View Single Post
Old 09-03-2004, 07:24 PM   #43 (permalink)
Mephisto2
Junkie
 
Art, your suggestion that all Americans support the President because he's your leader and the "Commander in Chief" also bothers me.

For starters, I don't think referring to him in military terms is really appropriate. Yes, he's the Commander in Chief, but by using that term you are imbuing your whole argument with some quasi-military character, that seems to imply some sort of obedience is required due to his position as the leader of your military. He's also the leader of the country in social and political terms. And western, democratic political systems call for debate, dissention and even opposition. Hell, a political opposition is mandatory in a modern democratic nation!

Secondly, I don't believe that in a democracy, where freedom of expression, the promotion of alternative points of view, public and social empowerment (as opposed to centralized authority) are fundamental, that mindless or automatic compliance and support of the leader seem natural. That smacks more of a autocratic Orwellian society than a free democratic one.

Of course people should be free to disagree and even withdraw their support from a democratically elected leader who is implementing policies (military, social, economic, environmental etc) with which they don't agree. Yes, they should stay within the bounds of the law, restrict their "opposition" to legal means, but to simply say "He's the boss, so therefore I must support him" is not true. Indeed, it even has undertones of a fascist nature and I'm reminded of some infamous autocratic regimes of the past and today (Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist North Korea, Communist China, Singapore) where the state called for obiedience and unqualified support from their population. It's just not right.

"We were only following orders"...

If the President, no matter who he is, began to implement policies that you fundamentally disagreed with, are you saying you would support him simply because of the position he holds? That's nonesense. Say he decided he wanted to invade other countries, withdraw from the United Nations, abandon tax for corporations that donated large amounts of funds to his political party, began implementing Christian fundamentalist social policy etc. Any number of hypothetical actions could end up in many people withdrawing their support.

Automatic support and obedience, and the abandonment of political opposition, are not good things. They would damage your society more than you think.


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360