John Adams got an impromptu course on how to curtsy to a King, his speech is an entirely different subject. The author here uses the miniseries of John Adams to make a point, well in that miniseries, which I own, you will see he got a crash course on bowing. He wasnt getting it right and he thought the whole thing was stupid.

If the Emperor of Japan has no power over government, then why is it “required reverence”?
Why did Obama bow so deeply to him with his eyes fixed on the ground?

In Japan Obamas version is known as the formal bow, so why was a formal bow to the Emperor of Japan necessary when he is not even the head of government?

PS Bowing is not diplomatic protocol, it is the exact opposite when it comes to the President. When Adams did his bowing he wasnt President.

“American presidents do not bow before foreign dignitaries, whether they are princes, kings, or emperors.”

Period.

There we have what? Let's not kid ourselves into deriving historical fact from IMAGINING a complex event of a different era to whatever convenient extent of accuracy that pleases us—eg, to start guaranteeing this or that! Arguments over whether presidents of the 18th Century would have or wouldn't have bowed to kings are pointless, because the act of bowing cannot easily and conveniently be interpreted separate to its social and political context!

It's always tempting to draw limitless conclusions from analysis of history, but keep it sensible. Instead of thinking, with our imaginations in free-fall that, gee, because he was American, there was no way he was going to bow to anyone, just read what HE himself wrote of the encounter! He made the required “reverences”—yes, required by fact of diplomatic protocol!—and then, we can only suppose, moved on from there! Why try to make a big deal over the details of formal niceties of a completely different social era, and attempt to derive some hints of national status?? It's all IRRELEVANT! By the way, you might want to look up the meaning of “impromptu”. Do you really believe that anything he did in that room was impromptu?? By his own admission, he memorised his speech!!

Number 2, he did not give the deep bowing required by the Kings subjects, he did 3 half assed bows and said he could not bring himself to bow any deeper.

So there you have it.
John Adams did not feel comfortable bowing to the King and only did his impromptu bowing because he was an Ambassador, if we were President at the time I GUARANTEE you he would not have bowed.

And besides, it's ridiculous. Bush did the same thing. Obama just did the same thing again on his Middle East trip, I believe. Adams' decision to carry out the three reverences was a decision to submit himself to the ceremony of a monarch that he'd engaged in bloody rebellion against (with a lot of internal conflict), and Presidents since then have engaged in the meaningless ceremony that satisfies monarchs since the beginning, cf participation in military parades (memorably, sword dances in Bush's case) that only serve to appease a monarch with a display of power.

As for the Japan example, people huffed and puffed when Clinton bowed to the Emperor of Japan. Don't kid yourself that the response would've been any different had Obama bowed to the monarch of a country in which bowing is a common gesture.

It's incredibly petty to imagine that bowing to someone objectively takes away any real leverage we might have with them.

The President is the head of state of a Republic, and therefore does not offer deferential courtesies to monarchs and other foreign government officers which are not reciprocated. Bowing would be appropriate if the foreign head of state (or ambassador) does likewise, as for example, the Japanese do. Cheek kissing is likewise appropriate if reciprocated, as the French and Russians do. Under no circumstances would it be appropriate for the President to render the “three reverences” to a monarch (or a foreign head of state) as portrayed in the John Adams miniseries. In the show, Adams was the ambassador to the court of King George III following the Revolution, and would not be elected President for another 11 years.

The basic principal of the governing protocol is that the U.S. President, as the head of state, deals with monarchs and other foreign heads of state as equals, not as a subject or supplicant.

Now, if you're complaining that Obama breached diplomatic protocol. That's fine. It's somewhat different to think that, as many have, Obama is somehow hinting at future deference to a major figure in Islam (particularly, many have said this is more evidence that he's a secret Muslim).

I don't think that bowing is part of an Ambassador's job, by the way. He's not a subject, and, beyond that, it's not required to subject yourself to *all* local customs.

@Ben I agree that the reset button thing was one of the stupidest bits of diplomacy ever conceived. It blows my mind that someone employed by Clinton/Obama came up with that idea, and that it was given the green light at several other points without someone saying something about the obvious reference there.