RESPECT FOR THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY
By Avi Davis

In September, 2005 I attended a concert at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles headlined by  Crosby Stills and Nash.   That concert brought back a lot of memories for me, particularly when the group delivered near perfect renditions of  songs such as “Teach Your Children Well”  and “ Carry On,” the sentiments of which seemed to still resonate after nearly 40 years.  But the aging singers lost me half way through the concert.  That was when Graham Nash, the composer of the first named song, launched into a long tirade against American policy in Iraq and then ended with a damning comment on the President himself: “Now I guess we know,” he said smugly,”  what it means  to have a monkey in the  White House.”  That sling at George Bush, greeted with confirming hoots of derision by the audience, sent a shiver of contempt through my bones.  The American presidency, I realized, had been reduced to an utter laughing stock and the man who occupied that office, the acknowledged leader of the free world , practically dehumanized  as a thinking individual.  The placid acceptance of this assault on the dignity of the office, which would probably have been out of line even in CSN’s 60s heyday, made me realize that something had gone very seriously wrong with our reverence for the office of the presidency.

It wasn’t the first time I had been so floored by an attack on a living president.  By 1998, the hatred for Bill Clinton had grown so pathological that the man could barely open his mouth without a Republican or conservative commentator pummeling him as a liar and cheat.  Admittedly, the Monica Lewinsky scandal did much to bolster this image, but that event hardly explained the previous  six year punitive anti-Clinton crusade that became known as Whitewater ( and the less well known Travelgate) – frivolous investigations into the Clintons’ personal history which were clearly aimed at stripping the couple morally naked - the better to reveal the rottenness of their souls.

OK - you might say – but, any man or woman who chooses to run for the Presidency knowingly sets themselves up as targets  and should be prepared for  the most acidulous attacks. True enough. But does that mean that we should forget that these individuals, for whatever their personal flaws and the extent of their ambition, are still human beings, who might often deserve empathy, rather than derision, for some of the taxing trials they must endure?

 Often forgotten in the rancorous debate over policy is the reality that  standing at the heart of  government is a human being who must make decisions on enormously complex issues – often, it would seem, beyond ordinary mortal ability.   The Presidents themselves have gone to great lengths, in their memoirs and recollections, to explain the unenviable burdens of office.   Harry Truman ( 1944-53) described the job as the loneliest in the world, something he would not wish on his worst enemy.  James K. Polk,( 1845-49) , the youngest man to hold the Presidency until that time, was so physically devastated by his experiences in Washington that he died within three months of leaving office;  Woodrow Wilson’s tenure (1913-1921) was interrupted by a stroke he suffered at the age of  63 , which incapacitated him for the remainder of his term.  His successor, Warren Harding, entered office fit and healthy in 1921,  only to die three years later at the age of 57 from a heart attack.  Franklin Roosevelt (1933-44), broken in health, died in office at the age of 61.  Four of the 43 Presidents - Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy, were murdered (a higher rate of assassination than endured by any European state) and several Presidents have been on the receiving end of unsuccessful assassination attempts – the most recent ( and most potentially fatal) being John Hinckley’s attack on Ronald Reagan in 1981.  

In other words, the job is hard; the risk to life is great and the pressures of decision making which weigh on a President  can ruin his health.   When one reads the accounts of such political isolation and  personal loneliness, ( evident in the writings of many of the Presidents)  one has to wonder why anybody would  subject themselves and their families to the trials of the Presidency.  The answer is that self sacrifice and a willingness to endure enormous personal suffering is a vital element in the character make up of any President.  Laugh as much as you want at such a notion, the truth remains that for all the rewards of office, the potential for failure and eternal ridicule as a result of  errors, failures or misjudgments, remains extremely high.   Even myriad past successes in business, humanitarianism or government will not save a President’s reputation if he makes a significant mistake in office.   Just ask Herbert Hoover –  one of the most qualified men to ever serve as President, yet, by force of circumstance and his hapless response to historical events, one of the most reviled.

To understand what has happened to our respect for the institution of the Presidency, one need go back no further Watergate.   The revelations of the  Watergate investigation and subsequent drama played out between Richard Nixon, the Judiciary  and Congress, has wrought a significant shift in the respect of ordinary Americans for the office of the Presidency.   Every  President since Watergate -  Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton -   has borne the weight of that particular transgression and all have suffered from 60’s flavored distrust for authority and a rising contempt for power and those who would wield it.  That is as unfortunate as it is palpable because in the end, the effectiveness of a president is very much dependent on the respect he is able to generate among the members of Congress and ordinary citizens.   Once respect disappears, so does a President’s ability to govern with steadfastness and clout.

Which all leads us back to the two men who stand today at the pinnacle of the American political establishment.  Barack Obama is today feted, but soon enough he will learn that the honeymoon doesn’t last long and that respectful criticism, even among his own supporters, can abruptly explode into virulent opposition.  It should be needless to comment that Obama deserves respect for his historic achievement just as he deserves the time and space to prove himself a President whose interests are broad enough to cover the welfare of all Americans, not simply his own constituency.  George W. Bush, the most lampooned and disparaged president in American history, deserves the empathy and gratitude of a nation he has served  in the face of withering assaults upon his character, virtue and policies  - all despite his most impressive achievement – keeping the homeland safe after the gravest challenge to national security since the Second World War.

 I was raised in a Commonwealth country where the school day  always began with a  song ( the national anthem)  and  a prayer in which the head of  our government, the Queen, was raphsodized.   It all seems so quaint today.  Saying a prayer for the President – or even the members of the government,  would appear  as ludicrous as 19th Century Russians expressing filial feelings for their Tzar.   There is a certain sadness in the realization that today our leaders have become, not  figures of reverence, but  objects of  ridicule and that public comparisons of them to animals, criminals or deviants are taken for granted and pass without widespread objection.  

Yet in order to fulfill his mandate, the leader of this country needs and deserves  the  respect of the U.S citizenry.   As long as  he maintains a personal record of propriety, that respect – for the dignity of his office and the role he plays as the leader of the free world, should be automatic.  This doesn’t mean that the President is beyond criticism or censure, or that the checks and balances built into the U.S. Constitution should ever be compromised.   But it does mean that we should accept that a President is elected to serve the people and that his willingness to fulfill that role,  despite the toll it takes on his health, finances or family life, should be viewed with a certain amount of gratitude and not the wholesale cynicism and the disparagement that has become the lot of so many modern day American leaders.

The Western Word - An International Weekly Digest   11-7-2008