Bumper Sticker Diplomacy

I was listening to a local talk radio program this morning. A certain caller had my attention. The caller identified himself as African American and stated he was starting a movement to ban all bumper stickers critical of the President from being posted on enlisted soldiers vehicles. He claimed it was hypocritical and denigrating to the office of the Commander in Chief. He claimed the majority of the criticism came  from the fact our President was black and his job performance was a nonissue.
As I listened, I came to the conclusion that it was the caller and not the enlisted soldier who symbolically wore the blinders. Throughout history Presidents have come under scrutiny by the very armed forces they commanded. Donald Phillips writes that, “Abraham Lincoln was slandered, libeled, and hated perhaps more intensely than any other man to ever run for the nation’s highest office….He was publicly called just about every name imaginable by the press of the day, including grotesque baboon, a third-rate country lawyer who once split rails and now splits the Union, a coarse vulgar joker, a dictator, an ape, a buffoon, and others." (Lincoln on leadership, Donald Phillips, Feb. 1, 1993, Warner Books, ISBN-10: 0446394599). This was not the precedent that all Presidential criticism was based on either. As a matter of fact, it dates back as far as Jefferson and Adams. I will not venture into the realm of the critics of George Washington as he was the standard bearer upon which all good character can be emulated.

The thing is this; Barrack Obama does not have the market cornered on being unjustly or duly criticized. He is however, our first President with African American roots, as well as White Anglo Saxon roots. It appears the archaic and in my mind, racist belief in the one-drop rule, a historical colloquial term in the United States for the social classification as black of individuals with any African ancestry; meaning any person with "one drop of black blood" was considered black (refer to "One-drop rule"- Wikipedia) was taken in by our President himself as defining who he is. Personally, I see him as an individual who has been molded by his education, experience, environment, and influenced by social radicals and Black Liberation Theologians. As an American wanting this nation to be as colorblind as possible, I find his approach to governance to be contrary to unification and conducive to division. He functions from a foundation of class warfare and government dependance for our citizenry. Now, there are many out there who subscribe to his views but I am not among them. I am not alone in my perspective and within this group are those in the armed forces. Differences of opinion have been around since man first learn to communicate with his neighbor. It didn't start after the 2008 Presidential election. To imply that to disagree or to disparage President Obama is racist is obtuse and ignorant. Ignorant in that it shows a clear deficiency of all the variables involved. Barrack Obama required many white votes to claim the office he now holds, and to make this a black versus white issue is fire starting at it's very worst. There are many who see his policies playing a significant role in our country's demise and his policies have nothing to do with color.
I feel enlisted soldiers should be free to express themselves using such vehicles as bumper stickers as long as said sticker doesn't contain vulgarities, slander, or falsehoods. In the area of Commisioned Officers, I cannot support the use of bumper stickers or any other means of disagreement while in uniform. Officers receive commisions from the President ultimately and to openly criticze would demonstrate a conflict of interest and is damaging to troop morale. Enlisted men and women are not held to such a standard.
I feel the freedom of expression is one of the very rights our troops exist for to protect. I feel claims of racism take us off the main point and that point is a valid and debatable disagreement with the Presidents view of the function of Government and how it is constrained by our very constitution.