Personally, I sort of liked Rep Joe Wilson’s idea of introducing British-style heckling to the halls of congress; totally disrespectful and out of step with American tradition, true, but their tradition is better. Unfortunately, Wilson was also lying about the point at issue and will thereby set back the cause of heckling by decades.
Eh, maybe. But frankly, one thing we've witnessed over the past few months is that Republicans can tank deliberative discourse just fine when it's not socially sanctioned, making me cringe at what things would be like if it were. Ezra Klein, however, is willing to cut a deal:
If we're going to adopt British norms of political behavior, we should also adopt British norms of governance. It's fine to have a polarized system when the majority can wield power. You just can't have it when you need a supermajority --- which is to say, a high level of consensus -- to get anything done. So if we're going to move toward British-style heckling, lets also move toward British-style majority rule.
Pick 'em.
4 comments:
How does Milbank's article prove the point for which you offer it as evidence: "Republicans can tank deliberative discourse just fine when it's not socially sanctioned"?
British-style heckling would only be translated to the U.S. in Wilson's outburst if the heckling were of the Queen (their chief executive, as the president is ours), rather than of the leader of the majority party in the legislative branch (which is what the prime minister is). I doubt we would be seeing quite so much concern about Wilson's behavior had it been directed to, say, Nancy Pelosi (the equivalent of the PM), particularly if done at a time specifically designated for the House to question her.
I think it's also important to note that fact-based criticism of the ex-President's policies was treated as treason by these same people.
It's not about the right to dissent.
The Queen of the UK is the head of state, the prime minister is the head of government (or chief executive).
POTUS is both the head of state and government.
Pelosi is head of a legislative branch and is not the equivalent to a PM.
Pelosi is head of a legislative branch and is not the equivalent to a PM.
One becomes PM by one's party holding the majority in Parliament and then being selected by that party. It is pretty much impossible for the PM to be of a different party than the majority in the legislature, whereas we have had many presidents who were of the minority legislature party. How is that different from Pelosi's position?
And as Andrew Sullivan noted, it's specifically prohibited in Parliament's rules to say an opponent is lying.
Post a Comment