We have the right to call the president names. Should we?

(Page 2 of 2)
Jimmy Carter, an obscure Georgia politician who served as a Navy commander and was a disciple of Adm. Hyman Rickover, wasn’t exactly a ball of fire. His inner circle had more than its share of ethical issues, and one of his cronies went to jail. Good or bad, to me he was the president, and I referred to him respectfully by that title.

A lot of Democrats I know didn’t like Ronald Reagan. To me he was a successful movie actor who ventured into politics, and I always referred to him as the president — even after he got himself into a lot of trouble over the Iran-Contra affair.

George W. Bush got us into two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many people didn’t think he had the credentials to sit in the White House, and that he took orders from Vice President Dick Cheney, but to me, good or bad, he was the president.

Eight years earlier, however, when Bill Clinton became president, the tone of the opposition became markedly nastier. Obviously his impeachment didn’t endear him to the nation. But it was then, for the first time, that I heard opponents refer to the commander in chief in the most derogatory terms. Even now, years after Clinton left Washington, the far right calls him names that shouldn’t be spoken in public.

During the past five years, the vocal haters have turned their fury on the current president, calling him a “traitor,” “an angry black man” and a few other terms not fit for use in this or any other column. You may not like Obama, and you are lucky to have that privilege. But those who stoop so low in their meanness are not worthy of being a part of this great democracy. Free speech doesn’t mean free slander.

Jerry Kremer was a state assemblyman for 23 years, and chaired the Assembly’s Ways and Means Committee for 12 years. He now heads Empire Government Strategies, a business development and legislative strategy firm. Comments about this column? JKremer@liherald.com.

Page 2 / 2