Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ARTelevision
I'm chagrined about the trend in thinking that holds that it is more important to take all opportunities to express dissapointment over one's personal and often unrealistic expectations than it is to voice support for the Commander in Chief, our President. I don't see the nobility of that high horse through the self-serving exercise in ego that it often appears to be.
I've been thinking that what is almost as crucial today as destroying terror and the reasons for it, protecting ourselves as a nation, and providing for the general prosperity is the need for a whole new generation of individuals to become educated to the fact that it matters very little who is in office - because the responsibilities are awesome and the real-world choices are few for any leader. American foriegn policy is American foriegn policy. Those who experienced both parties' tenure during the conduct of the Vietnam war can attest to this.
And so, In some perverse way, I am starting to think it would be a good education for people who think that GWB is the reason "the world hates us" and we are in such apparantly sad shape as his critics would have us believe (because of his policies) to have their candidate elected. This way they may gain some overarching understanding that their rhetoric does not indicate they have at the present.
As I stated, I will be supporting the President of the United States, no matter who that is, come November. It is more important to do exactly that than many people today seem to comprehend.
|
This is a very strong nationalistic viewpoint.
Personally, I don't feel strongly one way or the other what you should or should not do. But it seems like you are advocating assent for the sake of assent due to some perception of too much dissent.
I imagine you must have some line which the President must cross in order for you to withdraw your support. You don't mention the existence of such a line, but without it, you would indeed be advocating blind support - which is nothing more than dictatorship (whether term-limited or not).
By default, I do not offer my support to the President, regardless of who he is. There are essentially 2 reasons for this:
1- The numbers game: It is my opinion that the vast majority of American's offer their support for the President. Often with complete disregard for his policies. Therefore, if I can take the opportunity to offer dissent, it is of great benefit to the entire country by virtue of increasing the level of debate over the level of nodding heads.
2- The America of Perfection: If the goal of America is to constantly strive for perfection, to constantly seek to improve our country - the only possible value in refraining from dissent is the ethereal concept of Unity. The concept that we are stronger (and therefore better) because so many of us stand together. I don't see how group-think, as a uniter, equates to better policies and actions. It might make us more resolute, but it could make us more resolute in implementing poor policies just as much as it could make us more resolute in implementing quality policies. In essence, unity is only valueable if we're united behind something good and it is extremely dangerous if we are united behind something bad.
Personally, I find America to be exceptionally misguided. I have a line - it is very narrow and it is very close at hand. If the goal of an American is to try and form a more perfect union, we have a LONG way to go and we won't get there by supporting unity behind mistakes.