Not Against = For?

So I was at my place of occupation one night, bantering on about all the things we employees banter on about in the back room when there aren't any customers in the store, when the topic of (eerie minor chord!) politics arose. There seemed to be a strong liberal presence, owing to the strong personality of one employee and the easily cowed nature of the other employees whom I suspect are more right-ward than center. I entered the fray, describing myself as neither Republican nor Democrat, only to encounter attacks on the President. Something about George W. Bush being the worst President the country's ever had. (Sound Familiar?) Anyway, I jumped to the man's defense and was immediately warned to be careful, because "[I was] starting to sound less and less like a moderate." I heard some customers come in, so the conversation was dropped for the day, but a question remained in my mind: Is a refusal to attack the President, or a refusal to agree with attacks on the President, an implicit support for everything the President has ever done?

I suppose what I'm getting at is this idea that seems to be rampant nowaday that it's all or nothing. You either have to love the President and everything he's ever done, or think he's the worst President of all time and stupid to boot.* This is not moderation, and I don't use that term politically in this context. You can buy into very few things in this life lock, stock, and barrel. You can condemn out of hand even fewer things. This principle holds for all areas of life, and that includes politics. I do not at all agree with everything George W. Bush has done or believes (the illegal aliens coming across our borders in droves make that assured). However, I do not think that personally attacking the man who currently holds the office of President of the United States of America for disagreeing with him is appropriate or acceptable, and certainly not for inane reasons like "He's dumb. Can't you hear his accent?" Attack (with your own supporting points) his positions or policies all you want, but don't touch the man himself.

*(Oh, and since when did ad hominem attacks on the President's intelligence qualify for a debate point? "And you should also believe my point of view because the President is dumb. Dumb dumb dumb big oil lalalala I can't hear yoooooou!" The irony of it is that calling somebody stupid as a central argument is... well... stupid.)

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is not just because he's the President, it's a courtesy we should all extend to anyone we find ourselves debating. If they're a human being, do yourself a favor and keep yourself from looking like a grade-A git: don't attack the person, attack their argument. This is grade school knowledge here, people. You would think those who consider themselves leaders would have a grasp of this.

So in the midst of this "all or nothing" rhetoric that's coming out of pretty much every side these days, make sure to keep asking yourself: Is a man defined by what he denies or what he supports? Can you peg someone down absolutely, or will there always be grey area?

Think about it.