“Right wingers show very little respect for office” is one of the biggest loads of bullshit I’ve ever heard. As someone on the right I’ll openly admit the right wing as a whole has far too much respect for authority when said authority is more or less in line with their ideals. However I think both the right and the left tend to respect authority a lot more when it reflects their personal values. For example the right tends to respect police officers and military leaders (many times when the individual authority figure may clearly be morally bankrupt or performing poorly.) Both left and right seem to fluctuate from pushing the concept of “respect for the Presidency” but only when their guy is in office.
A lot of Republicans felt that Democrats should have showed Bush more respect out of “respect for the office”, and now Democrats are saying the same about Republicans. In truth I don’t think it does any great service to our country to afford the President any special respect whatsoever in a political context. Essentially when the President’s function is primarily political he deserves the respect that a politician gets–essentially very little. In official contexts as Head of State I think every President should be afforded a great deal of respect. Where things start to overlap is of course often times the President is doing both at once. When that happens I think you need to default to viewing him as a politician, not the Head of State.
When a President is making the State of the Union address that is a function of their being Head of State but it has also been used since time immemorial as a staging ground for a President to push his personal policy issues. Essentially he is executing a Head of State function but acting primarily as a politician. I’d love for people to regularly boo and hiss at Presidents during the State of the Union.
Contexts when the President should be given full and unconditional respect are settings in which they are involved in purely ceremonial functions such as awarding medals/distinctions, funerals, meetings with other Heads of State and et cetera.
Trying to drown out the opposition by yelling louder is pretty much a valid and understood part of democracy, going back to the forum at Athens. What I don’t get is where people got the idea that democracy can or should be pretty, civil, and restrained.
My personal policy on such tactics has been that I won’t use them personally but I don’t begrudge their existence. For example I’ve never once participated in a political protest. I thought the pre-Iraq war protests were pointless and very unlikely to effect any change in policy, I feel the same way about current protests aimed at Obama. However, a lot of people feel very differently and think political protests have a major effect. I think their primary effect is that they provide politicians with a “temperature reading” of the body politic, but I think in terms of participatory democracy often times the more low key forms of participation actually have greater “real” effect.
Essentially I think it necessary and important that we have our loud mouths but I don’t feel the need to be one of them.
A current GOP leader who called for censure would certainly earn my respect although still not likely my vote.
A Democratic leader calling for it merely earns the rolling of my eyes.
Martin no doubt there are those, on both sides, whose tactics are to shout louder. And there places in which that tactic is acceptable. And there are fora in which it is not. Like in these message boards: there are places for calling each other names in a raucous manner (short of “cunt” of course! :)), and places in which one debates more civilly and convinces with logic and evidence … or not. Both are valid places and should exist but they have different rules. Think of it as Rep. Wilson behaved as if he was in a Pit thread when he was actually in GD and the question is if a formal warning is indicated.
I tend to think that the physical legislative chambers are precisely the sort of place where one would expect to see the most raucous of political behavior. Obviously they aren’t and obviously our legislative houses are treated almost like cathedrals. However historically and internationally I think most legislative chambers have and are filled with a great deal of yelling, shouting, shouted remarks and et cetera.
That;s a great article.
And in that spirit I suggest we write in to get Rep Charles Rangel removed as Chair of the Ways and Means committee ASAP, and replaced by someone in the next election.
Unfortunately, however, the president can’t put on a different colored hat depending on which roll he is intending to exercise at a given time. The job of the president is precisely to have these various roles - from head of state to commander-in-chief to representative of the American people and government abroad. Every role the president has is primarily political, including being commander-in-chief, since war is only waged to achieve some political ends.
State of the Union addresses have been about policy proposals from a given president nearly since they were re-established by President Woodrow Wilson. That’s why there has been a broadcast opposition response since 1966. Politicians do regularly boo and hiss at State of the Union addresses, at least fairly recently. None of the hubbub is about that - instead it’s all about Joe Wilson’s outburst. Even at a presidential or otherwise political debate during an election campaign, it would be unacceptable for one sitting politician to interrupt another sitting politician with an accusation of lying. If you want to accuse someone else of lying, wait for when it’s your turn to speak.
It’s clear to this American, that in the time Mr. Wilson wasted proclaiming how we Americans see things, he could have apologized to the house and avoided a prolonged discussion and an eventual slap on the wrist. He did not. Instead, Mr. Wilson chose to be an asshole for a second time today.
I don’t see much point in any official censure. But Republicans rewarding this guy? I’m ashamed of you. I don’t think we all have to claim he’s the worst person who ever got elected or should be shot or tarred in order to say that his behavior was ugly.