Thank you for the reply & discussion. I guess I’m using the term respect more generally to mean an understanding and appreciation of the history and power of the office, and more broadly what that has meant not only for American citizens but those around the world. This is why I said it is the president himself who owes the office more respect than anyone else — following in the footsteps of only a small number of men who have been there should be a somewhat humbling experience IMO. Clearly that hasn’t always been the case, and with question the current (illicit) occupier has none whatsoever.
Perhaps I’m misapplying the term “respect.” Can one support the troops but not the mission? Would that be a comparable phrase?
Fixed.
Workerbee, I apologize for the delayed response. I do think that the word “respect” is out of place used to describe an office. There are many other terms that can be used. As you wisely indicated, terms such as “powerful,” “old,” “historical” or even references to the deeds of prior occupants can apply. But the reason that we hear the term “respect” applied to the office, especially now that the current occupant is losing popularity, is because there’s an implicit assumption that the office transfers respect to Obama. People who tell us to respect the office really demand that we respect Obama by virtue of his holding the office. I reject that and that’s why I began questioning the entire premise that we must respect an office, any office. It’s mostly an unexamined assumption, and if people stop to think about it, many will agree.