Charmed, I’m Sure

Rude? Honest? Disrespectful? Political? Emotional? Boorish?

The outburst of “You lie!” by Joe Wilson, the representative from South Carolina, surprised President Obama in the midst of his speech to the members of Congress.

Watching it live on TV, I observed the cameras panning for the source of the disruption. News commentators repeated the words in astonishment and Obama resumed his address without ceding any momentum in stating his case for healthcare reform.

After the first surprise had passed I found myself wondering if there would be further outbursts or confrontation. I felt sad for the personal slur to our President and his Office. I also experienced a little jolt of excitement at the challenge those words presented and realized with a bit of a stab how divisive the issue of healthcare changes had become.

Wilson apologized; his Republican colleagues denounced his words and action when interviewed but in conservative venues and circles, Wilson is a hero.

The Democratic-lead House formally rebuked Wilson for his lapse of judgement.

I have read and heard that the English Parliament traditionally takes a no-holds-barred approach in their debates. It seems odd that British reserve and decorum would lend itself to melees in its law-making body. Verbal sparring and political invective are pretty much bedrock in American society though not often during a televised address. Most of us learned from a young age that the rules of engagement for a disagreement exclude personal attacks. In true debate they don’t do much to clarify the issue or support a point of view. They are lightening rods for angry reactions.

Wilson’s past fuels speculation about his motivations in shouting at Obama. In his home state, he was an aide and political colleague of the late U. S. Senator Strom Thurmond, a man who unapologetically battled against desegregation in the 50s and 60s. I wouldn’t think it possible, at this point in our country’s history, for a member of the U.S. Congress to harbor racist beliefs. Unknown to most in the national political scene, Wilson is touted by his friends to be a polite, considerate man. He says he wants to chalk this incident up to emotional sponteneity.

Obama is undamaged by the accusation. The statement that made Wilson froth, Obama’s denouncement of inclusion for illegal aliens in his healthcare plan, has been substantiated independently. Wilson may have shot himself in the foot; back home a challenger for his House seat received a boost in campaign contributions after the outburst.

It appears to me Joe Wilson was responding to more than the issue at hand in a spontaneous moment. I can’t attribute racist views to Wilson, I don’t know him. Perhaps hide-bound opposition or showing off for his supporters was the prompt. But how unmindful can a guy be in the midst of the entire United States Congress, listening to the President, being televised nation and even worldwide?

Of course it’s right to speak your mind without fear or undue formality, but civility matters. It keeps the issue in focus so a meaningful debate can occur – then maybe a solution.

Charm school is an old-fashioned notion; civil discourse may be out of style as well.

If It Looks Like an Assault Rifle…

In one of my classes, we just reviewed and discussed the first amendment to the U.S constitution and its guarantees of  freedom of the press and free speech.     

It’s been a few weeks since a protester, visibly armed with a pistol and semi-automatic rifle, was photographed outside the downtown Phoenix Convention Center during an appearance by President Obama.  The images and the reactions have been splashed across the media ever since.  The point was clear: he and the 11 other armed  protesters have a right to keep and bear arms – amendment number two.

The image was jarring, though the protest was peaceful and surveillance by secret service was thorough.   Ultimately, it was reported that the peacock-show was a publicity stunt and a sort of exercise of the freedom of speech.

Because it happened in Arizona, our wild-west image has been resurrected.  As a native of Phoenix, I used to cringe at this stereotype because it seemed no more fitting to this growing urban state capitol than the image of pilgrims in breeches and buckle shoes defines Massachusettes today.  High-profile travel advisories and tongue-clucking aside, the image and the action of carrying a gun are chilling to many, including me. 

Guns are threatening and their potential is violence.  Our police are armed to counter violent threats.  Armed private citizens can be a puzzle; are they prepared for self-defense or preparing to act above or outside the law?  Was the message of  this and other recent protests by armed citizenry to threaten or simply a show-and-tell?  The protest and the reaction are like checks and balances in the exercise of  rights which our constitution enumerates. 

The wild west notion will drift back to its grave on Boot Hill.  Come winter, the fifth largest city in the U.S. will renew its luster as a business and vacation destination.  Phoenix can boast of diminishing crime rates in recent years despite the open-carry gun laws.

The constitution, bill of rights and later amendments carry the weight of a lot of history and  debate about the intention of the founders and subsequent lawmakers of the United States.  It’s ponderous and thrilling to me to imagine the experiences and angst that shaped their thinking.

Studying  journalism, I’ve been reminded that the right of freedom of the press comes with a responsibility to write and report ethically.  The right of assembly and protest as well as to bear arms, all rights, are laden with responsibilities also.

I believe we need to really consider and anticipate the impact of our excercise of our rights – we are responsible for the message.