The office or the person?

Every time a new president is elected, those who voted for the president say to those who didn’t, “Well, you have to respect the office.”  I do believe that is true, however, with Trump the argument is wearing thin.

For starters, Trump himself has disrespected elements of the government that we as Americans have been taught to respect if not revere—the judiciary, the congress, our intelligence agencies, and the election process.  As a former professional journalist and European correspondent I particularly dislike his attacks on the press and freedom of speech.  He has called the press the “enemy of the people, “he makes endless references to “fake news” when it does not praise him or support his positions, he has threatened to ease libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations,  he has insulted journalists and refused them access to press conferences and rallies.

So it becomes hard to respect the office when the person holding that office disparages institutions and traditions I, and I believe most Americans, hold dear.  In other words, Trump is tarnishing the office he holds.

There is a marked difference between the image of the office and the actual conduct of the person holding it.  My idea of the presidential image is one of dignity, decorum, high standards, honesty, judgment and integrity.  In my opinion, Donald Trump does not live up to any those standards.

Trump supporters also complain that he is being unjustly and more viscously attacked than other presidents.  I do not agree with that.  I am not going to catalogue the attacks, often racially motivated and explicit, launched against Obama; they are easily documented.  Opponents attacking a president has existed since George Washington, but admittedly today we have sunk to a level of virulent attack that seems to have made our governmental process uncivil if not unworkable.

In conclusion, I believe the intense attacks on Trump are a result of his behavior and performance—tweets, personal attacks on his own staff, profanity, incessant bragging, insults, etc.—not  any disrespect for the office itself.

SEND IN THE CLOWN!

Scaramouche was a 1952 movie. Here is the plot

When the wicked Marquis de Maynes (Mel Ferrer) kills Andre Moreau's (Stewart Granger) best friend in a sword fighting duel and steals his love, Aline (Janet Leigh), the Frenchman vows revenge. While hiding out with a theatrical troupe and posing as the clown Scaramouche, Moreau works with the Marquis' very own fencing instructor to hone his skill with the sword. Once he feels he's up to task, he returns to the city to claim his revenge and win back Aline.

Note the similarity to the appointment of Anthony Scaramucci as Trump’s new communications director. He has joined the theatrical group known as the Trump administration and is playing a clown.

Perhaps you did not know that Scaramucccia was a stock character in the Italian Commedia dell’Arte. We now have a new interpretation in La Commedia del Trump
From Wikipedia:
Scaramuccia (literally "little skirmisher"), also known as Scaramouche or Scaramouch, is a stock clown character of the Italian commedia dell'arte. The role combined characteristics of the zanni (servant) and the Capitano (masked henchman). Usually attired in black Spanish dress and burlesquing a don, he was often beaten by Harlequin for his boasting and cowardice.
Scaramouche entertains the audience by his "grimaces and affected language". Scaramouche is sly, adroit, supple, and conceited. Scaramouche can be clever or stupid—as the actor sees fit to portray him.

The Observation Deck: The Republicans’ idea of “colorful language”

Trump’s new communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, has coined another creative entry for the Republican-speak lexicon. Now, Republicans are free to use the most disgusting vulgarities and brush it off as “colorful language.” You will recall that Republicans invented “alternate facts” to justify their lies and, of course, when Trump bragged about “grabbing pussy” that was excused as “locker room talk.”

Let’s put aside politics for a moment. I find Scaramucci’s “colorful language,” Kelly Ann Conway’s “alternate facts” and Republicans’ excusing Trump’s macho braggadocio as “locker room talk” unacceptable. You can scoff and say I am an old fuddy-duddy and that I was brought up in an era with a different perspective on acceptable behavior. Yes, I was. Believe it or not, in my generation, high school boys did not swear (you know, use “bad” words) in front of girls. Yes, I know it sounds quaint, but it’s true.

I am perfectly aware all that has changed. Have any of you followed teenagers’ twitter accounts? I have followed my granddaughter’s Twitter account through her teenage years and was thoroughly appalled by the vulgarities and disgustingly foul language which is common practice in hers and her friends’ Tweets--both boys and girls. So Trump’s campaign references to opponents as “mother fuckers” and declaring he would “bomb the shit” out of enemies among his other disgusting language usage has evidently become acceptable today.

This is not a partisan thing. I can assure you that if Hillary Clinton had used the same language and appointed officials who spoke like Scaramucci I would feel exactly the same way. There are still many of us who believe the President of the United States should conduct himself with dignity and set an example of class and decorum. Obviously, our current president doesn’t think that way. Instead, he and some of his appointed officials have chosen to behave like immature, foul-mouthed teenagers.