An odd meme has broken out all over: "Obama is our president, for conservatives as well as Democrats." This is, in some sense, trivially true: any conservative who has gone around claiming that Barack Obama is not, in fact, the president-elect, needs to seek psychiatric assistance immediately. It's really true, dude; it was on CNN and everything.
But beyond the tautological, what does this demand that conservatives recognize that Obama is their president mean? Are they supposed to root for him to succeed? One hopes that we are all hoping he will not run the country into the ground. But since most conservatives believe that Obama's agenda will, in fact, run the country into the ground, it would not be reasonable to demand that they actually hope he passes it.
Are conservatives supposed to suddenly like Obama? Or at least give him the benefit of the doubt? As far as I can tell, precisely none of the liberals urging this on conservatives obeyed their dicta when George Bush was supposed to be the object of their affections.
I am really struggling to figure out what sort of deeper, richer, civic life is supposed to arise out of a unanimous recognition that the man who was elected president of the country has, yes, actually been elected president of the bit we happen to live in. Can someone who speaks Blather explain it to me?
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Odd that you should point this out; one of the turnoffs for me on president-elect Obama was during a debate when he turned to Senator McCain and said, "Your president..."
Liberals were lambasted with endless insults deriding them as "unpatriotic" and "unAmerican" for not supporting Bush.
Now some liberals may be demanding conservatives show respect for Obama as well. Some may do it not realizing the irony, and others may full well know it (a la "hey YOU were the ones that said every American MUST support the president!")
The real measure will be to see if conservatives who do not support Obama are labeled as unpatriotic and unAmerican.
Do you not remember how we were all told that we MUST support the president during war time? Anything less was treasonous.
I believe that the reference may be that Obama feels he will not restrict himself to considering just liberal or just progressive viewpoints, nor will he staff his Cabinet with just Democrats, but that he intends to be more inclusive, both in appointments, and in what advice he'll consider before decisions.
At least that's my read.
Or it might just be that Obama literally said on election night "I will be your president too" to conservatives and republicans.
I think this has to come from the idea that while people may not agree with his ideas, that there is a certain respect which the office of the President garners. Therefore, even though you may oppose his views, and fight against them, that its important to do so in a good manner... and that once those laws have been passed, they still have to be followed.
I think it's a way of saying... there won't be an Obama version of the so called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Whether any of this actually comes to pass is another matter entirely... but that is the idea as far as I can tell.
It's like "Support the Troops," it doesn't mean anything.
Do you not remember how we were all told that we MUST support the president during war time? Anything less was treasonous.
If it was treasonous there's an awful lot of people that missed their date with the firing squad.
Bush bashing has been a past-time for 8 years, and cottage industry for 6. And I for, one demand an industry wide bailout for the brave men and woman that made Bushitler t-shirts. Google "anti Bush gear", the "Not my president" stuff is quite popular. There was nothing out of bounds to say about Bush, Cheney or Republicans in general, and it ws done in an environment of little to no risk; no death squads, no tribal councils, not even state sanctioned wedgies. Dissent was patriotic, and how dare you question my right to call the president a murderer at random intervals.
But now with their boy safely in office, the same people want a return to good old fashioned unity and civility. Good luck with that. This deal is trying to head off the practical reality of trying to govern with a little less than half the country actively working against you, regardless of what you do.
Don't you remember the "Charlton Heston is my President" bumper stickers?
What Nick said. I may not agree with him, but I will respect the office that he soon will occupy.
Could you atleast link to the articles/blog posts which we are supposed to defend?
Or are we supposed to defend/explain the only (non-sourced) statement (strawman) that you gavee:
"Obama is our president, for conservatives as well as Democrats."
Isnt it fun to criticize people for something without making it clear what you are criticizing them for.
I think a big part of the "Not My President" meme in 2000 was the fact that Gore, not Bush, won the popular vote. And then there was the --- let's see, how shall I put this -- "controversial" way in which Bush won Florida.
Isn't it kind of obvious that the "your president too" meme is part of an effort to put out the fires of the radical, bigoted, and potentially violent fringe which, like it or not, is part of the tent of the conservative movement?
I suggest that a bit civility would be a good thing.
It would have been nice to start earlier, but there's no time like the present.
I suggest that we emphasize that the parties out of power are the loyal opposition. Loyal to the United States and our constitution.
Now, if only someone can restrain the Speaker of the House from advocating and pursuing the prosecution of the outgoing administration.
Remember what killed the Roman Republic.
The "Not my president" bumper stickers have been on every other car here in San Francisco for the last 8 yrs. I sense a bit of projection in the "but Obama's every American's president" meme.
BTW I think it's self evident Obama will be my president come January, even through I didn't vote for him. To act otherwise is technically to be in a state of insurrection, isn't it?
But beyond the tautological, what does this demand that conservatives recognize that Obama is their president mean? Are they supposed to root for him to succeed?
It's the "loyal" part of "loyal opposition." He's our leader. Yes conservatives should wish him success in the broad sense where success means helping make America today and tomorrow better than America yesterday. It does not mean conservatives have to support all or even most of his policies.
They're trying to prove how tolerant and broad-minded they are, thereby drawing a contrast with the mean and unpatriotic Democratic treatment of W. We're not supposed to remember how they all went postal on Clinton.
Or maybe, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania has effectively abdicated. I have this image of him curled into the fetal position on the floor, as his darling Wall Street writhes in distress. All this talk about how we need leadership; fast and intense stimulus; creativity in fixing more than 42 mortgages... and the only peep from the WH was that things were Serious.
As somebody else commented, the Dow rose 500 points today after the news of Obama's choice of Geithner, whom many (well, my little circle) had already taken to be the most likely selection, over two or three other very well qualified candidates. That shows the extent of the W non-presidency in our nation's eyes.
Yeah, Obama's all our president. We only have one at a time.
As someone who didn't vote for Obama, I'm annoyed that I'm being urged to "admit" Obama is going to be the President, as if by mere repetition of the obvious, such a mantra will somehow make the perceived ineffectiveness of the man holding the office more acceptable?
This meme is a not-so-subtle attempt to get those who oppose the President-elect to go easy on the poor fella. After all, he's so young, he knows so little about holding an executive office...by golly, you should give him a break, after all, "He's your President too."
That's the kind of idiotic brainwashing a family is urged to endure when a wayward member is causing harm to himself or others and by blood relation everyone is bound to remain supportive. "After all, he is your uncle."
I'm sorry, I don't have to hold the current President, or our future President in that kind of deference.
"All over"? Really? I don't recall having seen this meme anywhere besides this one post on this one blog. I imagine if it's that widespread a person could link to one or two such meme-spreading blogs. Citation needed!
"Isn't it kind of obvious that the "your president too" meme is part of an effort to put out the fires of the radical, bigoted, and potentially violent fringe which, like it or not, is part of the tent of the conservative movement?"
Not exactly. Conservatives want to make clear that the "where's the birth certificate" tinfoil hat lunatics are NOT part of the conservative tent. Liberals could have done the same with Daily KOS, DU and all the other Bushitler "911 was an inside job" nuts and chose instead to buy into Bush derangement syndrome wholesale. Draw your own conclusions as to what that says about the two camps.
It doesn't really bother me that much. To be honest I think some liberals have not liked how hostile things got and if McCain had won I think some would also be saying "He's our President, we have to accept that." I think people want more civility and if that's true that's a good thing by me. I think it's fair for Obama to have a "honeymoon" period.
That being said I don't think it's necessary for the conservative side to roll-over or treat Obama as above reproach. They should just know where to pick their battles and avoid getting personal. That liberals maybe didn't do that is irrelevant. Right now Republicans are in bad enough shape they need to be better than Democrats just to do okay. So go after him on capital gains taxes, spending, FOCA, and a few other things but be respectful. Denounce the Michael Savages of the world and work toward a sane conservative alternative to the harmful policies Obama will almost certainly support.
For me, the "he's my president" comment is simply conservatives/libertarians simply being gracious losers.
I can't tell you how many time over the last 7 years I have heard liberal acquaintances comment angrily that Bush was not "their" president.
Conservatives want to make clear that the "where's the birth certificate" tinfoil hat lunatics are NOT part of the conservative tent. Liberals could have done the same with Daily KOS, DU and all the other Bushitler "911 was an inside job" nuts and chose instead to buy into Bush derangement syndrome wholesale. Draw your own conclusions as to what that says about the two camps.
Listen to yourself. Blanket statements about all conservatives, and all liberals. Not even getting into the merits of the premise -- that on the whole, conservatives are more intellectually generous, responsible, and discerning -- the conclusion is ridiculous and unprovable. I suppose a broad brush is best at painting straw men, though.
When big-wig conservatives claim Obama as their president, it's a threat. As in, you're my president, I own you, now represent my isht (and beat back the people who pulled the lever for you).
An odd meme has broken out all over:
It would help if you could back this up with, you know, links or something. Because I've generally been "all over," and I've never heard this meme once--except in Obama's own expression of humility. I do recall sitting Republican representatives saying Clinton was not their president, however, so maybe there's something to it.
Colin wrote, "I may not agree with him, but I will respect the office that he soon will occupy."
Interesting thought.....particularly with the number of appointments with ties to the Clinton administration......
I'd say it's an acknowledgement that someone's going to have to clean up the messes that aren't going to be cleaned up any time soon.......
Hey Aldous, how 'bout that 'radical, bigoted, violent fringe' in California screaming epithets, pushing little old ladies, stomping on Christian crosses, establishing blacklists and threatening Mormon churches? Better check your tent.
As the country is in such bad shape what we don't need is politics of personal destruction like actions directed at the clinton's decribed in hunting of a president. We also don't need excessive obstruction in the senate. I'd like to see good faith, vigorous debate on policy, including reasonable opposition.
When Bush came to power after campaigning on a new spirit of bi-partisanship and compassionate conservatism, he played the most despicable partisan games. Doors were locked. Democrats weren't allowed. It means it's time to put aside the b.s., and that Obama is interested in what's going to work than in being partisan.
Not all conservatives are against the bailout of the big 3. Much as I don't like a bailout, I like less government created jobs for the 2 million that will be out of work. I like even less those workers being on the dole. Personally, I think there's a lot more socialism involved in not bailing out the Big 3.
Yes, we're all supposed to root for Obama to succeed broadly enough defined; obviously this need not mean wishing he passes this or that law or policy we believe to be harmful. On the other hand, if and when he *does* implement a policy I believe will do harm, I'll still be hoping I'm wrong!
And yes, we're also supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt. Why not? He hasn't even taken office yet. As far as I'm concerned he's got a blank slate & could end up being the greatest President in our history.
The fact that lefties did not take these approaches re: Bush in 2000 or 2004 is no excuse, by the way. It just makes them hypocrites.
I will say I get a bit weirded out by the whole concept of "my President", though. Indeed for 8 years we've heard from lefties in solemn tones that Bush is not "their" President, as if the rest of us were supposed to find this incredibly significant. (Should I have written it down in my journal every time someone told me this? "Bush: not Joe's President"?) It's as if these people believe they have, or should have, a personal "President" on some metaphysical level, who is supposed to fill almost the same role in their mindspace that....well, that God does in that of religious people. The whole notion, this view of the President as something over and above "chief executive of the gov't of the U.S.A.", is foreign to me. Really, Barack Obama will not be "my" President because there's no such thing as "my" or for that matter "your" President. The Presidency is an office that only makes sense and applies to the context of the body politic of the U.S.A. as a whole. Barack Obama will be the President of the U.S.A., no less but also, no more.
Megan,
I think it is actually more substantive than that. When Obama promised that he would be everyone's President - and whenever I want him to be my President, too - I don't think it has anything at all to do with curtesy.
Instead, I would say it is an emotive reply by Obama to the notion that government is a goodie bag that the winners use to reward themselves for taking power over the country. He is just saying that the goodie bag of government is open to all customers, not just the various segments who supported him (e.g. he will use government to take care of Appalatian poverty as much as inner city poverty).
Although I don't completely agree with this model of government, I can still recognize that it is desirable that a leader who believes that government exists to secure "positive rights" will listen to all of the people about what they need. I am also in favor of US leadership, and the US people, percieving themselves to exist as a united polis rather than fragmenting themselves - and this sort of assertion is a kind of push-back against the idea that we are a nation of ethnic/cultural segments battling for control.
Of course, there might also be a bigger picture here. The fundamental problem of rejecting an elected President's legitimacy is that it supposes that 'our side's' elites are good, while the other's are bad. The reply to an anarchist critique of government as simply representing a mechanism for elites to get and exercise power is by asserting that the democratic mechanism acts as a constraint. If you actually believe in democracy, I think you have to accept the legitimacy of an elected leader, in a non-trivial way.
It's a band-aid for all of the class warfare rhetoric. It says to Conservatives, "We want to do all this great stuff, so please, don't fight it and give us your money."
Megan,
You raise a valid concern, but I think your reading of this refrain is too narrowly focused on the question of policy.
So much of the conservative opposition to Obama and Democrats transcends policy disagreements and carries a tone of outrage directed at real or imaginary cultural and identity-oriented implications of Democratic leadership. Much of the rage at President Clinton on the right, as you will recall, coincided with his adoption of a fairly conservative set of economic policies (free trade, EITC, reduced debt, etc.) and a culturally conservative rhetorical style. Similarly, I feel confident in asserting that the vehement, incoherent anti-Obama heckling at so many McCain speeches did not exclusively reflect disagreement over the prospect of a three- to four-percent increase in income taxes on a small proportion of high earners.
In the context of this political dynamic, calls for unity of a sort are understandable. I would venture to say they may be counterproductive when phrased blithely enough to bring to mind the reasonable response evinced in your post. But ... understandable nonetheless.
Also, it seems worthwhile to mention that we should wish almost any president success, insofar as we should want the administration to be honest and competent, which, in turn, would deposit some additional increment of the basic trust in our constitutional democratic form of governance from those within our nation and throughout the world (a trust which, at times in the last eight years, has been undermined by our rejection of the rule of law and other fundamentals of civic and economic stability). Being able to trust the government to respect certain procedures in its operations is a pretty important condition in a mass democracy, especially one that is a so-called superpower.
"An odd meme has broken out all over: "Obama is our president, for conservatives as well as Democrats."
A content-free statement intended to de-legitimatize opposition to the winning party - just like it was in 2000.
technically doesn't the president preside of over the executive branch.
most people use the term as though the president is king.
the quicker people get rid of "the king" mindset the faster people can regain power taken away by government.
There may be parts of the country where, "I will be your president too," is an expression of humility. In Chicago it is more likely a threat.
It seems reasonable that conservatives owe Obama the same respect that liberals gave George W. Bush for the last eight years. Fair is fair.
Hey Aldous, how 'bout that 'radical, bigoted, violent fringe' in California screaming epithets, pushing little old ladies, stomping on Christian crosses, establishing blacklists and threatening Mormon churches?
I'm sorry, I thought you people had declared a culture war. And Prop 8 was basically a nuclear salvo.
Were the rest of us supposed to fight back with kid gloves on? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Where "get out of the kitchen" means "don't spend 10 million dollars on a national campaign to enact bigotry."
I'm not sure "my" President would be a man who could never get a security clearance to be a janitor at the Pentagon, but by the will of 53% of the 55% of the public that bothered to vote, he is THE President until replaced in 4 years, term limited in 8 or impeached sooner. Obviously the office deserves a certain amount of respect (as we used to say, you have to salute the rank, you don't have to like the man), though the current occupant also needs to show respect to the office - and I do suspect that Obama will have more respect than Bill Clinton (ie not pimping out the Lincoln bedroom for fundraising and using the Oval Office for cheap hookups with fat chicks). I strongly doubt that I will ever much like or agree with Obama, but I am hopeful that he will discharge in the office in a way that allows me to respect him as a man and as a president - if he comports himself in an honorable way, then it is my hope that opposition to his administration can be similarly respectful and honorable.
Sadly, the idea that "politics ends at the waters edge", while stressed ever since the Johnson era, was completely shredded by the "loyal" opposition in the last 8 years. I don't think that it can ever be stitched back together - I hope the Dems are smart enough to realize why they should not have done what they did, but I doubt it.
"I'm sorry, I thought you people had declared a culture war." Chet
TR: Yeah because Roe v Wade came only after the Christian Coalition angered people with their intolerance. Also same-sex marriage is a long-honored tradition that a bunch of religious radicals declared war against.
If there's a "culture war" cultural liberals/progressives were a large part of starting it. Woodstock came before Liberty University and Roe before the Moral Majority. The failure of culture conservatives to just accept everything that comes down the pipe as "progress" makes them obstructionists, but not necessarily the ones who started any "culture war." (A phrase I dislike)
I respect the office. I may learn to respect the man but it is highly unlikely, I am part of the 48%
who did research and did not want a novice in the White House with good connections.
Note to Hillary Keep your day job.
"I am part of the 48%"
45.9%, actually.
No, but I do remember a lot of Democrats crying “don’t question my patriotism” when no one did any such thing. I take that as a sign that in today’s society being accused of McCarthyism is worse than being accused of treason.
Good point, as I said before when we were debating whether Republicans should try to block Obama’s judicial appointees with a filibuster – Republicans should show President Obama the same courtesy and deference that candidate and Senator Obama gave to President Bush.
There's a great book called:
The Evolution of Cooperation.
It talks about multiple prisoner's dilemma games, simulated on computer, and strategies to 'win'.
Tit for Tat.
Wins, over time.
Assume the other is honest, you be honest. After that, copy what the other did.
Nixon was treated somewhat unfairly (the crook). Carter, not so much. Reagan, unfairly; but he overcame it. Bush I, not so much ('read my lips' -- liar). Clinton, not so unfairly UNTIL his perjury (a federal crime), and then the Rep rage at the unfairness of the media not being as unfair to Clinton as they had been to Reagan (loudly) and Nixon (unspoken, mostly).
Clinton's false statement lies were more clearly untrue than Nixon's. With Watergate, the Left got to blame Vietnam on the Reps, not the Kennedy/LBJ folks who got into the mess.
Plus, the Dems got to vote for losing S. Vietnam ('74-'75), after Peace in 1973 -- but blame it on Nixon/Ford, and the 'never possible to win' lie.
For anybody who believes in Freedom and Democracy, the S. Viet sell out by the Democratic Party was a violation of American ideals. But in my 1976 vote for Carter, I wasn't thinking of Killing Fields at all, just how I didn't like pardoning Nixon, and didn't like our Pres. bending over with a football ready to snap. Nor did I like him stumbling off planes.
Tit for Tat. Until it stops.
Maybe if Obama does what conservatives want, it would stop -- too bad the anti-bailout (Christian?) wing disagrees with the elite pro-bailout Bush wing. Reps don't know what they want, in economic policy.
We should want a rapid end to deflation, a mild inflation.
Print money, now.
No more bank bailouts, there's too many of them. The bad ones are the ones asking for gov't cash, probably far less than 20%, tho most of the biggest.