posted
Impossible for the nineteenth century, in fact, since the only State of the Union (the only Presidential address to Congress) given in the nineteenth century involved no such disruptions.
And by the time resumption of the speeches in the early twentieth century rolled around, the sensibilities of Congress had changed, and for substantial numbers of Presidential addresses we were in a state of war or crisis. Additionally, they became successively more public, and thus riskier to be rowdy at.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Rabbit is specifically referring to Congressional interruptions of a Presidential speech. That's going to be harder to come by with a cursory search, especially in the 19th century.
I also think its essentially irrelevant whether or not it happened in the 19th century. We had major devision and contention during the early years of this country, much of that contention lead to a a civil war that cost the lives of millions and has had enduring effects. We had era's where thugs like the KKK controlled the political climate or gang leaders like Al Capone ran regions of the country. We've had scum like McCarthy use their office to promote fear, squelch free speech, harass innocent Americans and smear honorable men. All low points in our countries history. All certainly lower than we are right now.
The relevant question isn't whether or not Joe Wilson hit some kind of all time low. He didn't, not even close. The relevant question is whether or not this was a significant breach of the standards we have come to (or should come to) expect of our elected officials. The relevant question is whether this is an isolated incident of no real importance, or part of a trend toward more belligerence, bullying, fear mongering, and obstructionism rather than respectful debate of the issues and diligent work to solve the nations problems. The relevant question is whether we think belligerence, fear mongering, and obstructionism (and Joe Wilson's outburst was to some degree all of these) have any place in the highest levels of government. The relevant question is whether this kind of belligerence raises the level of debate or lowers it, focuses us on the important issues or distracts us from them, helps us find workable solutions to problems, or simply reinforces the divisions and leads to bitterness and stalemate.
The relevant question is whether we think Joe Wilson's behavior is what we want to see in government, and if not, what steps we should be taking to make sure it doesn't become the norm.
[ September 12, 2009, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do indeed want our Senators calling out our Presidents for perceived lies during their speeches. The Republican Party has a lot of sins to answer for, but interrupting the President isn't one of them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you ARE going to do it, it had better be an actual lie. I think our government, and the people, would be much better off if the president had to answer to Congress like the PM of Britain does to their Parliament. McCain suggested a monthly session with Congress where just that would happen, and I've said before that if I knew with 100% certainty that he'd actually do that, it might have pushed me towards voting for him quite seriously, despite the mass of policy disagreements I had with him.
I too am okay with congressmen (Wilson IS a congressman, not a senator) and senators calling out the president when it's warranted, but heckling for the sake of heckling, for showmanship, to score points, to advance your own career or prospects; those things I could never support and I think should be swatted down.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Impossible for the nineteenth century, in fact, since the only State of the Union (the only Presidential address to Congress) given in the nineteenth century involved no such disruptions.
And by the time resumption of the speeches in the early twentieth century rolled around, the sensibilities of Congress had changed, and for substantial numbers of Presidential addresses we were in a state of war or crisis. Additionally, they became successively more public, and thus riskier to be rowdy at.
You mean the only State of the Union actually delivered by a sitting president, since there were many such addresses, usually delivered by proxy, during the 19th century. Who was it? Off the top of my head I can't think of it. I'd guess Lincoln, but I can think of several Lincoln SotUs that he wrote but didn't deliver personally, so it's not like there's precedent, but he's still the obvious guess. His most famous congressional address, the one that I think most people would recognize ("the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present"), was technically a state of the union, but was delivered by proxy. It was also, in typical Lincoln fashion, quite short, eloquent, and to the point. If only modern presidents could master such oratorical skills.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I do indeed want our Senators calling out our Presidents for perceived lies during their speeches. The Republican Party has a lot of sins to answer for, but interrupting the President isn't one of them.
I don't think we can expect politicians to act with restraint when it comes to calling out one of their number for intentionally deceiving the American people during a speech.
Ideally it would be nice if we had such stalwart men and woman that that could happen. Instead we have congress, and so I'd rather the opposition party simply put up and shut up, and hold press conferences afterwards if they want to bring attention to a misstatement of fact.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only state of the union delivered by a President in the nineteenth century was in 1900. Every other one was delivered by proxy and/or note (sometimes not even as a cohesive speech, just as a series of notes).
And yes, I mean by a President; the President could hardly be heckled if he wasn't at least there. And as far as I know, there were no non-SotU addresses to joint sessions of Congress, either.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I do indeed want our Senators calling out our Presidents for perceived lies during their speeches. The Republican Party has a lot of sins to answer for, but interrupting the President isn't one of them.
I agree that senators and congressman should call out the President for factual error or inaccurate statements. Our elected officials have a right to dispute what the president says and a president should be required to defend what he says with verifiable facts. I just don't think shouting epithets during an address is a productive way to do that. If it happened on a regular basis it would serve only to disrupt rather than further real discussion. I've sat in many audiences, I've given many lectures and I've moderated many discussion and debates. There are ways to allow audience participation that further debate and there are those that simply disrupt. Shouting thing like "You Lie" serves only to disrupt. Once the shouting starts, the possibility for rational discourse no longer exists.
And given all the references to how well this works in the British Parliament, it should be mentioned that there are rather strict standards of conduct in Parliament even if they are different from ours. Accusing an opponent of lying is strictly banned and warrants immediate dismissal. This ban was established because it is understood that productive discourse requires an assumption of good faith on the part of all parties. To shout "You Lie" is not simply disputing facts or even rebutting an assertion. By shouting "You lie", you have openly accused the opposition of deliberate deception. You have abandoned even the pretense that your opponents are acting in good faith. Unlike disputing facts or rebutting an argument, calling someone a liar changes the nature of the debate. It is no longer a disagreement on facts, values or principles, it has no become a debate about the character and sincerity of the opposition. Shouting "You Lie" is a declaration that you no longer consider rational deliberation possible because the other side is not acting in good faith. It closes down the possibility for meaningful discussion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if I look at the situation in American politics today, I'm fairly confident that much of what I see as incivility on the part of republicans stems precisely from the fact that so much of the right wing abandoned the possibility for rational discourse with democrats long ago. They see liberals as enemies of the state, who must be defeated to protect all that is right and good. Once you have adopted that stance, discourse becomes solely a route surrender and not a means toward progress.
Ideally, democracy needs to work through a commitment to discourse. It's fundamental virtue lies in the fact that better decisions are made when more voices are heard and more ideas considered. Without a willingness to converse with the opposition, democracy can rapidly deteriorate into the tyranny. To believe in democracy, is to believe that the overwhelming majority of people are willing to accommodate the reasonable needs and desires of others once they clearly understand those needs and desires. It is to believe in the value of discourse and the necessity of compromise.
When people like Rush Limbaugh declare 'they hope Obama fails', they are declaring unwillingness to seek common ground. They have rejected the possibility of rational discourse and are simply digging in for an all or nothing fight. They value democracy solely when it works to maximize their personal power and have no appreciation for its potential to generate better solutions through discourse and compromise.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yes, I guess I am saying that I lost confidence in the idea that republicans are willing to work in good faith with democrats. I just don't see any evidence that republican leaders are working in good faith to improve the country right now. They are just blocking everything they can and posturing for the next round of elections. They have never given Obama's efforts at bipartisanship the slightest chance. Within minutes after loosing the election , they locked step in support of an agenda that's only real goal is to obstruct the democrats until they regain power. They seem to be banking on the prediction that things will get worse before the 2010 elections and maneuvering to blame the democrats. They seem utterly unconcerned with helping to fix the serious problems America is facing, it almost seems like they want things to get worse to spite the democrats.
I don't see any willingness on the part of republican leaders to compromise or cooperate. I didn't see them working trying to improve the stimulus package or engaging productively in the health care debate. Rather than accepting that they are the minority and working in good faith to get democrats to listen to their biggest concerns and trying to improve the proposals the democrats put forth, they've chosen to simply posture, heckel and obstruct. Its very disappointing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The only state of the union delivered by a President in the nineteenth century was in 1900. Every other one was delivered by proxy and/or note (sometimes not even as a cohesive speech, just as a series of notes).
And yes, I mean by a President; the President could hardly be heckled if he wasn't at least there. And as far as I know, there were no non-SotU addresses to joint sessions of Congress, either.
Your original statement was somewhat broad, I was just double checking what you meant to say.
I'll have to check on that. I thought Lincoln made at least one statement to a JSC. And for that matter, I'd want to double check every inaugural. I'd doubt that many or even any were done before a JSC, but I bet most of Congress was there for each one. Still I'd be even more surprised at heckling during that speech than at a random address.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't see any willingness on the part of republican leaders to compromise or cooperate. I didn't see them working trying to improve the stimulus package or engaging productively in the health care debate. Rather than accepting that they are the minority and working in good faith to get democrats to listen to their biggest concerns and trying to improve the proposals the democrats put forth, they've chosen to simply posture, heckel and obstruct. Its very disappointing.
Being told repeatedly by the democratic leadership, in essence, "You lost, your ideas are going to be ignored. Live with it and vote for what we tell you to." doesn't exactly lead to a willingness to cooperate. Every time I've seen a republican *try* to put in two cents on a subject, they get shot down with impunity.
You can only kick a dog so many times before he turns around and bites you. The democratic leadership needs to get off its "We won, you lost" high-horse and start listening for a change.
Bipartisanship doesn't come from the bottom of the pile. It comes from the top. The democrats need to *prove* that they are willing to listen to the issues that republicans have. They haven't even come *close* to doing that yet.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember when the word first sunk in that there were no WMD in Iraq. A lot of talk on this board condemned President Bush. Yet the first time someone called him "Bush" there was a second firestorm. "How dare we use the Presidents name without his title. That disrespects the country."
Yet none of the conservative press ever calls him President Obama. Its always, "Obama this" or "Obama that."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't see any willingness on the part of republican leaders to compromise or cooperate. I didn't see them working trying to improve the stimulus package or engaging productively in the health care debate. Rather than accepting that they are the minority and working in good faith to get democrats to listen to their biggest concerns and trying to improve the proposals the democrats put forth, they've chosen to simply posture, heckel and obstruct. Its very disappointing.
Being told repeatedly by the democratic leadership, in essence, "You lost, your ideas are going to be ignored. Live with it and vote for what we tell you to." doesn't exactly lead to a willingness to cooperate. Every time I've seen a republican *try* to put in two cents on a subject, they get shot down with impunity.
You can only kick a dog so many times before he turns around and bites you. The democratic leadership needs to get off its "We won, you lost" high-horse and start listening for a change.
Bipartisanship doesn't come from the bottom of the pile. It comes from the top. The democrats need to *prove* that they are willing to listen to the issues that republicans have. They haven't even come *close* to doing that yet.
Can you come up with some sort of list of bi-partisan ideas that the Republicans have come up with? Other than simply yelling for the same things they've always yelled for, and expecting the Democrats to simply give in in the name of bi-partisanship, I haven't seen any compromise measures coming from Republicans. I've seen a lot of "no" from them. I've seen plenty of centrist Democrats willing to work with the centrist Republicans.
What did they get in return? Even Chuck Grassley, a close ally of Democrats on health care, went from being actively involved in the reform process to saying Obama wants to pull the plug on grandma. He was reeled in by the GOP leadership when they decided their new order of business was to stymie Democrats rather than cooperate on legislation.
Here's the thing though: Republicans were voted out of power, and the Democrats were voted in. Bi-partisanship doesn't mean doing things the Republican way, it means a certain amount of compromise in order to gain broader support, but to suggest that both Democrats need to sacrifice large swaths of their plan to placate the Republicans sort of ignores the democratic process. The GOP LOST the election; they don't get to dictate policy or terms. They've been offered a voice, and they've chosen to use it as a violent opposition rather than a cooperative one, frankly, in a similar but even worse fashion than Democrats did when they were the minority.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We see things very different. What I saw was Obama actively reaching out and trying to draw republicans into the discussion. What I saw, was republicans presenting plans so radically different from those of the Obama's proposals that they left absolutely zero room for common ground. The republicans plans have been so radically opposite of those set forth by the majority they never had the slightest chance of passing and the republicans know that. They aren't making serious suggestions, they are grandstanding. And their first order of business was to bully every moderate republican who might have tried to work for compromises into locking step.
The very first thing the republicans did this year was to present a recovery plan that had absolutely no common ground with the Presidents plan. That's not the way you proceed if you have the slightest interest in cooperation and bipartisanship.
The first rule of political compromise is recognizing that you can't set the agenda if you've lost the election. If a minority is actually interested in contributing to the formation of policy and not just grandstanding, they have to accept that they will have to work within the limits established by the majority. Knowing they won't get everything they want, a minority has to set priorities, they need to pick a few battles on which to focus their energy and work for small gains. They have to seek common ground.
The democrats don't have to "prove" anything to the Republicans. They won the election. They are the majority. They have reached out to the republicans and asked for input. The republicans have not responded in good faith.
If there are examples where the republican leaders have made reasonable proposals that show a willingness to work with Obama and a respect for the fact that the majority of Americans voted for him and his agenda, please point them out. I'd really like to know. It really does please me to see the better nature or the republican party. It gives me hope.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being told repeatedly by the democratic leadership, in essence, "You lost, your ideas are going to be ignored. Live with it and vote for what we tell you to." doesn't exactly lead to a willingness to cooperate.
Who's been saying that, exactly? Obama's been bending over backwards to cooperate with the other side of the aisle; he's actually crippled a number of his programs and required several of his aides to fall on their swords just to keep conservatives happy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, a couple things specific to health care that I forgot to mention: If anyone (Boris) watched the address on health care, Obama named several ideas that the Republicans loudly cheered, including an insurance exchange and tort reform. Instead of realizing that they aren't the party in power and working with the Democrats on the ideas they DO agree on, they've decided to vote down anything that doesn't line up perfectly with what they want.
That's not compromise, and the Democrats don't even have to offer them that much. But Obama is a pragmatist, and wants to do what he think will work, but he also wants to try to work with Republicans (and he's offered plenty of olive branches, e.g., the major speech he gave to Congress the other night). There will never be bi-partisan consensus until Republicans learn that bi-partisanship does NOT mean "Democrats have to give in to our demands."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Being told repeatedly by the democratic leadership, in essence, "You lost, your ideas are going to be ignored. Live with it and vote for what we tell you to." doesn't exactly lead to a willingness to cooperate.
That does not resemble the Democrats approach to the Republicans at all.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris' statement is just further evidence that the world Republicans live in is an entirely different plane of existence than the one everyone else lives in.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I remember when the word first sunk in that there were no WMD in Iraq. A lot of talk on this board condemned President Bush. Yet the first time someone called him "Bush" there was a second firestorm. "How dare we use the Presidents name without his title. That disrespects the country."
Can you dig that up and provide a link to that discussion? I ask for a couple of reasons. It's only partially because I'd be surprised if it were true -- and that's not a condemnation of you, by the way. It's not that I specifically distrust you -- it's just that it doesn't sound very believable to me. The much larger interest I have in reading that discussion is that, in general, I happen to think that there was a deterioration in the media during President Bush's administration, in terms of demonstrating a degree of respect for the office, and it had a great deal to do with calling him "Bush" instead of "President Bush...." ...And I'd be curious to read other takes on the topic. I've mentioned it on Hatrack before, and I don't recall (although that might just be my bad memory) having heard anyone else discuss it on Hatrack, so I'm also now wondering if the comments you're referring to were my comments. Although I would assume that any such discussion must have pre-dated my membership here. And of course, since I already know my thoughts on the subject, if there was an actual discussion here, it would be great to read it and see some other takes on it.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there HAS been a deterioration in respect for the office of the president, but I think that trend has been steadily downwards since Watergate. THis is, of course, based off of historical readings, since I wasn't born until the Carter Administration Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
this interesting article popped up on CNN. Someone here was asking for examples of when this precise thing happened in our history, which I don't think has happened. However, this article shares many stories of similar happenings.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
