Upon occasion, large numbers of Americans
We suspect that legions of people, including many in the Upper Valley, have such a deep aversion to the next president, Donald Trump, that they will not bother trying to distinguish the man from the office. But for those who do, there are multiple ways of considering the question. One is to remember that the president of the United States serves as both head of state and head of government under this nation’s constitutional system. Presidents are entitled to deference when they are acting as head of state, that is, as the symbol of the country and the representative of the nation. At times of tragedy or triumph, of celebration or mourning, the president speaks for all — even if not all agree with what the president has to say.
There is also a compelling argument that when presidents are performing their constitutional duties or exercising their constitutional prerogatives, those actions have to be regarded as legitimate, even if one disagrees strongly with them. Here are two examples from the Obama years when we think his critics crossed this line. One dates from 2015, when 47 Republican senators signed an open letter to the leaders of Iran seeking to derail the nuclear deal the administration was negotiating with that country. This constituted flagrant interference with the president’s authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign relations. The other is more recent yet: the refusal by Republican senators to take up the nomination of Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court this year, thereby ignoring their constitutional mandate to advise and consent on nominations to the high court. By our lights, both of these were signs of disrespect not only for President Obama but also for the office itself, and ones that we hope will not be repeated.
A third way of formulating the question is simply to say that presidents are owed exactly as much respect as they show toward the office they hold. Thus it was shocking when South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson interrupted Obama by shouting “you lie” during an address to a joint session of Congress on health care in 2009. In fact, Wilson was wrong on the merits, but in an important way, that’s beside the point. Obama’s presidency has been marked to a remarkable degree by restraint, dignity and probity, none of which can be said for many of his harshest critics.
On the other hand, presidents who demean the office by their political or personal conduct, such as Nixon and Clinton respectively, forfeit their right to the public’s respect. Moreover, presidential actions that strike at the heart of constitutional protections and civil liberties command no amount of courtesy or deference. And the use of the platform provided by the presidency (yes, we suppose that Twitter is now part of that pulpit) to demean or threaten or bully is beneath contempt.
This is not an easy matter to sort out, but it is worth making the effort, both as an exercise in clarity of thought and as a way to govern interactions with others — family, friends, co-workers — who may have very different attitudes toward the president-elect. More important, America’s experiment in democratic government presupposes an allegiance to its underpinnings whatever the outcome of a particular election. And, for better or for worse, Trump won the election. When he’s better, Americans should be better with him. And when he’s worse, Americans should be better than him.