question re: attitudes towards the office of president (not political)

[SparklyUnicorn]

I was watching some youtube videos where a guy showed some of the earliest personal recording devices (1940s and earlier).  He showed various printed advertisements for the products.  Some mentioned how great it is you can record your baby's first words or a speech given by the president.  I thought...why on earth would I want to record a speech from the president?  Blech... LOL  And that is not meant as a comment towards any particular president we have ever had.  I just don't think the president is that much of a big deal.  It's a job like other jobs to me.  But I'm curious as to what other people think about this.  And do you think that maybe many years ago people were more excited about, or in awe of, the office of president than they are now?  Or are they still excited, and I'm just not noticing it?  Or does this vary from place to place?

 

 

[Anacharsis]

People who are politically invested in a candidate for president often remain invested in them after they are elected.

​When recording was new, president's speeches were less bland -- speechwriters were more concerned about the speech as a whole than about the risk of sound-bytes being taken out-of-context, which leads to a less bland, more coherent speech style.

 

For instance, FDR talking about economic conditions in 1934:

 

http://web2.millercenter.org/speeches/audio/spe_1934_0930_roosevelt.mp3​

Edited July 4, 2016 by Anacharsis

[poppy]

FDR is who they are talking about , no question, since he was president 1933-1945.  He got the country out of the depression and into, and through, WWII. He was a great speaker.  People adored him. He had four terms in office- the only person to have more than two.  He only stopped because he fell ill.  His wife had a daily newspaper column published throughout his term and was wildly popular too.

 

So I don't think this is about the office of the presidency so much as about one particularly "celebrity" President.

[Guest]

Back then they didn't have TV (in majority of population), you just had live radio and papers. There wasn't as much communication- we're innundated 24/7, so I wonder if that might have been more important back then- you took what you could get. My grandmother saved special newspapers and things. How many people do you know that even take a physical paper anymore? I'm going with the rarity of such things and being able to access them after the fact, it was just a more sentimental time. And maybe there weren't press conferences every 2 minutes back then either??

Edited July 5, 2016 by texasmom33

[Farrar]

Since the context is FDR... he was such a huge figure at the time. Not that there weren't people who opposed him and certainly many of the things he did remain controversial to this day... but at the time, he was a beacon of hope for many Americans. People listened to what he had to say. He led in part by changing attitudes at the time.

 

I think in general that what the president has to say is pretty important whether I like who it is or not, the president sets the tone for debate and has a huge amount of influence. What he says is important.

[SparklyUnicorn]

As I was reading your post, I was thinking "a day which will live in infamy" and similar speeches after historic events.  IOW, to me, the idea of recording a speech from the president isn't necessarily about the PRESIDENT as it is, the event that is so historic that the president has to speak.  Pearl Harbor, the moon landing, 9/11, and others, those are historic events than I can imagine wanting to have recordings of the presidents thoughts on.

 

My grandfather was in the army at the end of WW2.  He was actually on the naval ship where the Japanese signed the treaty.  When he passed away, my parents received a huge book full of pictures from the signing of the treaty that ended WW2.  (for the record, he was actually on the ship as guard for the Japanese officials-IOW, he was keeping the naval soldiers who lost friends/loved ones at Pearl Harbor from shooting anyone.)  I LOVE these pics, and I hope, that when my father passes (many many many many years in the future) that I receive those images.  They are just a piece of history that I would love to have. 

 

That makes sense.  And today it wouldn't be as necessary because there would be so many ways to get a recording without having to bother to record it yourself. 

[Anacharsis]

That makes sense.  And today it wouldn't be as necessary because there would be so many ways to get a recording without having to bother to record it yourself. 

 

I think it depends. By recording it yourself, you get to decide what is important; sometimes the important part may end up being different than what everyone expected.

 

Maybe as an example, many old TV commercials have never received a formal release -- the way they ended up on YouTube was from people recording programs themselves on VHS and including the commercials.

 

Or with radio, many old radio shows have never received formal releases -- they were not seen as worth preserving, or the originals were lost. It was only due to home recordists that we still have them.

 

The reason the Internet Archive was founded was similar -- people would remember an old website they had visited, go to re-visit it, and find it gone; often gone forever unless they had had the foresight to save a personal copy.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Anacharsis

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think it depends. By recording it yourself, you get to decide what is important; sometimes the important part may end up being different than what everyone expected.

 

Maybe as an example, many old TV commercials have never received a formal release -- the way they ended up on YouTube was from people recording programs themselves on VHS and including the commercials.

 

Or with radio, many old radio shows have never received formal releases -- they were not seen as worth preserving, or the originals were lost. It was only due to home recordists that we still have them.

 

The reason the Internet Archive was founded was similar -- people would remember an old website they had visited, go to re-visit it, and find it gone; often gone forever unless they had had the foresight to save a personal copy.

 

Well, not on the devices available at the time I'm talking.  They weren't that good and insanely expensive.  I just thought it was funny that it was used as a selling point.  That one could record the president speaking.  I doubt that would be much of a selling point these days.

[Seasider]

Both sets of my grandparents had 8x10 portraits of the president in their homes when I was small. Can't remember the last one for sure, but I do remember seeing FDR, JFK and LBJ. Eisenhower too, maybe?

 

(ETA I'm old but not THAT old -obviously there were some past presidents on display!)

 

My memory is foggy, but my point is that, at least in the eyes of my FOO, the office of president brought esteem to the man holding it.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Seasider

[poppy]

Did you know that a picture of Kim Jong Il is every house in North Korea---- must be hung, with no other decorations.  Couples get a gift of the picture from the government on their wedding day. 

 

 

My grandmothers both had pictures of JFK in their houses when I was a kid (20+ years after he died).  One of them had the Pope and JFK side-by-side. 

I wonder if some black families have pictures of Obama hanging, since he is a similar barrier-breaker?

 

HA! I just googled "picture of Obama on wall" and got..... pictures of Obama visiting famous walls. 

 

[Guest]

I think that back then it was relatively rare to hear the president's voice. Today, however, you can't turn on the tv or radio without not just hearing him but also seeing him. He's omnipresent. (LOL)

 

That said, there is a certain level of reverence associated with the office. When we visited the White House in 2013 we had the chance to meet face-to-face with the POTUS and First Lady. While I am very much opposed to pretty much all of his politics, I was still excited and honored to have been given the chance to shake his hand and meet him, because, no matter what, he's still the POTUS.

 

(Post-script: Our chance to meet-and-greet with the POTUS didn't pan out, thanks to the Secret Service agents being butt-heads.)

Edited July 5, 2016 by Kinsa

[vonfirmath]

Agreed. I have recorded some presidential speeches over the years. And I would be excited to meet the President -- even one that I may not have voted for. Because, once elected, the President becomes the President of the whole country. Not just those who voted for him.

 

[EmseB]

Did you know that a picture of Kim Jong Il is every house in North Korea---- must be hung, with no other decorations. Couples get a gift of the picture from the government on their wedding day.

 

 

My grandmothers both had pictures of JFK in their houses when I was a kid (20+ years after he died). One of them had the Pope and JFK side-by-side.

I wonder if some black families have pictures of Obama hanging, since he is a similar barrier-breaker?

 

HA! I just googled "picture of Obama on wall" and got..... pictures of Obama visiting famous walls.

We had friends who had the Obama campaign poster as a huge centerpiece of their living room wall for awhile. And I mean, big enough to take up the whole wall over their sofa. They are white, so I guess not exactly what you're talking about though.

[Lady Florida.]

I was watching some youtube videos where a guy showed some of the earliest personal recording devices (1940s and earlier).  He showed various printed advertisements for the products.  Some mentioned how great it is you can record your baby's first words or a speech given by the president.  I thought...why on earth would I want to record a speech from the president?  Blech... LOL  And that is not meant as a comment towards any particular president we have ever had.  I just don't think the president is that much of a big deal.  It's a job like other jobs to me.  But I'm curious as to what other people think about this.  And do you think that maybe many years ago people were more excited about, or in awe of, the office of president than they are now?  Or are they still excited, and I'm just not noticing it?  Or does this vary from place to place?

 

At the time recording technology was new. There was no way to know that the "day that will live in infmamy" speech would end up living in infamy.

 

Back then they didn't have TV (in majority of population), you just had live radio and papers. 

 

 

I think that back then it was relatively rare to hear the president's voice. Today, however, you can't turn on the tv or radio without not just hearing him but also seeing him. He's omnipresent. (LOL)

 

 

Yes, to the above. If you wanted to hear the president, or any famous person speak you had to be fortunate enough to live near where they would be speaking, and able to actually attend the event. Even when FDR started his fireside chats, people didn't realize that someday their children and grandchildren and further down the line descendants would actually be able to listen to him.

 

So, I think it was more about the technology than the attitude towards the office or the person in office. There were always people who didn't like the current president, there had even been assassinations and attempted assassinations up to that point, so presidents weren't universally beloved in the past.

[Caroline]

I think that back then it was relatively rare to hear the president's voice. Today, however, you can't turn on the tv or radio without not just hearing him but also seeing him. He's omnipresent. (LOL)

 

That said, there is a certain level of reverence associated with the office. When we visited the White House in 2013 we had the chance to meet face-to-face with the POTUS and First Lady. While I am very much opposed to pretty much all of his politics, I was still excited and honored to have been given the chance to shake his hand and meet him, because, no matter what, he's still the POTUS.

 

(Post-script: Our chance to meet-and-greet with the POTUS didn't pan out, thanks to the Secret Service agents being butt-heads.)

I agree with you. When we lived in Maryland, we went to inaugurations and to see presidents lying in state, it didn't matter if we voted for them or not. It didn't matter if we agreed with their politics or not. We went because they were president.

[poppy]

We had friends who had the Obama campaign poster as a huge centerpiece of their living room wall for awhile. And I mean, big enough to take up the whole wall over their sofa. They are white, so I guess not exactly what you're talking about though.

 

Or they are Shepard Fairey fans. That poster is incredible.

[Guest]

In the past, I have always had a sort of reverence for the office of President, even if the particular person/party was not my cup of tea. (Lol, that's kind of a pun!) I don't feel that way about any current candidates at present, though.

[umsami]

I'm still in awe of the office of the President.  I was was born around the time Nixon was in office and I was still taught to revere the office.  I hope my kids grow up respecting it.  I would be honored to meet any past or current President.  I find it telling that regardless of politics, you see a camaraderie among past Presidents.... probably because only those four or five other people truly understand what it means... the weight of the office, etc.

 

As for recordings and such, I love old speeches and things.   I do think, however, that many of our past "great" Presidents never ever would have been elected in the Internet/24 hour news cycle.  I wonder which potential wonderful leaders we've lost because of it.

[momee]

My in-laws are 90 and 86.  They `had~such respect for the office of the Presidency.  They have on multiple occasions remarked on how the office has been used for personal gain and is no longer a representation of the people for which one is to serve.  Men of integrity were proven, not with words but actions.

 

We are not on the same side of the fence politically but I can hear the disappointment in their voices when our discussions center on character and service.  I think it is quite telling of the populace on both sides of the voting fence!  Sad.

 

My kids' have no respect for the office - I think if you take a man's character and look at our past presidents in that light alone, why should they?

 

The children have also heard others say plain as day the only reason they voted for Obama was because he was black.  In their minds - color has nothing to do with a person's ability to lead.  I've taught them that.  Intentionally.  So to hear comments like that  - it takes alot to counteract the media and culture and remind them the office is one worthy of respect and men or women who attempt to fill it should be first and foremost about service.

Edited July 5, 2016 by momee

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that I have an obligation to respect the office, and pray for the person holding that office.  I don't think I'm alone in that.

 

Having said that, I don't hear the kind of inspiring, well crafted oratory that earlier days provided in political speeches.  Some memorable speeches are good because of their challenge or audacity.  "Tear down this wall!" or "A man on the moon in 10 years" are in that category.  Some are good because of the way they put things.  "Ich bin ein Berlinner" and "We will fight them on the beaches" are in that category.  I don't hear either of those categories much these days, and that's why I'm not all that excited by the ability to replay things.

 

Having said that, I still prefer primary sources, so when I'm following a presidential campaign, I try to listen to the actual speeches rather than the summaries in the news.  It was quite revealing to do that during the primary debates, particularly.

 

[poppy]

My in-laws are 90 and 86.  They `had~such respect for the office of the Presidency.  They have on multiple occasions remarked on how the office has been used for personal gain and is no longer a representation of the people for which one is to serve.  Men of integrity were proven, not with words but actions.

 

We are not on the same side of the fence politically but I can hear the disappointment in their voices when our discussions center on character and service.  I think it is quite telling of the populace on both sides of the voting fence!  Sad.

 

My kids' have no respect for the office - I think if you take a man's character and look at our past presidents in that light alone, why should they?

 

The children have also heard others say plain as day the only reason they voted for Obama was because he was black.  In their minds - color has nothing to do with a person's ability to lead.  I've taught them that.  Intentionally.  So to hear comments like that  - it takes alot to counteract the media and culture and remind them the office is one worthy of respect and men or women who attempt to fill it should be first and foremost about service.

 

You think every President should have military service?  That would rule out everyone since...... 1991? How could a woman ever be President?  This is so interesting to me. 

[Anne in CA]

I have been in the same room with several presidents, several times. They are not special people, they are ambitious people, lol. Some are more charismatic than others. Clinton is much more charismatic than say, any TV preacher or preacher I've ever heard. But he is still a person and I declined to meet him when he said he would meet the hotel staff. I knew it would be more interesting to watch from a distance, and I have a very funny story from that day. I once was at a convention where a Kennedy relative was and he had a ton of personal magnetism, it must be hereditary. He wasn't even famous.

 

 

[Guest]

You think every President should have military service? That would rule out everyone since...... 1991? How could a woman ever be President? This is so interesting to me.

I think that when someone steps into the position of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, yes, it helps that they know the difference between Marine Corps and Marine Corpse. Not mentioning any names. *rolling my eyes*

 

And many women have been in the armed forces. A woman could still be president and have prior service experience.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Kinsa

[EmseB]

You think every President should have military service? That would rule out everyone since...... 1991? How could a woman ever be President? This is so interesting to me.

Plenty of women have served in the military.

 

I don't agree with the requirement, but many women have served going back a long way.

[umsami]

I think that I have an obligation to respect the office, and pray for the person holding that office.  I don't think I'm alone in that.

 

Having said that, I don't hear the kind of inspiring, well crafted oratory that earlier days provided in political speeches.  Some memorable speeches are good because of their challenge or audacity.  "Tear down this wall!" or "A man on the moon in 10 years" are in that category.  Some are good because of the way they put things.  "Ich bin ein Berlinner" and "We will fight them on the beaches" are in that category.  I don't hear either of those categories much these days, and that's why I'm not all that excited by the ability to replay things.

 

Having said that, I still prefer primary sources, so when I'm following a presidential campaign, I try to listen to the actual speeches rather than the summaries in the news.  It was quite revealing to do that during the primary debates, particularly.

 

I have to disagree with that regarding Obama.  He is a gifted orator regardless of whatever political side one takes.  This article says he is the third greatest Presidential orator of the modern era after JFK and FDR.    (Reagan and Clinton round out the top five.)

 

Another article on his skill from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/12/obama-orator-in-chief-he-deserves-title-accolades-final-state-of-the-union-address

 

Do I think it's a requirement for the job?  Honestly, my initial thought was "no"...but then, I think of just what a difference a great orator, like FDR, like JFK, like Churchill....can make in inspiring people.  So I guess it's a definite nice-to-have.

 

If things like that interest you, American Rhetoric is a great site: Top 100 speeches of the 20th century.   I was actually surprised that they have a separate category for all of President Obama's speeches.  http://www.americanrhetoric.com/barackobamaspeeches.htm

[poppy]

Plenty of women have served in the military.

 

I don't agree with the requirement, but many women have served going back a long way.

Many but not nearly as many , and most not with the opportunity for distinguished valor like JFK , Bush Sr and some others are known for. Especially not older women like Warren and Clinton.

 

On the one hand , I think it would be marvelous if our best and brightest and most ambitious thought military service was a primary path to executive office.

 

The I think of FDR who was wheelchair bound.

 

I suppose clerking in the judicial branch or being in state senate / legislative branch should be paths as well....

[Mergath]

Plenty of women have served in the military.

 

I don't agree with the requirement, but many women have served going back a long way.

The requirement would certainly be a good way to disqualify anyone with a disability from running for president, which I think is a disgusting idea. Apparently not everyone has a problem with that, though.

[EmseB]

The requirement would certainly be a good way to disqualify anyone with a disability from running for president, which I think is a disgusting idea. Apparently not everyone has a problem with that, though.

I said I disagreed with the requirement.

 

It's just that being a woman in the military isn't a weird or rare thing at all and hasn't been for a looooong time. The idea that having a military requirement would preclude women from running (even older women - my 90+ year old grandma talks about how she almost joined up, but did factory riveting instead) in some way is just weird to me as I served with women all over the place, even forward deployed and this was many moons ago. Even some women who were recognized as outstanding servicemembers and got actual medals to pin on our chests. The idea that women would be less capable in this regard seems a bit backwards. Maybe I'm not gonna be a Navy SEAL or fighter pilot, but as a percentage of the population, very few MEN are capable of those jobs anyway. Many people work behind the tip of the spear" and get awards for meritorious service, including women.

 

But, no, for a whole host of reasons, I don't think it should be a requirement to be an elected official. Presumably that's why the president has the Joint Chiefs and such.

Edited July 5, 2016 by JodiSue

[Mergath]

I said I disagreed with the requirement.

 

It's just that being a woman in the military isn't a weird or rare thing at all and hasn't been for a looooong time. The idea that having a military requirement would preclude women from running (even older women - my 90+ year old grandma talks about how she almost joined up, but did factory riveting instead) in some way is just weird to me as I served with women all over the place, even forward deployed and this was many moons ago. Even some women who were recognized as outstanding servicemembers and got actual medals to pin on our chests. The idea that women would be less capable in this regard seems a bit backwards. Maybe I'm not gonna be a Navy SEAL or fighter pilot, but as a percentage of the population, very few MEN are capable of those jobs anyway. Many people work behind the tip of the spear" and get awards for meritorious service, including women.

 

But, no, for a whole host of reasons, I don't think it should be a requirement to be an elected official. Presumably that's why the president has the Joint Chiefs and such.

Sorry, I was just using your post as a jumping off point. I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with the requirement.

[momee]

I didn't mean military service.  I meant service to all citizens of the United States which they represent.  That the position was one of self sacrifice and one that required honor, integrity and character not seen lately.

Edited July 6, 2016 by momee

[Janeway]

It has nothing to do with a lack of respect or care for the president. But if my child laughs, that is MY child. I am the only mom. I love my child. I would be the only one taking a picture. My pictures are for my person use. If the president gives a speech, it is public record, everyone can see it, all over the world. Etc etc etc. why would I waste film or even digital space on that? The president is not personal to me. 40 years from now, I am not going to search my personal photo albums or home videos for a picture or video of the president.

[vonfirmath]

It has nothing to do with a lack of respect or care for the president. But if my child laughs, that is MY child. I am the only mom. I love my child. I would be the only one taking a picture. My pictures are for my person use. If the president gives a speech, it is public record, everyone can see it, all over the world. Etc etc etc. why would I waste film or even digital space on that? The president is not personal to me. 40 years from now, I am not going to search my personal photo albums or home videos for a picture or video of the president.

 

Ah. But I HAVE gone back to footage I recorded fifteen years ago to listen again.  And even to songs I recorded on the radio when I was a child. (so not 40 years yet. But getting closer)

 

I wish I still had the newspapers I saved (For years and years until we moved) after the Challenger accident so I could go back through them.

[poppy]

I didn't mean military service.  I meant service to all citizens of the United States which they represent.  That the position was one of self sacrifice and one that required honor, integrity and character not seen lately.

 

Ah.  Well, I think that's been said of every president ever.  Except maybe Washington.

[TechWife]

FDR is who they are talking about , no question, since he was president 1933-1945.  He got the country out of the depression and into, and through, WWII. He was a great speaker.  People adored him. He had four terms in office- the only person to have more than two.  He only stopped because he fell ill.  His wife had a daily newspaper column published throughout his term and was wildly popular too.

 

So I don't think this is about the office of the presidency so much as about one particularly "celebrity" President.

 

Roosevelt stopped because he died early in his fourth term, not because he fell ill. He was elected for four terms, but did not serve out his fourth term due to his death. 

[poppy]

Roosevelt stopped because he died early in his fourth term, not because he fell ill. He was elected for four terms, but did not serve out his fourth term due to his death. 

 

Well, he fell ill, then died.   His office said it was a sudden unexpected death, but he had been severely ill for a long time....extreme blood pressure, fatigue, congestive heart failure, plus sudden weight loss. It's believed he changed VPs for his 4th term because both he and his physicians did not expect him to survive the 4 years.