Loooong-time readers of this blog will be unsurprised that I agree with Charles Pierce about Tim Thomas’s right to refuse an invitation to the White House. Thomas’s politics aren’t mine. In fact I’ll go so far as to say they’re loopy. But it’s perfectly honorable to say “no thank you” to a White House invitation for political reasons. Especially when you do it with reasonable class.
I think I’d be softer on an invitation to a private function. One does perhaps have a duty to advise a president. But ceremonial functions are fair game for refusals as statements.
Roald Dahl, Aldous Huxley, JG Ballard, and lots of others have turned down an hono(u)r from the Crown.
Advertisement
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 26, 2012 at 8:21 am
politicalfootball
I think Pierce is correct that the “respect for office” argument shouldn’t be applied in Thomas’s case, but it also shouldn’t apply to Brewer.
Thomas and Brewer are repugnant for their beliefs, but not for their treatment of the president. If Obama really were a Kenya-born commie intent on destroying the country, instituting Sharia, and allowing cats and dogs to cohabitate, then one would hope that he would be vigorously opposed.
January 26, 2012 at 9:27 am
rea
Thomas of couse has the right to do whatever he wants in this situation, but he misunderstands what is going on when Obama invites him to the White House.
The US presidency combines the roles of head of government and head of state in one person. As head of government, Obama’s actions can properly be partisan. As head of state, Obama speaks for the whole country, and partisanship ought not to play a role in his actions.
In his capacity as head of state, Obama properly honors Americans who have accompished something outstanding–artists, authors, sicentics, musicians, and even athletes. It would be an abuse of his role as head of state if, for example, Obama only honored politically congenial people.
Obama offered to honor Thomas on behalf of the country, not on behalf of his adminstration. Thomas was confusing apples with oranges when he turned Obama down for political reasons.
January 26, 2012 at 9:35 am
eric
Well, that’s why I included the link to Britons who’ve declined honors. Do you think they’re confused? I don’t; the head of state and head of government there are different people in different institutions. I think some – probably most – of those Britons who’ve declined honors understand it’s nice, but spurious, to distinguish state from government.
January 26, 2012 at 9:45 am
Colin Danby
They’re distinct roles, but Thomas would be right in replying that they’re hardly separate — especially with something like “honoring” teams which is pretty much theater all the way around, no? It seems absolutely fine to say you don’t want to be part of somebody else’s spectacle.
I’m just old enough to remember this: http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2010/02/the-richard-nixon-ray-conniff-incident.html (the link has a bonus Nixon tape!)
January 26, 2012 at 11:20 am
silbey
So who should we appoint “Honor Giver/Official Person who represents the state”? Tim Tebow’s too young.
January 26, 2012 at 11:25 am
eric
Jesus.
January 26, 2012 at 11:40 am
Colin Danby
Zombie George Washington.
January 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Anderson
So who should we appoint “Honor Giver/Official Person who represents the state”?
Me. I need the money. And the generous pension that I hope will be created for the job.
January 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm
silbey
FDR: American Badass.
January 26, 2012 at 4:52 pm
sleepyirv
I consider turning down a knighthood much different than not showing up for a photo-op with the queen. With the former being a more complicated moral problem than the latter.
January 26, 2012 at 7:10 pm
JWL
Keith Richards was reportedly furious when Jagger accepted his medal and title from the queen. In the account I read, he only began to calm down after Charlie Watts pointed out to him that a lot of terrible people had accepted the award.
January 26, 2012 at 8:18 pm
eric
I consider turning down a knighthood much different than not showing up for a photo-op with the queen. With the former being a more complicated moral problem than the latter.
Could you maybe elaborate on that?
January 26, 2012 at 9:04 pm
poco
Don’t most knighthoods refer to the empire in some ways–so for all us anti-imperialists–easier to refuse that than a photo op.
January 27, 2012 at 3:29 am
Rachel
The lower honours in Britain specically refer to the Empire (CBE = Commander of the British Empire, OBE = Order of the British Empire, MBE= Member of the British Empire.) It’s one of those things that is recognised as a problem, but apparently not a big enough problem to stop 100s of people accepting those honours each year or for the powers that be to think of a new name. I’d guess that a few people each honours list reject honours for that reason.
I’m not sure if knighthoods and peerages have any explicity imperial link. I’d hazard a guess that most people who’ve turned down knighthoods and peerages don’t like the idea of being addressed as “Sir” or “Lord.” There have been some specifically political rejections & returnings of honours – generally I think because of Britain’s foreign policy, or because of republicanism (you do want an honour officially from the Queen if you think the process making the Queen Head of State is illegitimate.)
January 27, 2012 at 4:58 am
rea
that’s why I included the link to Britons who’ve declined honors. Do you think they’re confused?
A l ot of those Britons semed to be declining for personal rather than political reasons, like the artist who declined the knighthood because he wanted to keep his privacy. Does anyone decline a kinighthood because they’re a strong New Labour supporter and don’t want an honor from a reactionary Tory adminstration?
January 27, 2012 at 8:13 am
sleepyirv
By being knighted you’re taking part of a monarchical order that exists only because of taxpayers largess. Now this might not be a big deal to some as the British crown is toothless now. But others might be queasy about taking an honor that’s still quasi-imperialist. Shaking hands with the Queen wouldn’t have the same problems.
January 27, 2012 at 8:41 am
jim
Technically, people don’t refuse an offer of an honour. They are sounded out first, subjunctively. Only if their reaction to a hypothetical proposed offer is positive, will an actual offer be forthcoming.
Interestingly, some people refuse an honour because the one (hypothetically) offered is too low.
January 27, 2012 at 8:54 am
silbey
A l ot of those Britons semed to be declining for personal rather than political reasons, like the artist who declined the knighthood because he wanted to keep his privacy
Uh, the article includes a lot of people declining the honors for political reasons:
In fact, the article doesn’t mention anyone doing it for explicitly personal reasons.
Technically, people don’t refuse an offer of an honour
Well, Lennon was given his and then gave it back, so…
In any case, it seems to me that Eric’s point is quite correct.
January 27, 2012 at 9:05 am
jim
Returning the paraphernalia is not the same as initially refusing the honour.
January 27, 2012 at 9:24 am
silbey
Returning the paraphernalia is not the same as initially refusing the honour
I disagree that there’s a substantive difference.
January 27, 2012 at 11:59 am
jim
I disagree that there’s a substantive difference. Oh but there is.
If one accepts the offer, there will be a newspaper story about the honour, probably more slanted towards the government’s perceptiveness in recognizing the achievement than towards the achievement itself, but still, one will be mentioned. One gets to dress up and go to Buck House and shake hands with the Queen, which is still something of a big deal. And then, in giving it back, yet another story, this time more slanted towards your perceptiveness in recognizing the government’s failings, but not ignoring the failings you’re protesting. And what have you lost? The MBE medal is, I believe, somewhat trumpery and you’re never going to be anywhere you’d wear it. Accepting then later rejecting provides a double benefit.
If you refuse the honour, the most likely result is nothing. Maybe you can get one newspaper to print a paragraph about it. In Corre’s case, it was that a man who had made his fortune selling very expensive, very flimsy, sexy underwear was calling the Prime Minister “morally corrupt” that persuaded the newspaper to print the story. A double-edged result at best. Alan Bennett had to use his “diary” in the London Review of Books to let us know about his refusal.
I’m not sure that one can separate the personal from the political. Despite the increase in opportunity over the last fifty years, England is still a place where everyone who matters knows everyone else who matters. Personal differences generate political differences and vice versa.
January 27, 2012 at 12:42 pm
silbey
Oh but there is
Eh. I still don’t think so, at least not in the context I was thinking. Whatever the pr aspects of it (and I seriously doubt that John Lennon had carefully thought out the cycle you describe), I was talking about rejecting an honor from the head of state (Eric’s original point) and I was noting that a lot of people do it, in whatever form.
In any case, I suspect that we’re not going to agree, so let’s just leave it at that, and let this thread of the conversation go.
January 27, 2012 at 3:14 pm
kathy a.
having your team invited to the white house is not like being knighted. really. it isn’t.
i don’t understand why declining an invitation can be understood as a slight toward the presidency. it was an invitation, not an order.
finger-wagging up close and personal — a lot of us would not have all that much grace if that happened. ms. manners says that is not a polite way to approach a president, especially when one’s presence there is to represent the state, and one’s role is to greet the president on arrival in the state.