The other day I was discussing President Obama online. Although I live in Canada, I spent almost half my life in the States, and my husband is American. Many of our assets are therefore still in the South, and we have to jump through hoops to coordinate and insure them. Even though we're married (legally, socially and before God), the U.S. does not recognize our union, and we are therefore independent entities (essentially friends) before American laws. If one of us dies up here, we want to make sure the other will not be surprised with what happens. Political events down south are important for most Canadians because Americans are such a big trading partner; for me it's more personal.
While we were having this discussion, one of those arguing against me (an American citizen and a right-wing crazy) said: “He's not my president.â€Â This shouldn't have surprised me; I was aware of her antagonism toward Mr. Obama, but she was always spouting so much about the American constitution, it never occurred to me that she was so blind to what makes a democracy a functional form of government. Comments such as these, however, are translated into action and illustrate why the U.S. scores only midway on the global democracy barometer. She may have tried to twist terms on me (“America is a Republicâ€) but there is no difference with regard to my argument. She misunderstood my point (or chose to ignore it) so I thought I'd try to explain in a bit more detail.
A democracy (and a Republic, and a Commonwealth) is a system that is built fundamentally on agreement. We go into an election with the base underlying knowledge that we will agree to the decision that is decided by the masses... whether or not it agrees with our own. We enjoy the privileges of living in a country like Canada, Belgium or the U.S. because we take seriously not only the responsibility to vote: but the responsibility to abide by the outcome of those votes. I did a paper once in Bible College on the subject of power, authority and submission. All of us have to submit to authorities, no matter how “free†we think we are. “Freedomâ€, as we know it, is not about being released from those obligations and authorities. It is about having a voice in those obligations and possibly being able to change them: and finally in agreeing to respect the outcome no matter how it comes out.
I've dealt with this very personally through my life. When I first moved to the States, as a permanent resident (I was never a citizen) I had to register for the draft, in case it was ever called. Yes, me: the pacifist. I really had to think about this. Now the draft was not called, but I knew that if it had happened, I would not have just run back to Canada as a draft dodger. Part of my agreement with the authorities in the States was that in order to live there and enjoy working there (and being with my ex-wife), I would take the draft seriously. I would have (and did, since it was never called) serve the time required of me by that agreement.
Similarly, while I when I moved to Arkansas, our governor was Mike Huckabee and the president was George W. Bush. These two men represent the antithesis of how I see Christianity and government working: but I could not, and did not, deny them the titles and respect they deserved through the democratic process. I may have pointed out every error that I thought they made while in office, and tried to convince people to vote against them in the next election, but I had to acknowledge (and respect) what I had agreed to. Now because I could not vote (rather than did not vote) and was not a citizen, I'm one of the few people I know who could legitimately claim that George W. Bush was not my president. I rarely did, though: because he was your president and I had agreed to live in your country. “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.†(Romans 13:1) “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account....†(Heb 13:17a) This was, in fact, one of the reasons I eventually left the U.S. The state where I lived made a democratic decision to build discrimination into the state constitution and never respect same-sex marriage, which denied my basic rights. This was not something I could agree to. So I came back to Canada, where our rights are assured.
Even now, my mayor and Prime Minister are men whom I cannot respect as individuals, but I must respect as leaders. Again, many of my posts stand against their policies, but I must accept that it is their right to lead. I may not often say that they are my leaders: but I will not deny it. Even in the case of Mr. Ford, who has been charged with conflict of interest and ordered to step down: he is appealing this week. But until he is removed from office (no matter how much I hope that will happen), he is still our elected mayor and leader.
I'd rather have even him than a dictatorship. Even if a dictator agrees with you, it's still a dictatorship. And if a person is not willing to accept leaders who are not their choice, that's what they're asking for.
Â



















Comments: 32
As for Obama, it is your right in our democracy, not to like him, his character or his policies.....but he still is the President of the United States.
Your example is quite appropriate. I was married to a woman for ten years. Both of us knew I was gay, and we tried to "change" me. It didn't work. But I considered her my wife until the divorce decree came through, and did not "fool around" a single time during our marriage. She was my wife not because we connected on any particular level... socially, spiritually, physically or anything (some we did, some we did not)... but because I had committed to her, and beyond that, because I was committed to a system (being Christian) that regarded the husband/wife (now husband/husband) relationship as fundamental.
Similarly, when Americans participate in the privilege of voting and elections, they make a commitment to accept and respect the person who wins. Just doing that if your candidate wins is enormously hypocritical. As I said above, I don't like most of Stephen Harper's viewpoints nor his policies. He would happily deny my right to marry, if he could. I'd vote him out in a second, if I could. But neither of us can; we are both limited by rules and laws and precedents. So he is our prime minister... and thus he is my Prime Minister.
Like marriage, the relationship to president (or any national leader) is not ephemeral; it is not something that comes and goes depending on how you feel. It is, or it is not. If it is not, it's because you don't have (or gave up) citizenship. To go halfway.... to vote for someone and then to refuse to accept the person who wins... is simple hypocrisy. It's a problem with commitment. Saying that he's “the president” but not “my president” is a refusal to accept on a personal level what you agreed to when you voted, also at a personal level.
He is not “your president” because because you like or don't like his policies... he's “your president” because you're American. Even if I wanted him to be my president, he could not be for the same reason: I'm not American. It is very sad that so many Americans choose to ignore this responsibility of citizenship.
All I can say is: I'm glad this is not her post. I was going to comment after one of her stream comments recently, but could not - she seems to make her posts 'Friends Only'.
A few weeks ago - before she made her posts 'Friends Only' - I commented on one, she made a number of frenetic responses, then deleted the entire post! MegaLOLs.
It is my experience that humans are generally averse to intellect - preferring the conditioning of their time and place - but far too many go out of their way to actually ban it;-]
As for the lady who said "He is not my President"; I think that she best find a new country to reside in.
> Does that make me disrespectful! I think his socialistic ideologies
> are abhorrent...
Disagreement is not disrespectful. However, not being truthful or being extreme is not respectful. Comments on "socialist ideologies", "euthansia", "death panels", "hail obama": these all illustrate that your lack of respect comes from the lies you have believed. I have no problem with people who dislike his actual policies, as long as they have proof that what they dislike are his actual policies: it sounds more like you dislike him and are looking for any excuse to justify your hatred.
> As for the lady who said "He is not my President"; I think that
> she best find a new country to reside in.
I completely agree, Elizabeth. Not because she doesn't like Obama, but because she can't handle the democratic process when she loses. She would most probably prefer to live in a dictatorship modelled after a Biblical theocracy. Unfortunatley one does not exist yet, so she must try to build it here.
I'm not sure exactly the deal you're referring to (you gave no reference to your metaphor) but I'll try to respond specifically. If you're referring to Mr. Obama's deal that was in order to avoid the infamous “fiscal cliffâ€: “The president had no choice -- even the deal based on this major concession almost fell apart in the John Boehner-led House.†(Fanto, 2013) Obama's goal was to protect exactly the people you mention, but he had to “make a deal†to get others to vote for it. (Again, democracy, remember?) It would seem more logical to blame those who forced him to include this in the deal than the arbiter, who was trying to avoid economic calamity... and even worse cuts to the elderly and disabled. So although you might view that Mr. Obama is throwing vulnerable communities “under a busâ€, I really don't see it.
If “your president†is one who will both give tax breaks to the wealthy and provide services to the poor, you're going to be looking a long time in this economic climate. “My president†(if I had one, as a Canadian) would rather be able to make the hard decisions in these times, determining where to make sacrifices by those who can best afford it. Mr. Obama tried to do that, but was unable to do so.
By the way, I am relieved you were not drafted. Pacifists should be excused, if you ask me.
We do live in a Democracy and in a Republic. A republic is the structure and the democracy is the form of government, meaning that the people elect their leaders. The form of government is sort of based on Roman days, which was an empire then a republic.
Anyway, good article.
In my naivete' I asked if she was Canadian (sorry, Ian). The resultant frothing-at-the-mouth diatribe of vitriol and anger was a stunning introduction to the thought processes of the rabid right -- at least here on Gather. And no, as it turned out, she wasn't Canadian.
Secondly: As one who has lived his entire life under the Canadian health care system, I can tell you it works quite well. So yes, please do "just wait" before you complain, until you actually have something to complain about.
"A democracy (and a Republic, and a Commonwealth) is a system that is built fundamentally on agreement. We go into an election with the base underlying knowledge that we will agree to the decision that is decided by the masses... whether or not it agrees with our own."
I'm sure Ian has no problem with you debating this point.
> You should list this post as "open to only those who agree with you".
A number of people have disagreed with me on this and other posts. In general this yields good discussion and we can all learn. But some people expect to just blithely agree and to get points for commenting. Sorry girl: but if you don't have the self-confidence or the logic to calmly back up your comments and your reasons behind them, then you probably wouldn't be very comfortable discussing reality with me. Perhaps you should only comment on posts you agree with?
I agree with your premise: the president is my president whether or not I like him. I do happen to like the current president, but even his predecessor (*cough*) was "my" president, because, yes, I am an American, and that's how it works.