We are living at a time where the dignity of the office of President of the United States has been reduced to a distant memory
.
Trump has convinced himself and his legion of followers that being a boor is a boon to our country. Being the laughing stock of the free world is all right, because it’s nastiness that’s respected by the really great leaders of the world. You know, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-un.
I don’t feel the same way. I want my president to make me proud of the country. Sure, I expect him to be tough when necessary, but I want our citizens and the world to look on the presidency with respect, with the knowledge we are operating from strength. Bullies do not operate from strength. They operate from fear.
Having said all this, I now move to the trivial contribution to presidential dignity which most will find impossible to take seriously. And you shouldn’t.
Let me give a couple of lists of some presidential names.
The first is Harry S. Truman, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden.
The other is Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald J. Trump.
See any difference in the lists?
I wouldn’t be surprised if you said no, because there is nothing anyone but me would think was significant.
In the second group the presidents used their full first name. All references in the media used them. I suspect all formal documents used them.
In the first group nicknames were always employed. I don’t know how documents were signed, but I suspect it was the informal appellation.
Is this important? Not really. It is just a small indication that the office of president can be trivialized when it is politically expedient, and I’m sure that was the reason.
We have to excuse Truman. Turns out Harry was actually the name given him. It wasn’t short for Harold or Henry or anything else. What was interesting was the S as middle initial. He didn’t have a middle name, but his parents supplied the initial presumably to honor his two grandfathers Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young.
Aspiring politicians also take the informal route, trying to sound real when in truth they are fake. Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis come to mind to this Florida dweller.
There seems to be no correlation between employing a formal name and outstanding leadership.
Jimmy Carter was a poor president but was a superb human being and probably the best ex-president ever.
Bill Clinton was a pretty good president but a little low on the decency scale.
Barack Obama was a good president.
Donald Trump is as bad as you can get.
So, is this much ado about nothing?
Probably.
Should I use Robert instead of the Bob I prefer? I do when signing anything.
But more significant: Who cares?
.
Trump has convinced himself and his legion of followers that being a boor is a boon to our country. Being the laughing stock of the free world is all right, because it’s nastiness that’s respected by the really great leaders of the world. You know, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-un.
I don’t feel the same way. I want my president to make me proud of the country. Sure, I expect him to be tough when necessary, but I want our citizens and the world to look on the presidency with respect, with the knowledge we are operating from strength. Bullies do not operate from strength. They operate from fear.
Having said all this, I now move to the trivial contribution to presidential dignity which most will find impossible to take seriously. And you shouldn’t.
Let me give a couple of lists of some presidential names.
The first is Harry S. Truman, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden.
The other is Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald J. Trump.
See any difference in the lists?
I wouldn’t be surprised if you said no, because there is nothing anyone but me would think was significant.
In the second group the presidents used their full first name. All references in the media used them. I suspect all formal documents used them.
In the first group nicknames were always employed. I don’t know how documents were signed, but I suspect it was the informal appellation.
Is this important? Not really. It is just a small indication that the office of president can be trivialized when it is politically expedient, and I’m sure that was the reason.
We have to excuse Truman. Turns out Harry was actually the name given him. It wasn’t short for Harold or Henry or anything else. What was interesting was the S as middle initial. He didn’t have a middle name, but his parents supplied the initial presumably to honor his two grandfathers Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young.
Aspiring politicians also take the informal route, trying to sound real when in truth they are fake. Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis come to mind to this Florida dweller.
There seems to be no correlation between employing a formal name and outstanding leadership.
Jimmy Carter was a poor president but was a superb human being and probably the best ex-president ever.
Bill Clinton was a pretty good president but a little low on the decency scale.
Barack Obama was a good president.
Donald Trump is as bad as you can get.
So, is this much ado about nothing?
Probably.
Should I use Robert instead of the Bob I prefer? I do when signing anything.
But more significant: Who cares?
RSS Feed