The Republicans are mad at the Democrats. The Democrats are mad right back. The liberals are mad at the conservatives and vice versa. The Tea Party is mad at everybody, even themselves. We’re all mad at Wall Street and they’re mad at the Federal Reserve. Everyone is mad at Congress. Much of the public is mad at the President. And that’s just on the domestic side.
There are a couple observations that seem important. First, what does one do with all that anger? The unfortunate part is that anger frequently gives away to intemperate words and action. Once that happens, emotions become even more overheated and soon we have degenerated into name-calling. If any constructive action ever came out of Dick Cheney-like advice, “Go “f” yourself,” that would indeed be news.
The alarming trend in all this is descending to ever-lower levels of comity, best defined as an atmosphere of societal harmony. There certainly isn’t much harmony in the political e-mails I receive. In fact, I am offended by the vitriolic nature of much of it. It’s part of our system to have disagreements about political issues. To do without that would be living under a totalitarian regime, a concept against which millions have fought and died. But iIntelligent folk should be capable of disagreeing without stooping to denigration.
It’s of some comfort that this isn’t new and, somehow, we have managed to survive. In reading about the early decades of the United States, there are alarming parallels. Since so much time has passed reputations of the Founding Fathers have been burnished to a high luster. Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin, if reading of themselves in current history texts, would probably be mystified by what we have come to believe about them. When one reads what they actually said about one another, about the characterizations of those leaders by the press, they are hardly recognizable as the men whom we so revere today. At least, today our leaders don’t kill each other in duels.
George Washington had critics, particularly during his second term, who painted a picture of him as a demented and senile soldier who was far removed from competence. Andrew Jackson was demonized by the financial scions of his day for his obsession with the abolition of The United States Bank. It had been the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton but became a goose that laid endless golden eggs for speculators. Any review of political cartoons during Lincoln’s administration will astound the reader with their mean-spirited and vicious depictions of him, arguably our greatest President. Many Presidents who today are considered among the best were roundly hated by many during their tenure. In our lifetime one exception might be President Eisenhower. His reputation as our wartime savior protected him from the widespread criticism that has plagued so many of his successors, yet few historians today would place him in the Presidential pantheon.
One of the issues that faced George Washington was one about which we hear little today: How should he be addressed? Some thought it should be,” His Highness,” or “His Excellency,” or worst of all, “His High Mightiness.” All of those smacked loudly of monarchism for which the Revolution had been fought. Washington acceded to the actions of The House of Representatives and James Madison to be called, “Mr. President.” In the confines of the private quarters of the White House, I suspect other titles not suitable for this paper have been used in recent years but, in public, the respectful title remains firmly in place.
And that is exactly as it should be. When we dishonor the President with slurs, innuendo, and worse, we are dishonoring the Office (capitalization intended) and thereby, we are defaming ourselves as a nation. Anger, justifiable at times, should never descend to name-calling of the person who lives in our White House.
Under no circumstance should we ever abandon disagreement. The Founders argued vociferously, but usually not violently. If we follow their example then our anger may not be assuaged but at least it might be directed in more productive fashion and we will survive in a manner for which Lincoln had hope: “. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
By Hayden Hollingsworth [email protected]