• Comment (18)

Tim Thomas's White House Snub Wasn't Brave, It Was Just Rude

January 27, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Tim Thomas's recent, very public White House snub is not just tiresome or sanctimonious or overwrought (though it is). It underscored a distressing trend in this country: people have lost the ability to distinguish between speaking truth to power and just being a jerk.

Thomas, the star goaltender for the Boston Bruins, was invited to the White House for the customary presidential congratulations for winning the Stanley Cup last year. This is an apolitical event, one that is extended to Super Bowl and World Series winners as well. It's meant as nothing more than as a gift to the athletes, since the president—no matter who is in the Oval Office—probably has better things to do with his time than congratulate athletes, especially when the team is not from the commander-in-chief's home town.

Going to the White House is a special event for any American. It is a building that belongs to the people, after all, a building that represents our democracy. The occupant of the building is there temporarily. The symbolism and sheer beauty of the White House is permanent.

[Read: Obama Snubbed by Boston Bruins' Tim Thomas]

But Thomas decided he just couldn't stomach going to the White House, and made sure people knew about it.  He released a statement detailing his objections:

I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.

This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT

The statement has all the characteristics of angry, random rants on the Internet. There are the oddly (and grammatically incorrectly) capitalized words, and the all-caps reference to himself as an "individual." Did Thomas imagine the rest of us thought he was speaking for some bigger group—Bostonians, hockey players, well-paid athletes as a whole? Does he imagine that his experience having pucks fly at him at dangerous speeds qualifies him to weigh in on the U.S. Constitution? And as for the property of the people—or "Property of the People," as Thomas describes it—he might want to consider the fact that someone who gets paid pots of money to play games isn't quite the most sympathetic spokesperson for lower taxes or the sanctity of private property.

[Susan Milligan: God Has Better Things to Do than to Worry about Tim Tebow]

And Thomas's statement indicates that he imagined going to the White House was some big favor or concession to President Obama or anyone else in elected office. It's not. Thomas is a great goalie, and I imagine he gets lots of attention when he's out in public, but he shouldn't assume that makes him the bigger attraction, especially when the president—any president—is in the room. Obama didn't ask Thomas to make a campaign commercial for him, or even to teach civics to school children (which is probably a good thing). Thomas was offered a rare chance to see the White House and meet the president. It's just rude not to go. Thomas doesn't need to remind us that he is a free citizen—or, "Free Citizen," as he ostentatiously puts it. No one was forcing him to go to the White House. And if he really didn't think he could have managed to keep it together during a White House visit, he could have just not gone, and not given an explanation.  If he was invited to a wedding where he thought the couple was making a big mistake, would he put out a statement to that effect as well? Most of us would just send our regrets and leave it at that.

But Thomas had to make it about him, to put his own celebrity above both the president and basic good manners. That's particularly unfortunate, since hockey tends to have fewer badly-behaving players than other professional sports. Perhaps it's because hockey, while surely having its stars, cannot be played well without extraordinary team effort. What a shame that Thomas, whose star status in hockey is well-deserved, wouldn't be part of the team.

Tags:
Barack Obama,
politics,
White House

Reader Comments Read all comments (18)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Susan,

You really don't understand this country. The people are in charge, the leaders, unlike royalty, merely temporal figureheads. The disdain for politicians is healthy and normal for Americans. Our President is a contemptuous and unlikable character to some of us.

Don't lecture us on your illusion of American royalty.

When government is corrupt, it is not an "honor" to meet with it, it is distasteful.

Tommy S of CT 12:51PM October 18, 2012

to Diana Baskin

You are correct to state that if you invite me to your home and I don't like you, a simple no suffices. But we are talking about the president here, the one who represents the people and the country. As a citizen it is your duty to question your leader when what the country was founded on to protect its people ( the constitution ) is being stripped away bit by bit (one example: look into the NDAA bill signed by Obama Dec 31st 2011, coincidently a time where a bill could pass unnoticed).

There is a bit of selfishness to putting these losses of freedom aside just so you get a chance to see the white house and play puppet to the president who is suppose to represent you. We justify it by saying we can't change the decisions anyways. We are just one person and we don't have the status to influence the president's decisions.

Due to the importance of this matter, that selfishness grows by how much influence that person can have on others. As the more influence a person has on a mass of people, the more they could persuade change in important decisions.

I applaud Tim for giving out his public statement. As a public figure, he surely has more influence power than a person like you and me. He refused to play puppet and he stands for something important.

William B 4:36AM January 31, 2012

Dear Susan Milligan,

This article of yours paints a vision, reasoning, for Tim Thomas's actions. Let me start with two points.

1. ''It's meant as nothing more than as a gift to the athletes, since the president—no matter who is in the Oval Office—probably has better things to do...''

--Unfortunately that's like saying its bad to judge a person. Which is totally flawed because that is how we function. We make decisions based on information we have at hand and therefore we can only judge as we will never have all the information on a person. That being said, this is not only an act of gift but also a political benefit for the president. Why? In the eyes of his people, he relates to them. He shows value to things we value and so we can relate more to him. In other words his stock goes up.

2. ''Going to the White House is a special event for any American. It is a building that belongs to the people, after all, a building that represents our democracy.''

-- Indeed the privilege to meet the president and see the white house is a special event. It also belongs to the people and represents democracy. This above quote IS the subject of question. When we the people appoint our leaders to represent the constitution and our democracy and they continue to take it away bit by bit (example: the recently signed NDAA bill by Obama at a time where a minority would notice. Signed Dec 31st 2011) there will come a time where the people will start saying enough is enough.

Moving forward.

By Tim making it clear that this was an individual decision, he keeps anyone associated to him such as the NHL safe from label. Not a big deal.

Your accusation of him not being able to weigh in on the U.S Constitution because of his experience ''having pucks fly at him'' is just completely ignorant. People do other things in life than just their job AND as an American it is your duty to understand the constitution and defend it. Unfortunately most Americans don't.

Next you say someone who has money and plays a professional sport is not worthy of our sympathy for defending the constitution. Wrong again. It is helpful to society to have high profile figures defend our democracy to question our leaders. The message Tim sent out may have gotten more Americans to understand our constitution, understand the issues and take action.

It's now unfair to state that Tim thinks going to the White House is some big favor or concession to President Obama. He is clearly stating that he doesn't agree with the ongoing acts from our past and present leaders, against our constitution and democracy. Changes cannot happen unless a mass takes action. Tim made this public because in believing in standing up for the constitution and our democracy, he cannot do it alone and hopes people will take the time to educate themselves about the subject and take action.

As for Tim writting it as an angry internet rant, I suspect your article to be an uneducated rant.

William B 3:53AM January 31, 2012

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan is a political and foreign affairs writer and contributed to a biography of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, "Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy." Follow her on Twitter @MilliganSusan.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement