There is a tremendous tradition in American politics called the orderly transition of power following presidential elections.
It has been ongoing for well over 200 years and the inauguration of an incoming president has been accepted as one of those times that politicians should put aside partisan politics in order to express unity of purpose for their country.
That is, until this year when a crowd of Democratic House and Senate members decided to show their displeasure at the results of the Nov. 8 election by boycotting the January 20 inaugural.
It is simple to point out that Republicans were utterly dismayed in 2009 and 2013 by the victories of President Barack Obama. They deplored his socialism, his lack of a cohesive economic development plan and his already noticeable tendency to apologize for American ‘misbehaviour’ around the world. But unlike today’s wimpy, poor-sport Democrats, they never wavered in their support of the tradition of the inaugural as a place to set aside partisan politics and without exception, they attended both Inaugural ceremonies.
If President Obama was a true statesman, he would have addressed those Democrats and told them that while he understands their unhappiness and displeasure regarding the incoming President, the traditions of American history are important and they should have set aside those differences and attended the inaugural for the sake of the country itself.
However, I believe that is wishful thinking as President Obama has been the chief exemplar of truly partisan politics during both his terms.
That is one of the true reasons why his party is suffering so dramatically in the House, the Senate, state governorships and state legislatures — all of which have been handed over to the Republican Party.
Leonard M. Melman
Nanoose Bay