Back to the subject at hand: Though I’ve been critical of Clinton, I have no problem with BYU giving them an honorary degree. He was, after all, the President. I agree that it’s unlikely that BYU would give him one, and I recognize that if I’m right then there’s a double standard. But most other colleges would be as loath to give Cheney an honorary degree as BYU is Clinton. Big deal. It seems like the issue isn’t so much that BYU has a double standard, but that it has a different double standard.

ARJ, sure respect can be lost. Until very recently, I worked for a small company. So there was this guy who signed my paycheck. That engenders a certain amount of respect on my part. If he had lost his company do to incompetence of malfeasance or even just bad luck, he’d lose that respect. But he sold it, so that he transfered that responsibility to someone else, the situation becomes more complicated. My point is that it’s the platitude “respect is given, not earned” is useless, and that there is a certain amount of respect that goes along with being president. That doesn’t mean that everyone is required recognize it, but it does mean that it’s appropriate for people to honor presidents in certain contexts simply by virtue of their title.

And sure, there are situations where one could imagine that an American president would be a disgrace. Bertrand Russell argued that Kennedy’s and Johnson’s involvement in Vietnam was criminal, and (in some sense) history has proven him right. Big deal. Both of them were still a far, far cry from being a blot on our national history. And Bush’s missteps, even assuming the worst, are a farther cry still. There are fully democratic republics in the world where parties representing communism and fascism command a significant fraction of the vote — these are rabid anti-semites and apologists for the Soviets. Nobody but a spoiled, narrow minded American fool could think that our elected leaders approached this level of indecency.

jjohnson, that kind of argument is demonstrative of what’s known as the slippery slope fallacy. But if you’ll refer to the final sentence of my 3rd paragraph (addressed to ARJ), you’ll see that you’re mistaken to suppose that you’re required to show any respect at all to elected officials. But it is stupid to protest that other people do.

Also, where does the respect end? Do I automatically have to respect Supreme Court Justices? How about Senators? Oh, please tell me I don’t have to respect junior Senators, they’re barely more important than I am. Mayors? What offices exactly does someone have to be elected to before I should respect them no matter what they’ve done?

When is it appropriate to fume over a President or other public official?

Fine. Can respect be lost?

That’s just a meaningless platitude. No serious analysis of leadership claims that respect is (or even should be) earned. Respect comes for a multiplicity of reasons, almost none of which resolve simply to earning or giving.

In any case, you’re not alone in asserting this meaningless platitude. It’s also what Republican’s protested when I told them how stupid their hyper-aversion to President Clinton was. The only purpose your platitude serves is to provide a mindless justification for your mindless hatred of those who irritate your delicate political sensibilities.

The bottom line is that you can’t claim to be all grown up and have “standards” and then vilify your political opponents just because you attach one of societies latest moral hula hoop to them and claim that it’s a moral issue. It’s childish and moronic, and we must lose no opportunity to say so. Again, this is something I’ve told Republican’s who fume over Clinton, and it’s what I tell Democrats who fume of Cheney.

You make my point exactly. I am not defending the decision to invite Cheney (not that there is anything wrong with it). But that people protesting Cheney do so because he offends their politics.

So much is made of BYU students being sheltered from ideas, why shouldn’t the BYU democrats and assorted moonbats have their kooky misinformation challenged?

P.S.

Anyone but Jimmy Carter, who we have to all admit is THE worst president of all time and an anti-Semite. That would hurt my feelings.

You seem to be fine that a polarizing figure is speaking at BYU, because he fits into your political agenda. I voted for the guy and I don’t think he should be honored. Would you feel the same way about honoring the VP at BYU if he didn’t fit in your political agenda?