My loss of trust began with the assassination of JFK In Dallas. The theologian Marcus Borg would say that I was in a state of pre-critical naivete until then. I was raised as a patriot and believed that America was great and good (still do), and the people were too (still do). My significant adults has told me so and I believed it with my whole heart. Before JFK was elected, many voices were raised against him for a variety of reasons including that he was Catholic. But as President, he won me over on civil rights (however reluctantly he supported it), the Cuban Missile Crisis and his contagious optimism about my country, the USA. His murder shook my belief in this country to its foundation. How could anyone take it upon themselves to just shoot the President because they disagreed with him?
All the talk about this or that conspiracy just made it worse. The worst part was how some folks thought that was right. One kid told me that afternoon, "It's good that he was shot. He was an N... lover anyway." Another said, "He got what was coming to him." I never forgot those kids or their words. Some even called it a national loss of trust and innocence. The great historian Arthur Schlesinger asks how a nation built by running native peoples from their homes and enslaving others can be innocent. I don't know about a national loss of trust or innocence. What I experienced was intensely personal.
Next we endured Johnson administration and the RFK and MLK assassinations. I have to concede that it took a rascal like LBJ to pass Civil rights legislation and that is to his credit. His downfall was Viet Nam. When he came into office, there were something like 25,000 US troops in Viet Nam. At the end there were 500,000. When he decided not to run, I said "good", but I was soon to regret that sentiment.
Then came Richard Nixon. There was something about him that I didn't like from the start. As it turned out, he was about as twisted as any man who ever held the office of president. He came in at a time when confidence could have been restored, but he was not up to the task. Watergate was just the culmination of his secretive and paranoid leadership in the White House. It's bad enough that they broke the law, but they did it in an election that was not close at any time. Worst of all, they tried to cover it up and lie out of it. His resignation and all the revelations about his role in Watergate really took a toll on public trust in Presidency.
Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were both good men and tried hard. President Ford came into a crisis and tried to heal the wounds of the nation, but they were just too deep. Many faulted him for pardoning Nixon, including myself, but I now believe it was the right thing to do. President Carter may be the finest human being ever to occupy the Oval Office. I thought we could get a good Christian man in there and everything would improve. Alas, he was in over his head, proving that being a good Christian does not necessarily make one a good president.
We got a good dose of confidence and trust with Ronald Reagan. He helped the nation believe in the greatness of the USA and he had the foresight to initiate events which eventually brought down the USSR. For that I give him credit. Iran Contra scandal hurt his reputation some, but he left office in good shape. Bush 41 tried to follow in Reagan's steps, but his "read my lips" broken promise did him in. He gets credit for properly executing the first Gulf War, although many blame him for not finishing the job and increasing the probability of having to return.
Bill Clinton squandered a great opportunity to forge a new path with his manifold personal problems. For that indiscretion, he was impeached. He gets credit for a good economy but could not overcome the loss of confidence brought on by his personal failures. He left office with high approval ratings and still enjoys them today, but he disappointed many, including me, who believe his selfishness kept him from a good, if not great, Presidency.
Bush 43 struggled after the disputed election in 2000. That election disabused us of the notion that our votes don't count. Right now, his administration looks incompetent to me, but well leave that to history to judge. Like Reagan, he might turn out to be right about some things we now think he was wrong about. He gets credit for his response immediately after 9/11. Let's just say he didn't increase my trust and confidence in the Presidency after that.
Now we have President Obama. It's too early to know how this one will work out, but there is no disputing that he does not have the trust and confidence of at least some of the citizens of this great country. What he does from now will either change that perception or not. As with all of them, there are some minds who are so fixed on the negative, that they will never accept him as President. But we must, because he is in office and will be there for four years. Furthermore, we need him to succeed because we need the country to succeed, more now that in my memory.
I just don't get this pulling for the elected President to fail. How does that help us or our standing in the world?
I freely admit that I have deep reservations about the deficits we've been running now for nine years and will for years to come. At some point those bills have to come due. I am not convinced that now is the right time for big health care reform, but I know and love people who can't get coverage from their employer, or afford it for themselves. Are those people less deserving of health care than rich and poor Americans? I don't think so. I'm not saying anyone should capitulate and keep silent about reservations and concerns they have. I am saying that we need leaders who will tone down the rhetoric and get to work solving these difficult and complex problems for the American people.
That brings me to my point. All of the above men were elected President by the people of the country according to the Constitution. They were all legitimately elected, although you can still get into an argument about 2000. When I grew up I was taught in school about the concept of loyal opposition. When your guy loses, you move on and get ready for the next election. You keep speaking your truth but you do not make personal attacks in public on Presidents, especially on foreign soil. I didn't like it when the Dixie Chicks did it, and I didn't like it when Sarah Palin did it recently in Japan. When that happens both he and the nation are undermined both here and abroad. That my friends makes a dangerous world even more dangerous. Does the first amendment protect that speech? Absolutely! It just is not helpful. Lord knows I love political debate and satire from both sides more than most people, but the heat and viciousness of some of the current rhetoric from both ends of the spectrum are profoundly disturbing.
Is the job of the President too big? Are the divisions within the country so great that they cannot be bridged with thoughtful compromise? Are international problems so complex that they cannot be solved? Can anyone restore confidence in the Presidency? I sure hope so, because as Lincoln once said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand."
No comments:
Post a Comment