Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

MY TWO CENTS ON WHETHER YOU CAN SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT WHILE NOT SUPPORTING HIS POLICIES

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2009

presidential sealLet’s pretend.

If the murderous bloodshed of September 11, 2001 had taken place while Barack Obama were President of the United States, and his reaction and subsequent retaliation had followed precisely the path that George W. Bush had taken, undoubtedly he would not only have been branded the greatest wartime commander in the history of all humankind by the mainstream media, but he would have garnered my support without a scintilla of equivocation.

If, however, under the same scenario, with the rubble in lower Manhattan still smoldering, President Obama would have called for an immediate summit of Muslim leaders (and a task force or two to boot) to figure out not only why such a “tragedy” occurred, but exactly what the United States would need to change in its foreign policy to keep the peace, I would have said – adamantly and ferociously – that I did not support the President.

Therefore, using this example, I submit that to claim support for the President without supporting his policies is exactly the same as saying that one supports the troops without supporting the war. It is a nonsensical statement. It is not possible.

It is very common, for instance, to hear someone say they support the war effort in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Although that is not my position, one is certainly entitled to feel that way. If that is, indeed, the case, then it is intellectually dishonest to say that someone who takes that position supports the troops in Iraq.

They don’t.

(More on that in a moment).

Certainly, there may be isolated instances where one may support a given policy of an otherwise opposed President, but the premise remains unchanged.

I have the highest regard for the office of the President of the United States. I therefore afford the person in the White House the respect he or she is due as the nation’s Chief Executive. It goes without saying – or it should – that I wish no harm ever to befall the President of my country.

With equal sentiment, I want only success, prosperity and peace for the United States and its citizens. I want the traditions and institutions that have made this nation the greatest the world has ever known to be protected, fostered and passed on from generation to generation. I want the spirit of individualism and liberty that defines American exceptionalism to continue to be revered, cherished and championed. I want the United States to continue to have the courage to define that which is evil and the fortitude to fight it when necessary.

If the President of the United States cannot meet those challenges, then I cannot – nay, I will not – support him.

Period.

I know this is a baffling concept to Leftocrats.

And as sad as it is to say, it is as confusing a notion to many pundits on the right who are now regularly saying, “I support the President even though I don’t agree with his policies.”

It makes no sense. What exactly does that mean?

If by “support,” one means hoping for the continued safety of the President, then by all means, call me a “supporter.” But if to support him, I am required to pretend that policies he enacts will be good for my country when I believe with every molecule of my existence they will not, I am no supporter.

Call it being part of the “loyal opposition,” if you like.

Assuming I am not speaking of the President’s personal life – which I am not – where else but in what the Chief Executive actually does while in office would I rightly be able to offer my support, or lack of it? What else but a policy decision or action on the part of the President warrants either my backing or disapproval? Indeed, it is a given that I only wish the best for his children and the success of his marriage (unlike Bush-bashers who regularly wished for the worst to befall Bush), but that is irrelevant to the question of supporting him. I have no vested interest in his personal life. All Americans, however, are potentially affected by what he does in his capacity as President.

In short, I do not support policies I believe will be harmful or antithetical to the success and well-being of this nation. Thus, I do not support a President that pushes for those policies.

It is perfectly all right, in my estimation, to weigh all of a President’s decisions, no matter who it is, and decide on balance if you support him or not.

“I was generally a supporter of George W. Bush, but his willingness to go along with the “bailout” bugged me. I didn’t support that.”

Which brings me to the hackneyed and hollow claim that it is possible to support the troops while not supporting the war.

How exactly?

US armed forcesThe men and women of the United States Armed Forces have volunteered to serve. Their purpose is to win. Certainly, it shouldn’t be problematic for even the most sniveling anti-war types to grasp the idea that given the choice between winning and losing – which, incidentally, in the real world are the only choices – winning is always better than losing.

Yet, ask any peacenik if he or she wants the United States to win in the battle against Islamo-fascists. You’ll be peppered with typical campus-cackle about how we shouldn’t have even been in Iraq in the first place, blah, blah, blah … which is as useful and constructive as applying scotch tape to a compound fracture.

Ultimately, the answer will be “no,” for a whole host of incomprehensible, Zinn-inspired, university-friendly rationales.

The bottom line is … to be in favor of American losses cannot be, by any measure, considered supportive.

Yet, this is precisely what the anti-war screechers advocate. They don’t support the troops because they don’t support victory over the enemy. They support surrender. How in the name of all that is holy is that supportive of those who have volunteered to defend the country?

Is it at all relevant what the troops themselves want?

Or doesn’t that part of it matter?

The troops are defined by what they do. Their courage and values compel them to selflessly serve in harm’s way. To not wish for their success on the battlefield is to not support them. Period.

Liberals need to have the “courage” to admit that.

Wishing they were not there supports the pacifist, not the soldier.

Incidentally, thus far, I do not support the President of the United States.

There, I said it.

wordpress statistics

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: