Since the inauguration of Donald Trump, several athletes and other public figures have spoken out against the new president. Meryl Streep gave a strong anti-Trump speech at the 2017 Golden Globes, the music group A Tribe Called Quest performed a political rendition of their song “We The People” at the 2017 Grammy awards, calling President Trump “President Agent Orange.” Additionally, several members of the New England Patriots are boycotting their traditional White House visit in protest of the president and his policies, according to the Washington Post website.
Many political affiliates of the right have strongly condemned these individuals, while an equal number of the left have condoned their protests. Many believe that these individuals should respect the office of the presidency and show respect and deference, while others say that criticism of those in power is wholly necessary for a modern democracy. The question then becomes, where is the line between criticism and disrespect?
Martellus Bennett, a Patriots tight end, is one of the several Super Bowl champions who will not be attending the traditional White House visit. Bennett has stated that he is skipping the visit because he “doesn’t support the guy in the house.” Bennett has been a vocal proponent of the Black Lives Matter movement, and recently criticized Kanye West for his support of President Trump. No matter your opinion, this kind of thing has happened before and is not a new Trump-era occurrence. Some would argue that skipping this visit can be interpreted as a sign of disrespect to the presidency, but I would argue that it is merely a form of acceptable protest, much more subtle than a televised speech or performance, such as those of Meryl Streep and A Tribe Called Quest. Of all six players, only a couple have made any public comment about why they are not attending, and none have really fleshed out their reasons for skipping the visit. Ultimately, I do not feel that a few sports figures sitting out a ceremonial visit drastically damages the prestige of the Executive Branch of the United States. This is merely a few football players exercising their right to protest in a moderate and decent manner.
The speech given by Meryl Streep and the performance by A Tribe Called Quest also fell well within the bounds of constructive, respectable criticism. They opened up a debate, started a conversation about the man who will lead this country for the next four years. While they were more incendiary than a few athletes skipping a glorified photo opportunity, both demonstrated a thought out and rational opinion which echoed the thoughts of millions of Americans.
Is it possible to cross the line of what is acceptable protest and criticism? Of course. Immediately following the inauguration, several Women’s Marches occurred throughout the country, involving millions of protesters across all fifty states. The vast majority of these peaceful protestors behaved admirably, and helped to spread their message in a meaningful way. A notable exception; however, was the speech given by performer Madonna. In an expletive-filled speech, the singer said, “Yes, I am angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House,” according to the website of The Atlantic magazine. That, in my opinion, is where the line is crossed. Madonna’s comments are not peaceful, lawful criticism, but threats of assassination and terrorist activity. Was she being serious? Probably not. Is that an excuse for her words, said to a crowd of thousands of people? Also, no. As soon as she advocated blowing up the symbol of our nation’s Executive Branch, joking or not, she shut down any and all opportunity for rational, serious debate. It can also be argued that her comments only served to hurt her cause, as many on the right have and will continue to use her comments to vilify all those who offer legitimate criticism of the president.
While the freedom to criticize and protest all aspects of our government forms the basis for our free democracy, there is certainly a line separating criticism from disrespectful and dangerous diatribes. In order to effectively communicate a disagreement or issue, this line must be realized, or the end result could serve to hurt your cause rather than foster a reasonable debate.