Can you protest against your leaders and the actions of your government while still being both patriotic and respectful? My knee-jerk response is, "of course." Both freedom of speech and the right to protest the government are distinctly American values, each mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. In some sense, then, protesting is itself patriotic. With regard to being respectful, it's certainly possible to debate controversial issues without resorting to insult and degradation. I've seen examples of such respectful debate in Brandeis' classrooms and lecture halls.

That said, why am I even asking the question? I ask because, although I believe in respectful and patriotic protest as a possibility and even as a virtue, recent reports about protestors during President Bush's recent inauguration leave me wondering why so many seem unable or just unwilling to do it this way.

The day after the inauguration, the Associated Press reported a protestor from Oakland, Calif. wearing a T-shirt with a picture of the president accompanied by the caption "International Terrorist." The article recorded other slogans such as "Not Our President" and "Hail to the Thief."
Pardon my naavet, but I was taught to debate without name-calling and personal insults. Calling the president of the United States an international terrorist is neither respectful nor patriotic. Frankly, it's rude and immature. Throwing around the word "terrorist" so carelessly weakens its meaning. There are actual terrorists blowing up buses and flying airplanes into buildings. Equating that with American foreign policy is as offensive as it is false.

I have trouble understanding why common courtesy is thrown out the window in the name of protest. It's one thing to attack the government and its policies; it 's quite another to launch an ad hominem attack against the man elected by a popular majority to lead. And what does "not our president" mean? If the implication is that the American democracy is only legitimate when it puts in power those who agree with us, then it's quite unpatriotic.

According to the Chicago Tribune, "Protesters converged on the capital seeking to persuade Bush that '51 percent is not a mandate.' "The accompanying photo showed activists holding up a banner that labeled Bush as a war criminal. To be honest, I don't even understand the slogan. Isn't 51 percent a majority? It seems like the group just ran out of slogans.

If you believe that Bush is a war criminal shouldn't you be protesting at the United Nations instead of the White House? But protesting at all wouldn't make very much sense as there is no evidence of any war crimes.

An article on a Web site called newstandardnews.net mentioned a protestor who questioned the president's faith in Christianity! Carrying a sign that read "Bush is to Christianity what bin Laden is to Islam," the protestor said that he attended church regularly but now feels uncomfortable because he believes that the right wing has used his religion as a "vehicle of war."

That's just pathetic. It's also not accurate in the slightest. I have yet to hear Bush invoke God or Christianity in waging his supposed crusade against Islam. If you have a problem with Bush as an openly religious Christian, then say so. Wave a sign that says "No religion in Washington" if that's what you believe. But don't compare the president to a mass-murdering terrorist. It's disrespectful to Christians and Muslims alike.

Clearly, the protestors are upset about war and it's a fair claim. I don't mean to imply that the administration is doing a good job. That's another subject entirely. As I said, I support protest because it protects the democracy I live in. But just because it can be respectful and patriotic doesn't mean that it always is. Think about what your signs say.