From the first time I gained an interest in political discourse, back during the second
election of former President George W. Bush, I’ve carried a fairly consistent mindset in regard to
people’s varying attitudes toward the President post-election.
I’ve assumed, for a long while now, that the vast majority of chatter and judgement surrounding the president was overwhelmingly hypercritical and counterproductive.
Generally, during the presi- dent’s term, after they’ve taken office, the voices of those who are disappointed by the out- come of the election become much more noticeable. Every little thing the president does — or is believed to have done — is under harsh scrutiny. This critical lens can be helpful, even necessary, when holding elected figureheads accountable, especially when it is the behavior of the president being questioned.
As was seen following former President Obama’s election into office, this critical discourse can just as often lead to speculation, assumption and radical claims about the official’s background and behavior. Over time, I developed the opinion that regardless of the outcome of an election, whether the person elected as president aligned with one’s desired candidate, one should o er up their support of that person and hope for their success for the good of the country.
I believed that, even if I couldn’t respect the person elected, I could at least respect the office they occupied and cross my fingers. I wondered how we as a nation could hope to succeed, when all we ever did was watch patiently for the failure of our leader.
That was the mentality I used to a ord, and I still stand by some of it. I have, however, uncovered some blind spots in that mentality when considering the recent behaviors of President Donald Trump. The biggest one being that he and the position he occupies operate in unison and act as one entity. This is entirely false.
This assumption, that the President is simply a body sitting in the White House, following the previously established channels to affect policy, is one frequently adopted by folks who dismiss the president’s influence, saying, “He’s only one man. He doesn’t even have that much power anyway.” From time to time even I have expressed that sentiment, purely for the false sense of security it imbues.
The truth is, the presidential office holds one kind of power and the president’s position as a public gure holds its own unique kind of power — the power to in uence people.
For the entirety of his campaign, and for the extent of his presidency thus far, President Trump has used extreme rhetoric filled with absolutes that sound like radical stances to some and true statements to others. Never mind the stance he’s taking — President Trump’s words reach people and motivate them to act.
When President Trump steps outside of his presidential role and acts as a public gure instead, tweeting hate speech and radical claims about people of certain identities, the motivated supporters he’s somehow cultivated respond, and not just in the polls.
With a single tweet, President Trump can provide direction for chaos, often inspiring prejudice and even hate crimes. His presence as America’s leader is one that affirms the radical opinions of those who operate within a dominant narrative, such as white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
This again begs the question of respect my previous mentality posed. To what degree must we respect the office of a president whose actions threaten the livelihoods of minority groups and oppressed demographics? At what point does judgement of this president stop being productive and become hypercritical?
Both very personal questions to pose, these require an individualized and mindful approach to political discourse. For me, though, a simple comparison helps. Which seems more dangerous, the writing on one president’s birth certificate, or the Twitter account of another that has already cost lives?
Austin Maas can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @austindmaas