One of the many memorable lines in the movie “The American President” goes like this: “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man who makes your blood boil, and who’s standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”

I found myself repeating this line to myself several times as I read a recent local column strongly supporting the present occupant of the White House, and excoriating any and all who were seen as standing in the way of the presidential agenda.

It didn’t bother me that support of the president was so strong. After all, the author of the column is only one of 63,000,000 Americans who feel just as strongly, based on the results of last November’s election.

The implied support of the president’s initiatives was perfectly acceptable. Heck, much of it sounds very attractive, even alluring – lower taxes; more affordable health care with benefits equal to, or exceeding, those currently available; bringing manufacturing jobs back from overseas; resuscitating the coal industry; securing our borders; prioritizing the wants and needs of those “left behind” as our country barrels into the 21^st Century; renegotiating unfair trade deals; rebuilding our deteriorating infrastructure; so on and so forth.

The president’s supporters believe he can deliver on his many promises without bankrupting the country. There are those of us who think it highly unlikely. This is called a difference of opinion, and differences of opinion are part and parcel of a working democracy.

I didn’t find it offensive for the author to reel off a list of folks who were seen as obstructing the president, although I admit I chuckled a bit when I saw Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan included among the damned.

Once upon a time, folks on such a list would make up what was called the “loyal opposition.” An active opposition serves a critical function in a representative democracy. It provides counterbalance. It forces debate, and from that debate comes a better final result. It prevents too much power from gravitating into too few sets of hands. It is part of the checks and balances permeating our Constitution by its framers.

No. What was troubling was the insinuation that one could not be in opposition and be loyal at the same time.

In order to champion the president, is it absolutely necessary to descend into Breitbart-News cloud cuckoo land and bring into question the motivation, not to mention the patriotism, of those who find themselves at odds with the current tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

President Obama and Michele Obama as occupants of a “Sedition House?” Really? Wiretapping? Harassment? Intimidation? Moles? Lies? Paid “protesters”?

An accusation that those in opposition are guilty of sedition, that is, “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority?”

These are very serious charges. Outside of selected alt right sources, where is the evidence, or to be really quaint in this era of alternate facts, what are the facts supporting the allegations made?

To disagree with those who hold different views is acceptable. To viciously denigrate others for being in disagreement is not helpful. It is not civilized political discourse. It is divisive. It is counterproductive. It is incendiary. It is infantile.  It should be avoided.

If there is a need to use such tactics to present a position, there must be significant weakness in the position itself.

While I defend the right of a columnist to say whatever it is they have to say, however warm my blood becomes, I reserve the right to label some of the particulars “indefensible.”

Because they are.