Moreover, such an unrestricted mandate should never be granted to a president. The president is a governmental representative and must serve as a spokesperson for the electorate. President Bush is the supreme representative of the American people both domestically and abroad, and nearly half of the American constituency is vehemently opposed to his policies. Unfortunately, Bush fails to comprehend his duty to the American people: He should represent both those who voted for him and those who voted against him.
The misconception of his duties creates an extremely precarious situation for those who are in ideological disagreement with him. When people are engaged in such fundamental opposition to the prevailing governmental structure, they have a duty to voice the opposing viewpoint in a constructive manner. While a primary mechanism to enact change is voting, this measure proved unsuccessful this past November. Nevertheless, the goals and ideas of the minority group have not changed, and alternative measures are being sought to achieve the desired results.
Protesting is an effective measure for voicing dissent. Bush did not receive a mandate from the American people, and it is important for large groups of people to collectively demonstrate to that effect. When people exhibit a cohesive front, they display the unity of their opposition. Nevertheless, protesting by itself is not the solution; it must be accompanied by other constructive efforts.
One alternative course of action is attempting to get bills passed in Congress. Currently, however, pursuing such an agenda is more difficult because of the Republican majority. However, the legislative process is vital to the integrity of the nation and should be wholeheartedly pursued. Because of the difficulty in attaining legislative goals, a protest becomes even more significant.
A protest is an empowering democratic practice for a minority group that feels that democracy is being compromised. The First Amendment grants individuals the right to protest, to physically employ the rights given to them. Protestors assemble in groups to make a solid showing of dissent and to assert the powers of democracy accorded to them. While protestors are usually conceived as radical left-wingers who clash with the police, most actually peacefully demonstrate.
One popular protest of the inauguration was called "Turn Your Back on Bush." Protestors lined the parade route to turn their backs as the President passed in his motorcade. Once the inauguration ceremony had concluded and the President headed down Pennsylvania Avenue for the traditional parade to the White House, instead of being greeted by smiling faces of well wishers, Bush was greeted by a wall of protestors' backs and collective jeering. It is quite a statement when hundreds of people stand outside in the frigid January temperatures of Washington, D.C. to turn their backs on the President. Even Bush could not have possibly failed to understand that these people do not support his presidency.
While a solitary individual's presence in a protest is negligible, the combined effect of a group presence fully exhibits the group's dissent. Although it is unlikely that Bush will alter his policy as a result of people turning their backs on him, the memories of his inauguration will always be marred by the presence of the protestors. Because of the prominence of the inauguration as the symbolic assumption to the presidency, the protestors' presence should cause Bush to consider how he, as the President, is dividing rather than unifying the nation.
When he made his acceptance speech, Bush attempted to address those who voted for Senator John Kerry by saying, "To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it." Well, Mr. President, as exhibited by the many individuals who turned their backs on you during your parade, if you even remotely meant what you said, you certainly have your work cut out for you.
Rothschild can be reached at jirothschild@amherst.edu