There's lots of indignation for Rep. Joe Wilson, the Congressman who shouted "You lie!" during President Obama's speech last night. Rep. Wilson himself has apologized to the President. The word I've heard most to describe his behavior is "disrespectful".
I guess I'd like to ask, disrespectful in what way? Disrespectful for interrupting the President's speech? Well, what about all those standing ovations? They stopped Obama in his tracks several times -- often in the middle of a sentence. Disrespectful for showing open disagreement or disdain for the President's proposal? What about all the others who held up signs, or competing bills, or who simply refused to clap?
I can understand "stupid" or "unfounded", but politics is an open forum for argument, and if you take the applause you have to take the heckles as well. I, for one, would gladly let go of the veneer of "respect" if it would promote more direct and honest dialogue.
Who is Rabbert?
- Robert
- A rather opinionated fellow who takes himself too seriously. If only everyone else would take him as seriously....
More about Rabbert
Email me at king.rabbert [at] gmail.com
Rabbert also blogs at Virtue Quest.
Let Rabbert come to you!
Posts
Comments
6 comboxers:
Dang! I tend to agree here, too.
I don't know how true it is but my understanding is that politics in the "motherland" aka Great Britain is far more of a down and dirty affair.
In other word's "You lie!" would have been small potatoes to those folks.
That's the problem with lacking a constitutional monarch - we confuse the President with something more important than a civil servant.
I must respectfully disagree....
Amy, it's true that politics in England is much nastier, even to the Prime Minister, who is their head of government. But they never show disrespect to the Queen, because she is the head of state.
The President of the United States is both the head of government and the head of state. So he is due more respect than the Prime Minister. The PM represents his Party and its voters. But the President has two roles; on the one hand he represents his voters, but on the other hand he represents all Americans, regardless of whether you voted for him (and I certainly didn't!).
Our system has problems, but I think it's astonishingly democratic that we not only elect our political leaders but also elect our symbolic leader.
And if you yearn for incivility in Congress, there's plenty of that when the President isn't there! We had at least one duel on the House floor, if I recall. Alas, we probably haven't had anything as awesome as the famous exchange between Winston Churchill and Lady Astor in Parliament:
Lady Astor: Mister Churchill, if I were your wife, I'd put poison in your tea.
Churchill: Madam, were I your husband, I would surely drink it.
Larry,
So, are you saying that to be less than polite to a head of state is to disrespect the citizens of that state? I am, as I have said before, a political ignoramus. So I don't quite grok the meaning or implications of "head of state".
BTW, that Churchill exchange is one of my favorites.
By the way, let's not forget that it was President Obama himself who first trotted out the "lie" language. Here's a good article from Get Religion.
R asked: So, are you saying that to be less than polite to a head of state is to disrespect the citizens of that state?
Well, this is a bit too strong (since "less than polite" is more mild than "disrespect").
But I do think that social etiquette was created for a reason -- or more precisely, each rule of etiquette was created for some reason, at some point in time -- and we shouldn't assume that we can revise the rules freely without bad side-effects. It is long-established that when a member of Congress dislikes what the President says while addressing a joint session, he or she should refuse to clap ("sit on his hands"). Booing, on the other hand, is considered rude.
Obama's speech included some dubious claims; or rather, all of its claims are mysterious, since he was making assertions about what "his" or "our" health plan will do, and yet the White House has never released any health plan. If he was referring to one or more of the existing House or Senate plans, some of his claims were false -- and presumably were lies, since he must know better.
If Obama were to make a specific offensive statement -- e.g., if he called a specific person a liar in his speech -- then I think that a cry of "For shame!" would be appropriate. (I'm not sure what "For shame!" is when translated from British to American, but you get the idea.)
But if Joe Wilson considered a previous Obama statement to be offensive, it doesn't make it right for him to breach etiquette himself immediately after Obama makes a non-offensive (albeit dubious) claim in a polite speech.
IMHO.
One followup comment: Although I think that Joe Wilson's outburst was an unjustified breach of etiquette, in terms of magnitude I don't think it was a big deal. At this point, the event is being kept alive for political reasons and is being blown into something huge. The House is talking about censuring him. As far as I recall, they didn't censure Ted Kennedy for drowning a woman in his car....
Post a Comment