DAVID BROOKS: Well, it didn’t come out of nowhere. I mean, there are certain unconscious standards. We all behave in certain ways. You go to a funeral; you behave in a certain way. You go to a church; you behave in a certain way. And these are deep and inbred. You don’t have to think about it.
But there’s been this broad corrosion over many years in the way people talk in private, and then so suddenly he behaved in a way that normally there would be just so many unconscious barriers — you would never scream out “You lie!” to a president right there in that room. But those barriers have been eroded. He went further than anybody has gone before or at least recently at least…
JIM LEHRER: He was pushing an envelope that was already going there, is what you’re saying.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I mean, and it’s obvious, if you hang around Congress, the conversations you hear are just of that nature.
JIM LEHRER: Do you feel the same way?
MARK SHIELDS: I think it’s a coarsening of our political language, our political life. I think it’s a coarsening of our national life. I mean, I think we see things on television and public entertainment that we didn’t see a generation ago.
But I think it is true, and it’s reached the point where if you and I — you’re my political adversary. You’re not simply wrong; you have to be evil. You know, you don’t have any moral standing. I mean, that — and that’s — rather than prove you wrong or encourage you to come to my side, my approach is to demonize you and destroy you. And I really think that it’s a tragic — a tragic reality.
And here I thought all this coarseness and bad manners could be traced to that boy who had the temerity to point out that the Emperor was naked, which, when you think about it for a second, was exactly what Joe Wilson was doing.
And that the Democrats booed Pres. Bush during his 2005 State of the Union speech. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but these other incidents should at least be mentioned to provide context and eliminate some of the self-righteousness.
Joe Wilson was wrong, wrong, wrong to shout out like that.
Nevertheless, I am equally troubled by the partisan element of these protestations of incivility. Sen. Jim Webb was treated as a hero (by those now offended) for being equally rude to Pres. Bush (I confess I am still more appalled by Webb because he flaunts his status as a Marine officer).
Also, I appreciated the point made by Glen Reynolds (instapundit):
[blockquote] I’m finding it hard to get excited about this. It was a breach of decorum and civility. But someone who says “get in their face†and “punch back twice as hard†has little standing to bring that up. If you want to benefit from traditions of civility, you should respect them, and that has hardly been a hallmark of this administration, which has gone out of its way to try to demonize and shout down opponents.[/blockquote]
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/84941/
Well, the good news is that the “polarization” is because the conflict is between two mutually opposing and antithetical visions of the State, capital, private property, and the Constitution.
I relish such polarization and the more conservatives wake up, the more such polarization will, I believe, grow.
The further evidence of the polarization is of course the fact that both Wilson and his opponent have raised in a matter of two days more money than they raised in two years.
Why?
Because conservatives are thrilled to have discovered Wilson, and liberals are, of course, thrilled to have discovered his opponent.
I also don’t think — as one of the liberals interviewed on the show said — that “every hour that it’s still alive hurts Republicans.”
I think in this case it helps *conservative* Republicans.
Apparently, Mr. Wilson’s outburst is due to his inherent racism, which, of course, is a natural result of being from South Carolina. We all know that the South is full of racist, Radical Right nutters. I mean, the nice Episcopal lady from New Jersey ( http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/ ) sure does understand the point:
[i] Yeah, that’s right. That’s the ticket. Sheesh! Is there something in the water in South Carolina?
Which reminds me: The Episcopal Bishop of South Carolina is Mark “I’m not going to leave the Episcopal Church” Lawrence, who is heading up the “Common Partnership Bishops” who seek to find a way to be Anglican (and orthodox) so they can gather up those who have gone astray under the more broken of the right winged brethren and THEN fulfill the dream of supplanting The Episcopal Church as the “true church.”
No, they haven’t said that, flat out, but if you woke up the Episcopal Bishop of South Carolina at 3 o’clock in the morning in the midst of one of his dreams of glory and asked the question, my money is on the fact that he would not yell, “You lie!”
It is also home to the founder of “Chicken Little Anglican Theology”, the ubiquitous and peripatetic Kendall “The Anglican Sky Is Falling” Harmon, as well as “orthodox” acid-tongue blogger Sarah “Dolphin and Maternal Like” Hey.
…
But I am going to call it for what it is – or, at least, what that tawdry demonstration of lack of civility was fueled by: Racism. [/i]
It’s nice to know that those the boos that President Bush received from some Democrats (I also remember Nancy Pelosi sitting behind President Bush during one of the State of the Union addresses, shaking her head “no†often while the President was speaking) was a result of them only being patriotic and speaking truth to power. When others dare criticize President Obama, it’s racism.
This only reinforces one of the points from the article. Some people on the Left immediately jump to demonizing anyone that dares to criticize President Obama: Racist! Radical Right! Teabagger! and so on.
Meh — hard not to smile at that standard, boilerplate, melt-down frenzy you’ve found, In Texas — difficult, I suppose, for her to keep the rage tamped down 100% of the time.
If I could find the energy I’d feel vaguely complimented by someone of her nature and character and gospel tossing around some negatives — but as it is, I can only work up a faint flicker.
; > )
I can’t say that I thought the state of political discourse was particularly elevated during the Bush years, so this complaint isn’t too impressive. Rep. Wilson has already apologized for the incivility of his outburst. I note that President Obama has yet to apologize for calling some of his opponents liars, bickerers, and gamesters during his speech. And this is even though the White House has essentially conceded that there was nothing in the bill to prevent illegal aliens from participating; it has now called for verification of citizenship or legal residence, something which House Democrats had rejected several times.
As to the “racist” line, it’s so seldom true that it is now merely the line used when the offender has nothing serious to say.
RE: “As to the “racist†line, it’s so seldom true that it is now merely the line used when the offender has nothing serious to say.”
Agreed. And I actually don’t even believe that the folks who reflexively say that [i]believe it themselves any more[/i]. It’s often merely an attempted insult from someone who’s not very mature trying to process emotions. Ironically, such things end up radically deflating the impact of the word itself, as it inflates and expands the definition of the word.
. . . Rather like the word “homophobia” which becomes less and less of an insult the more it is used to describe someone who has a particular belief about the morality of particular sexual activity.
Fewer and fewer people care any more to be so named, even as the word keeps getting mechanically said over and over and over, more as an expression of emotion than anything particularly factual.
I can almost see Sarah running around her front yard now, ala Steve Martin, shouting, “The new denunciations are here! The new denunciations are here! I’m SOMEBODY!!”
More bad news on the racism front: ABC reported that approximately two million would-be Klansmen, White Aryan Resistance types and other such loathsome creatures turned out in D.C. today to protest The Won. Of course, they were careful to disguise this insidious agenda of outright racism with exhortations to not Stalinize the US health care industry, reduce federal spending, actually read legislation before passing or signing, avoid ruinous socialist programs, obey the Constitution and a host of other obvious insane ideas. Racist Russophobes had the temerity to mention czars in an unfavorable light, and other Klansmen were seen in [url=http://masonweaver.com/]transparent disguise[/url] in an attempt to fool people.
[url=http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/files/2009/09/YCR20090912.jpg]Prescience!![/url]
RE: ““The new denunciations are here! The new denunciations are here! I’m SOMEBODY!!—
Naw — I need to be denounced by . . . you know . . . somebody like a bishop or two. My self-esteem remains much too low until I receive more of that kind of denunciation from the really stellar types. ; > )
Hope springs eternal . . .
Come on. We need some facts here. Can anyone find the alleged “healthcare for illegals” proposal that was alleged to have led to the outburst? I doubt it.
Here is a link to the Congressional Research Service report on this issue, delivered in August Treatment of Noncitizens in HR3200
The main problem is this: “While the report found that federal subsidies to obtain health coverage would be restricted to U.S. citizens and legal residents, it also noted that the bill does not specify a citizenship verification system, something that critics say creates a loophole for undocumented immigrants to receive subsidies anyway.” And every attempt to include a verification scheme in the bill has been voted down until Wilson brought it to national attention. Now the White House is working with the Senate committees to change that (although why it should change, if according to the White House, it was never true is logic that escapes me). From USA Today, “. . . The issue of illegal immigration also bedeviled the so-called Gang of Six of three Democrats and three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, who met Friday trying to reach elusive bipartisan agreement on that and other contentious issues.
One of the negotiators, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said that after Obama’s speech the group revisited its illegal immigrant provisions to make sure legislative language would enforce requirements for people to have valid Social Security numbers before getting government-subsidized coverage.
“What we are trying to prevent is anyone who is here illegally from getting any federal benefit,” Conrad told reporters. He didn’t specify whether illegal immigrants would be allowed into the exchange, but Friday evening, a Democratic Finance Committee aide said that although nothing was finalized, the committee was expected to follow the White House’s lead and bar illegal immigrants from the exchange. . . ”
So obviously, there were holes in the legislation before or they wouldn’t be covering them now. That’s what happens when you have a HUGE bill written hurriedly and not read by those voting on it – that is what upsets people.
[blockquote]Come on. We need some facts here. Can anyone find the alleged “healthcare for illegals†proposal that was alleged to have led to the outburst? I doubt it. [/blockquote]
That’s the wrong question. The question to ask is where the bill prohibited provision of such care to illegals. It did, nominally and weakly, but Democrats refused to allow in any enforcement mechanism when such amendments were offered.
Both responses above are helpful to a point. But they both contain a charge of bad intent which is unsubstantiated and what someone predisposed to criticism might consider “not strong enough” is a very far cry from a lie, which is what we are talking about.
[i]“While the report found that federal subsidies to obtain health coverage would be restricted to U.S. citizens and legal residents, it also noted that the bill does not specify a citizenship verification system, something that critics say creates a loophole for undocumented immigrants to receive subsidies anyway.†[/i]
Something critics say does not equal a lie “…the report found that federal subsidies to obtain health coverage would be restricted to U.S. citizens and legal residents….” The rest is commentary.
I find it very unlikely that “conservatives are thrilled to have discovered Wilson” as related in comment 4. I don’t know any conservatives who consider that kind of bumptiousness a desirable societal good.
I do not approve of rude behavior but there does seem to be a double standard here in that liberals who employ rude and coarse methods of getting attention are often honored as “Activists” while conservatives who employ similar methods are accused of “coarsening of our political language” by media pundits like Mark Sheilds.
Bettcee: I think most decent folks would equally censure anyone of any political affiliation who shouted out “You lie” at a President of the United States from the floor of the Congress of the United States. No one gets a pass based on political persuasions. It’s all equally vile and stupid.
RE: “I find it very unlikely that “conservatives are thrilled to have discovered Wilson†as related in comment 4.”
It’s now $1 million dollars, NoVA. Who are the one’s donating to him — Democrats?
PS: I’m very pleased to have discovered Wilson and will be watching him closely. It could be that his emotional spouting off is a cover for being a liberal Republican anyway; spouting off doesn’t make one a principled conservative. But had he not spouted off, I would never have noticed him. So I’m very pleased. Incidentally [but not surprisingly] I’m indifferent as to various liberals’ notions of what “most decent folks” believe.
There were a few signs at the ‘Rally in Tally’ Tea party patriot event yesterday that said things like “Joe was right — you lie!” and “I support Joe!” and I overheard several people say that they had sent him a contribution.
So the backlash isn’t that bad among those who are protesting bigger government, I think it is all in the way the media are portraying it. Now, last night I heard that it was not just Joe Wilson, but “several Republicans were disrespectful during the President’s speech”. The MSM cannot just report a story and the facts, they have to enlarge and sensationalize it.
Jim Elliott
Tallahassee
Albany+ – re #16 – the report also said “it also noted that the bill does not specify a citizenship verification system” – that is also a fact, not commentary. And when every amendment proposed to call for verification is voted down, yes, I do see “bad” intent. Maybe living in California has made me too jaded, but many (dare I say most) liberal politicians support including illegal aliens in all legislation – because these are future voters if amnesty is allowed (their preference), these give the teachers’ union more clout since there are more bodies in the classroom, these allow liberal politicians to play to the feelings and not the facts, and these create a class of those dependent on the government. We have plenty of laws on the books about hiring illegals immigrants that are ignored – this will just be another.
By the way, articles are now appearing in the papers saying the Joe Wilson’s outburst is ‘proof that racism is still rampant in the Republican Party” and that anyone who criticises the President is a racist, and that “Socialism is code for the ‘N’ Word” (Tallahassee Democrat op-ed).
IMO, this is proof that when you can’t address the issues, play the race card!
Jim E.
No. 20: My sense of it is that you and I know dramatically different types of “conservatives” and that we mean different things when we use that term. I’m sort of an Edmund Burke, Barry Goldwater, Russell Kirk kind of guy. My guess is that you are not. My further guess is that the folks who are sending money to Mr. Wilson have more affinity with Dixiecrats than with traditional conservatives.
As for racism, I don’t know what is other people’s heads and hearts, but I have never considered the President as being more black than white. Nor can I figure out why it even matters.
It seems to me that we are so used to activist’s rude chants, in unison, that we are shocked when one individual speaks alone. He, individually, is expected to apologize – but the mob who booed, in unison, during President Bush’s speech and the congressmen who chanted, in unison, “we will win” during a memorial service for a colleague who had just died and the congressmen who shouted, in unison, “resign” to Representative Livingston of Louisiana are not held accountable for their rudeness, in fact they are often praised.
If we hold individuals to a higher standard than we hold activists who act in unison aren’t we inviting mob rule?
Context has a lot to do with it, Bettcee. Right or left-wing kooks gathered in large numbers on the Mall probably are subject to a different (and lower) standard of discourse than a Member of the Congress of the United States, sitting on the floor of the House of Representatives, addressing personally the President of the United States. If we need a one size fits all standard, I’ll go for the higher one, but, frankly, I don’t think your suggestion that the lower one should apply is descriptive of the kind of country I believe in.
NoVa Scout, I am sorry that you misunderstood my post, I was objecting to activists who rudely demonstrate in unison, or in mass, it seems to me that they should be held to the same high standards as individuals because they as a group have more power than the individual alone does. I certainly was not suggesting that we accept a lower standards from any group or individual even though it seems that our culture does.
I do not approve of activist demonstrations designed to pressure our legislators, I prefer to stay home, study the issues and write letters to my elected congressmen if I think it is important.
By the way, even though I disagree with many activists, and am sometimes offended by their messages, I do not think it is a good idea to add fuel to the fire by referring to demonstrators as “right or left-wing kooks”.