In these tumultuous times, some are unsure of exactly how to express an opinion that might deviate from our current government's foreign policies. Taste would dictate that nothing be too harsh while soldiers are off dying half a world away. Celebrities, especially, are always on thin ice, if for no other reason than celebrities blabbing on about their opinions usually come off as a pack of pompous jackasses. Adrien Brody's speech at the Oscars came off as sublime, while Michael Moore's tirade was just plain ridiculous.
One criticism of the administration that came about a week before the start of war, and the subsequent reaction, has provided a great spotlight upon part of American culture. At a concert in England, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines made a criticism of Bush that could only have come from a country singer-that she was ashamed to be a Texan because of him. The reaction to her statement among country fans has been severe to say the least. Radio stations have been inundated with letters from listeners asking them to \dump that anti-America group,"" and the group's airtime has been drastically cut.
Maines backpedaled ever so slightly, releasing a statement standing by her anti-war sentiment while simultaneously apologizing for the manner in which it was stated. She said she regretted being disrespectful to the president adding, ""I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect."" And so we are at the root of the problem-that American political culture holds that by virtue of leading the executive branch of our government, the president is entitled to some high respect that defies our usual hatred of politicians. Simply put, it's irrational at best and counter-democratic at worst.
Our president serves two purposes: He is both head of government and a ceremonial head of state, embodying the nation as a whole. Constitutional monarchies like Britain separate the two matters, putting the ceremony of state into a monarch while vesting all real power over policy into a head of government, the prime minister. People don't really bash the Queen, but Tony Blair can be kicked around all one would like. With our president serving both purposes, it's hard to criticize him during turbulent times, as criticism of how he conducts a war is perceived as criticism of the entire country.
This automatic advantage for the incumbent party toward claiming the moral high ground is exploited, and exploited endlessly. Former President Bush, while campaigning in last year's Louisiana runoff, declared that people ought to vote for Republican Suzie Terrell because ""this is not about Democrats and Republicans as much as it's about support for the president of the United States of America."" The incumbent party is able to take its head-of-state status and wrap any rebuttal to criticism in the American flag.
The late conservative Sen. Robert Taft, R-Ohio, bemoaned this chilling effect. Mere weeks after Pearl Harbor, he stated, ""As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government."" He went so far as to say that any comfort such criticism might give to the enemy was worth the long-run benefits to democracy.
Even Winston Churchill, while leading his country in World War II, was not immune to harsh criticism over his conduct in the war. In fact, his party lost an election by a landslide mere months after the war was over. Perhaps if George Washington and his descendants had become a ceremonial monarchy in the 1780s
things might have turned out differently here.
Instead of legitimately formulating a reply to their sentiments or bashing them for something they really did do wrong, like positively mutilating ""Landslide"" beyond all recognition, Maines' critics charged that her serious dislike of the president is akin to hatred of the country. To put one person upon such a pedestal runs against the democratic spirit under which we ought to be operating, especially as we pursue a war supposedly for the liberation of another people. Properly conducted criticism of the government should not be answered by shame but by providing answers to the tough questions in the marketplace of ideas.
