Yes

by Francis Jock

Created on: September 07, 2007   Last Updated: March 03, 2010

Speaking out against the policies and actions of a current president by a former president, regardless of political party, should not only be considered right and ethical, it should also be considered an obligation if those actions are clearly not in the best interest of the security, economic well-being and sovereignty of the nation.

We are now living in the most dangerous times imaginable. This is an era of uncertainty, marked by treacherous foreign leaders with uncertain ambitions, and the potential for unimaginable world-wide destruction without notice on the whim of these same megalomaniacs. The many webs of intrigue are entangling our nation over such issues as collapsing natural resources, global warming, international trade, border disputes, genocide, religious racialism and slavery. Admittedly, these are pretty depressing thoughts and may raise objections from some, but they exist nevertheless.

For the purpose of this article, the focus is on the role of the President of the United States. It is important and imperative to note, however, that no President governs the Nation alone. He (or she) each have their own self-appointed and approved Cabinet of advisers as well as their party strategists and an inner-circle composed of trusted friends championing compatible interests, and of course, family.

There are many factors that have given rise to this dooms-day conjunction of global stress. Most are global in scale and beyond the ability of the individual to have any corrective impact on. Many are due to the societal and economic interests that we share in common. Many are due to the ebb and flow of ideologies, social activism, and religious fanaticism that arise when there is unresolved oppression of one group or another. It is the role and responsibility of the world's leaders to address these issues in the interest of the common good and their particular national interest.

The actions taken in the past by previous Presidents have brought the United States into war and to the moon. They have cumulated in greater freedom, such as the civil rights movement, and less freedom at the same time, such as the contentious Patriot Act. They have created great economic progress resulting in greater prosperity for some at the expense of others. They have negotiated treaties and agreements which favor one country's economy, sell the rationale for the treaty to the public, and then struggle for a decade or so until the negative fallout from the agreement is compensated for.

A previous President is likely to privately disagree with the actions of a sitting President on occasion. Previous Presidents, as private, intelligent, and responsible citizens, will naturally do so. Since they are mostly out of the public eye, they generally do not become involved in public debate over whether or not a particular decision or action being taken is right, wrong, or indifferent. In fact, they may be likely to refuse to enter into the fray of the discussion and suffer the resulting media attention and doubtless political criticism. But if they choose to do so, they do so knowing the risks and the potential repercussions of their actions.

There can be no question as to whether or not a sitting President should be criticized. Intelligent criticism is the life-blood of the media and the native energy that drives the political machinery of this great Nation. Any former President's opinion should be welcome and regarded appropriately as the opinion of a former statesman with experience, connections, and a respectful regard for the best interests of other citizens.

As Documentary Film-Maker Michael Moore illustrated in Fahrenheit 9/11, the global scale of political, social, religious, and economic intrigue has brought our Nation to the brink of sacrificing our sovereignty for the interests of foreign oil-rich governments. The Founding Fathers, and even our presidents of a few decades ago, would have been appalled with the abandonment of our founding principles for the accumulation of wealth and power for a few.

The opinion and criticism from the citizen from among us that has been elected to the greatest, most powerful leadership position in the world should be carefully considered, weighed, and given the credence it deserves. In any case, it should be welcomed into the dialog without debate over whether or not it is appropriate. If anything, the failure to provide the opinion may be a disservice to the Nation to not do so when circumstances indicate that present actions are not serving the best interests of American people.

Learn more about this author, Francis Jock.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.