Um, dude, the President is not bowing, he's leaning over to recieve a medal.
Try looking at what you're looking at.
As to John Adams, well, the non-bowing tradition hadn't been established yet, so I forgive him.
alchemytoday
· 8 months ago
When was the non-bowing tradition established? It's really hilarious that "conservatives" are convinced that empty gestures like this are something to be concerned about. It's not at all different from their various complaints about the left's, well, kowtowing to political correctness.
steve h
· 8 months ago
Your example of Adams' deference to King George III is specious. Adams was on a diplomatic mission as a minister; today he might be called an envoy or ambassador. This is entirely different than the president presenting himself as a subject of the foreign king, as did Obama with his gesture.
alchemytoday
· 8 months ago
First, Obama didn't "present himself as a subject" of anybody. Second, look at the post I was responding to -- "Americans don't bow to anybody" -- there's nothing specious about my example. Adams wasn't a subject of Britain, either. Perhaps Obama violated some State Dept protocol; who cares? He's not sacrificing American sovereignty, though, and the newly discovered concern for American attitudes towards the Saudis are hilarious. I don't recall much of a peep in January 2008 when Bush promised billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia in exchange for vague assurances of looking the other way if we attacked Iran, and an opportunity to beg for increased oil exports. Somewhat more substantive than bowing.
scooby509
· 8 months ago
Oh, please. In 1785 the balance of power was one republic clinging to life vs. every major power ruled by a king or queen. Through a great deal of American blood, we have made royalty obsolete, and it dishonors the memory of the fallen to forget what they fought for. The question isn't whether 44 screwed up, but why.
This and other gaffes (like that idiotic reset button) are really symptomatic of the larger incoherence of the administration's foreign policy. Even the fact that he's essentially just repeating 43's pandering shows it: 44 wants to break with 43's foreign policy, but is so uninterested in devising his own coherent policy that he goes to unprecedented (and unpresidential) lengths to deride 43's policies while essentially leaving them unchanged!
And the result of this incoherence is that our allies are losing confidence in us and our enemies are drawing up plans. 44 seriously needs to pull his head out of his ass because there are bigger problems in the world than a recession.
Rocks
· 8 months ago
I don't really get the relevance here. The point was Presidents don't bow. Bush is clearly not bowing but receiving a medal and John Adams was Ambassador at the time. Who ever said the Ambassador shouldn't bow? Not only should he bow it is part of his job. He should do it to any head of state, not just royalty.
alchemytoday
· 8 months ago
Um, I was responding to, "Didn’t anyone tell President Obama that Americans don’t bow down to anyone?"
Now, if you're complaining that Obama breached diplomatic protocol. That's fine. It's somewhat different to think that, as many have, Obama is somehow hinting at future deference to a major figure in Islam (particularly, many have said this is more evidence that he's a secret Muslim).
I don't think that bowing is part of an Ambassador's job, by the way. He's not a subject, and, beyond that, it's not required to subject yourself to *all* local customs.
@Ben I agree that the reset button thing was one of the stupidest bits of diplomacy ever conceived. It blows my mind that someone employed by Clinton/Obama came up with that idea, and that it was given the green light at several other points without someone saying something about the obvious reference there.
BS
· 8 months ago
your link on Bush bowing, kissing, and receiving a medal from King Abdullah doesn't work
alchemytoday
· 8 months ago
CNN probably took down the video when they saw people checking it out... was part of a stock video ordering site that they have that I figured out how to directly link to.
Edit: Link still works for me, but wouldn't be surprised if it goes down.
There seems to be a lot of baseless conjecture on this topic. I appreciate your comments, but the protocol that applies to the President is different than that which applies to U.S. diplomatic personnel and ordinary American citizens.
The President is the head of state of a Republic, and therefore does not offer deferential courtesies to monarchs and other foreign government officers which are not reciprocated. Bowing would be appropriate if the foreign head of state (or ambassador) does likewise, as for example, the Japanese do. Cheek kissing is likewise appropriate if reciprocated, as the French and Russians do. Under no circumstances would it be appropriate for the President to render the "three reverences" to a monarch (or a foreign head of state) as portrayed in the John Adams miniseries. In the show, Adams was the ambassador to the court of King George III following the Revolution, and would not be elected President for another 11 years.
The basic principal of the governing protocol is that the U.S. President, as the head of state, deals with monarchs and other foreign heads of state as equals, not as a subject or supplicant.
alchemytoday
· 5 months ago
"Didn’t anyone tell President Obama that Americans don’t bow down to anyone?"
And besides, it's ridiculous. Bush did the same thing. Obama just did the same thing again on his Middle East trip, I believe. Adams' decision to carry out the three reverences was a decision to submit himself to the ceremony of a monarch that he'd engaged in bloody rebellion against (with a lot of internal conflict), and Presidents since then have engaged in the meaningless ceremony that satisfies monarchs since the beginning, cf participation in military parades (memorably, sword dances in Bush's case) that only serve to appease a monarch with a display of power.
As for the Japan example, people huffed and puffed when Clinton bowed to the Emperor of Japan. Don't kid yourself that the response would've been any different had Obama bowed to the monarch of a country in which bowing is a common gesture.
It's incredibly petty to imagine that bowing to someone objectively takes away any real leverage we might have with them.
orwellsghost
· 1 month ago
Number 1. John Adams WAS NOT the President at the time, he was an Ambassador.
Number 2, he did not give the deep bowing required by the Kings subjects, he did 3 half assed bows and said he could not bring himself to bow any deeper.
So there you have it. John Adams did not feel comfortable bowing to the King and only did his impromptu bowing because he was an Ambassador, if we were President at the time I GUARANTEE you he would not have bowed.
All Comments
Try looking at what you're looking at.
As to John Adams, well, the non-bowing tradition hadn't been established yet, so I forgive him.
This and other gaffes (like that idiotic reset button) are really symptomatic of the larger incoherence of the administration's foreign policy. Even the fact that he's essentially just repeating 43's pandering shows it: 44 wants to break with 43's foreign policy, but is so uninterested in devising his own coherent policy that he goes to unprecedented (and unpresidential) lengths to deride 43's policies while essentially leaving them unchanged!
And the result of this incoherence is that our allies are losing confidence in us and our enemies are drawing up plans. 44 seriously needs to pull his head out of his ass because there are bigger problems in the world than a recession.
Now, if you're complaining that Obama breached diplomatic protocol. That's fine. It's somewhat different to think that, as many have, Obama is somehow hinting at future deference to a major figure in Islam (particularly, many have said this is more evidence that he's a secret Muslim).
I don't think that bowing is part of an Ambassador's job, by the way. He's not a subject, and, beyond that, it's not required to subject yourself to *all* local customs.
@Ben I agree that the reset button thing was one of the stupidest bits of diplomacy ever conceived. It blows my mind that someone employed by Clinton/Obama came up with that idea, and that it was given the green light at several other points without someone saying something about the obvious reference there.
Edit: Link still works for me, but wouldn't be surprised if it goes down.
The President is the head of state of a Republic, and therefore does not offer deferential courtesies to monarchs and other foreign government officers which are not reciprocated. Bowing would be appropriate if the foreign head of state (or ambassador) does likewise, as for example, the Japanese do. Cheek kissing is likewise appropriate if reciprocated, as the French and Russians do. Under no circumstances would it be appropriate for the President to render the "three reverences" to a monarch (or a foreign head of state) as portrayed in the John Adams miniseries. In the show, Adams was the ambassador to the court of King George III following the Revolution, and would not be elected President for another 11 years.
The basic principal of the governing protocol is that the U.S. President, as the head of state, deals with monarchs and other foreign heads of state as equals, not as a subject or supplicant.
And besides, it's ridiculous. Bush did the same thing. Obama just did the same thing again on his Middle East trip, I believe. Adams' decision to carry out the three reverences was a decision to submit himself to the ceremony of a monarch that he'd engaged in bloody rebellion against (with a lot of internal conflict), and Presidents since then have engaged in the meaningless ceremony that satisfies monarchs since the beginning, cf participation in military parades (memorably, sword dances in Bush's case) that only serve to appease a monarch with a display of power.
As for the Japan example, people huffed and puffed when Clinton bowed to the Emperor of Japan. Don't kid yourself that the response would've been any different had Obama bowed to the monarch of a country in which bowing is a common gesture.
It's incredibly petty to imagine that bowing to someone objectively takes away any real leverage we might have with them.
Number 2, he did not give the deep bowing required by the Kings subjects, he did 3 half assed bows and said he could not bring himself to bow any deeper.
So there you have it.
John Adams did not feel comfortable bowing to the King and only did his impromptu bowing because he was an Ambassador, if we were President at the time I GUARANTEE you he would not have bowed.