I posted the following statement on my Facebook status the other day which generated a LOT of heated discussion. Figured I'd post it here and let the debate continue. . .
Food for thought: If we have a government "of the People, by the People and for the People," as well as a democratically elected President who won a majority of the vote, what does that say about those who constantly smear not only our president, but the entire federal government in general? Isn't *that* elitist and anti-American?
- Robert Applebaum's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I believe that if our president was truly democratically elected then there would be no need for the electoral college. Also, our governemnt is controled by the democratic and republican parties who are quick to smack down any opposition and they choose who runs for president. A third party member best have rich friends or have deep pockets themselves to run for president. So it is not anti-American to disagree with who was elected when the people do not necessarily choose who gets to run for president. It is our freedom to do so. Also, freedom is our government's eyes is best defined as liberties. In my opinion, we need an educated middle to upper middle class individual as president so the majority is truly heard.
A government, of, for and by the people should not involve smear tactics, and it need not, because we do have the inherent right to disagree as American Citizens, whose founding fathers worked diligently to lay the groundwork of freedoms structure so we can disagree and debate and change the laws of the land through "we the people" strategies...and "we the people" of this student loan forgiveness group are doing just that! We have a way, we have the right, we have the power of the people and their voice, and let it continue to be heard. This is what Americans have fought for, and our founding fathers died for, and having this right to be heard and make change will always be a struggle... freedom is hard work. Lets get to work, together, and keep up this great fight.. the American way, the way the founding fathers intended it to work. I am proud to belong to this group of patriots!!!
As always, your kind words touch me, Joan. I am proud to have you as a critical member of this cause!
Hell no.......It is exercising our freedom of speech and holding Washington accountable
Please note that I said "smearing" not "disagreeing." I think there's a huge difference.
Food for thought: If we have a government "of the People, by the People and for the People," as well as a democratically elected President who won a majority of the vote, what does that say about those who constantly smear not only our president, but the entire federal government in general? Isn't *that* elitist and anti-American?
No, but claiming that people who are using their free speech rights are anti-American is un-American. Who are you to decide when someone's complaints are legitimate disagreements versus "smearing"? You seem to be implying that to be American one would have to constantly shower praise upon the president and the entire federal government in general.
You clearly didn't understand my point at all. I don't claim to be the final arbiter of what constitutes legitimate criticism versus smearing - but I know it when I see it.
Better get your irony checked. I know smearing when I see it too and calling people "elitist and anti-American" are smears and pretty egregious considering you are calling them that for exercising their most basic constitutional rights.
I'm sorry if you disagree with me, however, just because one has the right to say whatever they want doesn't mean that whatever they say is not subject to scrutiny. Perhaps you don't care to distinguish civil disagreement and criticism from tasteless lies, fabrication and distortion, but I do. Those who have nothing constructive to say about our duly elected representatives in all branches of government and merely sit on the sidelines bashing them and causing division at every turn ARE elitist and Anti-American in my view. Don't agree? I don't care!
Interesting that you start your comment by saying you are sorry if I disagree then end it by saying you don't care if I agree. But that is just picking nits.
Considering the constitution is the most fundamental description of what it is to be an American, I really find it hard to see how someone using their most basic rights can be called anti-American. At any rate, that's still a smear, so are doing exactly what you are criticizing them of, so by your own reasoning and definition, you, Sir, are elitist and anti-American.
just because one has the right to say whatever they want doesn't mean that whatever they say is not subject to scrutiny. Perhaps you don't care to distinguish civil disagreement and criticism from tasteless lies, fabrication and distortion, but I do.
I certainly do agree that whatever one says is subject to scrutiny and response which is what I am doing right now. And I do distinguish between civil disagreement and criticism from tasteless lies, fabrication, etc, I just disagree it makes one anti-American to use the latter. If anything, I would say it's pretty darn typical.
Please take a moment to find Global Grad on Facebook, go to the Discussions section, and help us gather 1,000 pieces of helpful advice for current and future college students. Help students reach their full potential and avoid big mistakes along the way!
First of all, he can be sorry, and not care at the same time. If you really want to be picking nits...the bottom line is that Rob likely wishes you agreed with him, but also will likely continue his line of thought or action despite the fact that you don't. The two statements are not so narrowly defined as to be contradictory in every context.
Secondly, you say "...I would say it's pretty darn typical." - but now you're arguing whether something is, or isn't anti-American based on its occurence ("typical"). For you to make a value judgment, occurence is simply irrelevant....values are not about what people do, they are about what people "should" do.
I'll say this for myself: Americans like to whine when "they" lose. Period. Let's use Obama v.s. Bush for example. Most people agree that we came out of Bush's terms worse off (regardless of who to blame). But there was not a whole lot of criticism of George Bush himself during that time - not that I remember. There were no HUGE groups marching in protest of his actions*. Maybe they agreed THEN, but a better explanation is that people don't mind it as much when the mistakes are made by "their" guy. There is some comfort that "their" guy can't mess things as much as the "other" guy would. This, is where all the "smearing" starts.
Please note that I have not answered the question. I don't know whether it is "anti-American". Furthermore, I don't know what Rob is thinking, but I believe there is room to logically arrive at my conclusions from his statements - just as @silikon2 has a logical basis for his interpretation.
*I will quote an article from The Economist that said "Americans will not be grateful to Obama for preventing a depression that never happened."[paraphrased] - i.e. people blame him for a bad situation, even if he just saved them from a worse one. This is to show that regardless of who is actually at fault, my argument above is likely the reason a president wouldn't be blamed for a bad situation.