the president.
Well apparently you weren’t paying attention during the mid 90’s.
Frankly, I considered myself a Republican during the Clinton fiasco, and for several years of that I still would refer to him as “President Clinton” and felt that he should be treated with all the honor that the office deserved. That didn’t last the full eight years, I’m afraid, and nothing has happened since then to restore my respect for the office.
I used to have respect for the person in the office AND the person in it - I respected President G.H.W. Bush as I respected President Carter. President Reagan was cut from a different cloth than those two.
But I have no respect for Bubba or Dubya, nor their presidencies. 14 years of embarrassing idjits have shown me that honorable people no longer are filling that post. Until someone can earn my respect again… well, honestly - no one will notice what I do or don’t do.
Which explains “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition,” making it absolutely explicit that those on either side of the question are there out of loyalty to the country, and reducing the ability to portray opposition to the government as opposition to the dignity of its offices or to the majesty of the nation.
Germany, Israel, and Italy, among others, have presidents who are mainly symbolic, as you describe; and the Commonwealth Realms have appointed governors general, representing the monarch, who fulfill most of the functions of a head of state.
At the height of the Watergate scandal, The New Yorker ran a cartoon showing a bunch of peasants kowtowing to Genghis Khan. One peasant mutters to another, “It’s not the man, it’s the office I respect.”
Jim Lehrer told a story about visiting a businessman in Iowa while covering the Republican caucuses. The man gave him a tour of his factory and office. Lehrer said, “I see you have an autographed picture of Nixon.” The man looked at him and said calmly, “No, I have an autographed picture of the President of the United States.”
My parents disliked various White House tenants while I was growing up, to one degree or another, but always insisted we refer to him as “Mr. [Lastname]” or “the President.”
Old-fashioned, I guess, but still… Respect for the office, to me, indicates a certain basic understanding of the Presidency’s place in our system of government and in American history as a whole. It’s one of the most important and powerful jobs in the world. You might dislike the current occupant - I certainly do - but he’ll only be there for a few years, and then it will be someone else’s turn. The President is chief of state and represents the nation. IMHO, it’s only proper that you show a minimum level of courtesy if you come face to face with the human being who happens to be President at that moment.
That said, you also enjoy the First Amendment right to criticize the President’s policies and decisions as loudly and as pungently as you wish. To do it to his face in a social setting would, I believe, be rude and ineffective. YMMV.