JONATHAN CHAIT OCTOBER 29, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
President Obama's appearance on the Daily Show has inevitably produced concern about his lack of dignity:
"You don't want to use that phrase, dude," Stewart recommended with a laugh.
Dude. The indignity of a comedy show host calling the commander in chief "dude" pretty well captured the moment for Obama.
On the contrary, I think the office of the president has too much dignity. The president is a citizen who serves the public. It is in the interest of the president to make himself into something exalted, a national father figure and symbol of the government. But the public has no interest in this function, which, indeed, can take on monarchical trappings with an insidious anti-democratic undertone. (It's a little disturbing when people who see the president salute -- a military signal that suggests subordination.)
Obviously, I don't want to see presidents cutting their own rap videos or jumping into the ring with professional wrestlers. But at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, out problem is not too little presidential dignity but too much.
12 comments
You say it's disturbing when "people" salute the President, yet the photo shows three individuals who appear to be active-duty military saluting. These men ARE "subordinate" to the president, and should definitely signal their respect and obedience in this manner. A better example is people who use the phrase "commander in chief" in a non-military context.
- tomsca67
October 29, 2010 at 9:12am
Good point Tom. "A better example is people who use the phrase "commander in chief" in a non-military context." Exactly. The fact that someone has some military rank should mean nothing to how people relate to that person in a civilian context. At least in the kind of society I want to live in.
- subterran
October 29, 2010 at 9:39am
Jon, you usually present an argument for your positions. I don't see any argument here, just your opinion that the office of the President has too much dignity (an opinion that I fail to share).
- robertgorton
October 29, 2010 at 9:42am
I disagree, Mr. Chait. In my opinion, there is something wrong with the President of the United States being called "dude" on national television. Your argument that the office has too much dignity (which I also disagree with) is beside the point. There must also be some minimum amount of dignity and "dude" just doesn't reach that minimum level. Also, I don't understand your comment that the public has no interest in the symbolism of the Office of the President. I'm a member of the public and I sure as hell do. Maybe I am the only one.
- nacnud1
October 29, 2010 at 9:50am
When the 4 star general walks by an 18 year old pimply-faced new recruit picking up butts around the base, that 18 year old and that General will "exchange" a greeting.. a salute - which acknowledges that each are in a shared profession and members of the same community. It is an obligation upon both parties to complete this exchange. There is (as there is in all things military), a structure, whereby the lower ranking individual initiates the exchange and the higher ranking individual returns the salute. When Obama receives a salute, he is obligated to acknowledge and return it. Marty Peretz is under no such obligation with the lower paid workers at TNR - he does not even have to nod at them when he passes them by in the hallway. The salute between members of the military is a form of speech - a symbol of mutual respect - rendered then returned. The natural position of the hand would result in a curve around the knuckles and fingers and the thumb out. A salute has a prescribed form - and Obama does it justice in that picture. Obama's hand is straight - that man learned the right way to do it and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't practice at first in front of a mirror. The president's returned salute in that picture conveys respect and suggests to me that Obama carries his own dignity and brings it to the office of the President. To say that "a military signal that suggests subordination" betrays a rebellious teenager's attitude toward an act which serves as a constant reminder of unity and co-membership among members of our military.
- DBSilver
October 29, 2010 at 10:05am
What about the custom of the president, a civilian, returning salutes from military personnel, as pictured here? This practice began with Reagan, who thought it made good theatrics to be seen jauntily returning the salute even though the president is not an officer. Is it a proper expression of presidential dignity for the president to return salutes, or did Generals Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower, who as president did not return salutes, perhaps have a better understanding of the dignity of the office?
- rhubarbs
October 29, 2010 at 10:09am
yeesh, we are arguing about saluting? This custom has been around since knights in shining armor lifted their visor to show their faces, the notion that this ancient custom can only have one modern meaning (a gesture within the military community) is silly. The notion that the dignity of the office will be compromised by a simple gesture of reciprocity is beyond me. If a President wants to salute, fine, if he doesn't fine. I don't freaking care. I do agree that Stewart shouldn't have called Obama dude, but I don't think he should call anyone but his own friends dude, I don't see Stewart calling any of his female guests Toots (or whatever the hell the feminine version of dude is)
- blackton
October 29, 2010 at 10:36am
blackton, that's kind of what I meant by diatribing on the saluting business. It is absurd, and as usual you explain the point better than I. But I do think it touches on an important point: Modesty used to be seen as a defining characteristic of the dignity of the office. Today, the reverse is true. In the early days, President Washington took great pains to avoid puffery; for example, the brown suit he wore to his first inauguration was probably the most informal attire worn anywhere in New York that day. Where the high and mighty of the new republic came dressed fit for a coronation, Washington eschewed the drapery of an emperor in favor of the suit of a farmer or a clerk. Deep in the bowels of Ford's Theater in Washington are casts of President Lincoln's hands taken just after one of his inaugurations; his left hand is incredibly large, the maw of a basketball player who can palm a ball. But his right hand is truly superhuman in size - it was swollen from shaking thousands of hands, the high and mighty as well as the low and common, as Lincoln saw it as his duty to receive congratulatory handshakes from all who took the trouble to stand in line to greet their president. There were flashes of cults-of-personality around certain of our presidents before the twentieth century - not least around Washington and Jackson - but even the bubble of exclusivity imposed in the name of security was not a permanent characteristic of the office until the 1910s. Until just a few presidencies ago, the leveling spirit of republican equality, not the elevating spirit of monarchical dignity, more strongly defined the office of the presidency. I submit that it is not a coincidence that in the era following the establishment of a truly imperial presidency, authoritarian conservatism has become our dominant political force. Symbols and rituals have consequences, and so on the whole I would much rather America be a country where someone can call the president "dude" than one where commoners gasp at the impudence of one who does so.
- rhubarbs
October 29, 2010 at 11:06am
I agree with almost all of everything everybody has to say here.
- liberal reformer
October 29, 2010 at 11:31am
the female of "dude" is "dude", although sometimes "dudette" is used.
- GSpinks
October 29, 2010 at 4:00pm
"dudette" is sexist
- subterran
October 29, 2010 at 4:59pm
Heh! Good point subterran. That would probably explain why I haven't heard that word used since the 80's.
- GSpinks
October 30, 2010 at 8:20pm