Joe Wilson, heckler

[calimac]

It wasn't long ago that Republicans were insisting that Americans had to show deference and respect to the President, because he is the President. That was not entirely new - Harry Truman had had to insist on respect for the office, in the face of people who couldn't believe that a Missouri haberdasher (funny how a job he'd held for only two years was taken to define his entire career) was in the seat of the mighty FDR - but the recent practitioners took it to North Korean levels of worshipful obsequiousness. There were even suggestions that all the people had to follow the President's orders, because he is the Commander-in-Chief. Actually, he's only Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military forces. If you're not in the military, he's not your commander. You could look it up.

Even at the time, I wondered how many of these people applied that to Bill Clinton when he was the President. But new lows are always within reach. So far as I know, last night's outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) was the first time a President had been heckled during a speech to a session of Congress. wordweaverlynn had the best response.

On the other hand, let's not have the fluttering vapors over this. So far as I know, this was also the first time a President had called his detractors' chief talking point "a lie, plain and simple" in a speech to Congress, which he did just a few seconds earlier. Never mind that they were probably both right: there are no "death panels," and unless we demand that patients produce their passports before receiving medical services, we will perforce be treating illegal immigrants (gasp, horror; after all, our legal citizens cannot possibly catch communicable diseases from illegal immigrants, so there is no justification for treating them).

Nor was Wilson's outburst the first, or the worst, example of misbehavior by a representative from the great, and greatly obstreperous, state of South Carolina in the halls of Congress. Again it was wordweaverlynn who reminded us that in 1902, a Senator from South Carolina with the dignified nickname of "Pitchfork Ben" socked his colleague in the jaw in response to being called a liar. And I haven't forgotten that in 1856, a South Carolina congressman was so incensed at a northern Senator's speech comparing the allure of slavery to a prostitute that he walked over to the Senate chamber and walloped the man with a cane so hard that the Senator was out of the chamber in convalescence for three years.

While the North considered Charles Sumner a martyr (he was re-elected in absentia), the South treated Preston Brooks as a hero (he was also re-elected). At least Joe Wilson's leaders have the courtesy to be embarrassed by his behavior.

One more thing. Speaking of Joes, remember Joe the Plumber? Remember how it wasn't enough to point out that McCain's talking points about Joe were nonsense and that Joe himself was an ignorant blowhard and not even a qualified plumber? No, remember how critics had to think they were putting some sort of icing on the cake by claiming, ridiculously, that he somehow wasn't entitled to use the nickname "Joe" because his legal first name was Samuel, and Joseph was only his middle name?

Well, guess what. Joe Wilson's legal name isn't Joe AT ALL. His first name, it turns out, is Addison. (And here's another, better-known, Republican in Congress whose unused first name is Addison.) Oh, based on the Joe the Plumber episode, I expect to hear a lot of righteous indignation over this.

Comments

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Thank you. That's an admirably even-handed summary of this particular . . . well, I wouldn't call it an issue, but a distraction; but if it's going to be commented on, that's the way to do it.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to be even-handed. (Observe my descent into sarcasm over the issue of medical treatment for illegal immigrants.) I'm trying to head off my allies from making themselves look ridiculous when they have a golden opportunity to claim the high ground.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I didn't propose that you were being even-handed about the policy issues. I was complimenting your effort to maintain standards of civilized debate. The degradation of the standards of public discourse makes it less likely that good policy will be made on any issue; your resisting that degradation has merit that deserves acknowledgment, even if your substantive preferences are disastrously wrong.

[scribblerworks.livejournal.com]

Exactly! I too applaud calimac's sensible voice in expressing his comments.

Earlier this week, I commented on a (very) conservative friend's aggitated reaction to the current administration's desire to discuss using the arts to support its agenda. She was snidely howling "Where is the outcry from the left about this government interference?" I observed that although I thought the current discussions (for after all, no actions have been taken yet) on the stupid side, I saw no point in screaming about it. One of my friend's supporters said something to the effect of "If you don't scream now, you shall find yourself in the state of affairs of China or the Soviet Russia where the government dictates to the arts!" - implying that screaming was the only appropriate response.

I was flabberghasted. When did screaming ever pursuade anyone? Instead, keep your eye on the ball where it actually DOES affect you and stand your ground.

Sorry to bring this rant here. But it seems cut from the same fabric as the undignified heckling by a public dignitary (ha!) of the President.

I Can See it Now.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Let's not go over-board here. If I am to be complimented for my civilized debate, I'm doing it wrong. I was pretty insulting towards Republicans and the state of South Carolina in this post, and I think they deserve it.

I don't know what you mean by "even if your substantive preferences are disastrously wrong." Maybe you meant it only as a theoretical, regardless of what my preferences actually are. But if not: All I did in my previous post was express a desire for universal health care, something which works well in every other industrialized nation in the world, so it cannot be "disastrously wrong." I endorsed no specific substantive proposal on the table. Some of those may be disastrously wrong, but the wrongnesses in Baucus's proposal, for instance, are the result of his trying to pander to the Republicans, not to the likes of me.

In your own comment on that post, you said that if a more than moderately serious medical problem hits, you're in real financial trouble. And the chances are that eventually it will, especially as there's two of you. I'd call that "disastrously wrong."

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I meant to acknowledge that I think it likely we hold radically different views on health care . . . differences not limited to what either of us has stated here . . . without getting into detail on what those differences are, and especially without arguing over them. I don't find it so creditable on your part that you feel compelled to score debater's points against me in your final paragraph above; I will note that I have in fact considered the issue from a number of different angles and resolved on my responses to it. But I came here to praise you, not to bury you. I must say, you're singularly resistant to accepting an honest (and carefully delimited) compliment.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to "score debater's points," I am making a serious response to your earlier comment. Had you written merely "even if we disagree on the issue," I would have let the matter lie, but I find the line "your substantive preferences are disastrously wrong" to be gratuitously contentious as well as demonstrateably incorrect.

I am uncomfortable with being held up as a model of civility because of the presumption that both sides have been equally guilty of lack of it. This is not true, but I'm not going to get into that now.