Across spectrum of society, people are behaving badly
WASHINGTON — Not so long ago, Rep. Joe Wilson’s verbal assault on the president—“You lie!”—might have produced a much different outcome.
Instead of the U.S. House rebuking Wilson, we might be entertaining the prospect of a duel.
In early America, calling someone a liar wasn’t a childish insult but a direct challenge to one’s honor, an appropriate response to which varied by region. Where dueling was common—as in Wilson’s home state of South Carolina—so were insults.
Here’s how an 1882 New York Times article described the thinking of the time as it related to a Mr. John Goode, who had called a certain Mr. Bailey a liar.
Writing that “Nothing but blood can wipe out this insult,” the author noted that although the laws of chivalry were supposed to be dominant, “language used in attacking individuals is much more gross and insulting than in regions where the duel is not invoked as the final arbiter betwixt the man who has been insulted and the defamer.
“In the North, we are supposed to be a lily-livered and pusillanimous race. Yet we very much question if any legislator or public man would dare to denounce another as ‘a liar.’ Nevertheless, in the South, where the code of honor prevails, the exchange of such epithets is possible, and the men who fling these names at each other live and prosper.”
Indeed.
Last week, I spoke too soon when I wrote that Wilson might have lost his audience through his boorishness. Projection will get you in trouble every time. Instead, Wilson has become a cult hero, rolling in dough. Both he and his opponent, Rob Miller, reportedly have raised more than $1 million each since Wilson’s eruption.
Who would have thought that a congressional race in South Carolina could become a referendum on the Obama administration? Two relative unknowns suddenly personify two dueling worldviews: The You-Liars vs. The Truthers. Death-panelists vs. Hopers-Changers.
As Americans have picked their side of civilization’s breach the past few days, some have justified Wilson’s words because they think they were true. Sure, one can make a slim case that some of Obama’s assertions weren’t 100 percent accurate, but Wilson’s behavior can’t be justified. It isn’t done. Period.
And why not? Because civilization is a fragile and delicate idea, held together by a few mere threads, bound together by little more than a wisp of mutual consent. Frays in those threads are daily apparent—from the rude tantrum of Kanye West at the Video Music Awards to the profane threats of tennis star Serena Williams when she disagreed with a line call.
Across the spectrum of society, people are behaving badly. Even those at the very top of their games, who enjoy wealth and status, no longer can be relied upon to carry the standard of exemplary behavior. If ever there were one place we might hope to find people of respectful temperament, it would be where those elected to govern convene to hear the president.
Summation: People in positions of power and privilege have a duty to perform at a higher level. If not they, then who?
To settle the question—did the president speak inaccurately when he said nothing in “our reform effort” would pay for illegal immigrants or abortion?—the answer is, like H.R. 3200, not simple. What’s true is that the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that nothing in H.R. 3200 precludes illegal immigrants from buying public insurance on the proposed Health Insurance Exchange. And, as fact-checking groups have confirmed, there’s wiggle room in the bill whereby public subsidies could be used to purchase insurance that covers abortions.
The Senate Finance Committee is trying to iron out these wrinkles in its version of the bill, but wrinkles they are—hardly cause for Wilson’s emotional display. If one were inclined to give the president the benefit of the doubt, he was speaking of reform efforts, not a specific bill. In so doing, he created a political problem for himself because none of the bills thus far comes close to matching his rhetoric.
Meanwhile, there are myriad ways for a congressman to voice objection to the president’s ideas or his colleagues’ proposals. But dueling has been out of style for quite some time, even in South Carolina. If our will to self-govern is to prevail, then incivility will have to become equally unfashionable.
Kathleen Parker is a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Her e-mail address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
Sep 17, 2009 at 10:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
futurerichguy, the truth is over the past ~3 years the money provided by health professionals has leaned slightly toward the democratic isle. But, over the last 20 years, they have given to the republicans +13%.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/in...
Sep 17, 2009 at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
SarahB1; maybe I'm wrong but I'm talking of places other than jvl. I've been thru the south (FL) in particular & they are everywhere - kind of like Jvl's Chiropractors & dentist offices.
http://www.tampabaymedicalnews.com/news....
Sep 17, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAT, thanks for the link at http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians. Its interesting how Health Care Professionals are typically the number one donor to Republicans, and Law Firms are the number one donor to Democrats. People so caught up in the idealism of the health-care debate are just pawns in a battle being waged between health-care and Tort law. I say if Obama includes Tort reform, then move forward with the bill.
Sep 17, 2009 at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
tiredofhearingit: I understand what you are saying regarding physicians, but I can't even think of one physician that is in practice by himself. Those days are long gone.
Sep 17, 2009 at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
tiredofhearingit, your link reminded me of another question. This one regarding the issues of mandating coverage of folks with pre-existing conditions and prohibiting recision (and its ugly cousins). Though noble goals in and of themselves, how could any of that possibly REDUCE the total dollars spent on healthcare? It seems to me that doing so will necessarily require increased activity in the most expensive forms of healthcare. Does anyone believe those additional costs will be born solely by the newly insured recipients? (Maybe our posting insurance company executive can shine some light on this question.)
Sep 17, 2009 at 10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Prounioun you are misinformed.
H.R. 3200 (http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-Bill...) says nothing on banning illegal aliens.
In fact, the congressional research service found that H.R 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens, whether legally or illegally present, in our country temporary or permanent (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40773_20...).
In addition, QUOTE: “The White House says that Obama does not want illegal immigrants to be able to buy insurance through the new purchasing exchange as they would be allowed to do under Democratic legislation in the House. “ From an AP story on Fri Sep 11th (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090911/ap_o...), just 2 days after the President gave his speech and Rep Wilson said “you lie”.
Sep 17, 2009 at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
FOTH; Excellent question. loopholes - loopholes - loopholes......end up in major gotcha's.
I also want to know if Joe Wilson was truely incorrect. Factcheck has not posted this yet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12531489...
Sep 17, 2009 at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Can someone here explain something that has me puzzled? One rationale (sales pitch) for a public option is to eliminate the abuse of ER and other services because that cost is shifted to others. My first question is, if "illegals" are not covered by a public option, then how will this eliminate this so-called problem of cost shifting? Next, if "illegals" are ineligible for subsidized coverage, are they also exempt from mandatory coverage or fine? If the answer to the last question is "yes", then how does one go about becoming an illegal?
Sep 17, 2009 at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
The original bill banned illegal immigrants from the public option. The "correction" you speak of was to make it extra clear to people that wanted to somehow distort that into them somehow allowing it, the original language was clear and Wilson was plain out wrong.
Sep 17, 2009 at 7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
SarahB1; please read RAF post again - It says 45% would close their practices if approved. The key word being "their". It doesnt say they wouldnt be Doc's just that they would close their private practices. I can certainly believe that #. They would rather not participate in a system that tells them what they can / cant charge for - how much. Here's why I think its true - how many gas stations were in this State before the price of a gallon of gas was regulated? Since that happened they have all but gone out of business or given way to convenience stores - that also sell gas. If you ask any of them how much they make on a gallon & it 1-3 cents per gal - depends upon who you ask. The point is they couldnt survive on just the gas & the occassional oil change - tire rotation and had to subsidize with food, candy etc. The same logic could be used in private Dr's practices. They will not be able to compete with the bigger clinics / hospitals that have a "convenience store" available to patients. Jvl is a perfect example of this - remember when the nuns ran the hospital & there were private practices all over & Jvl Med center (which was a coop in sorts of private doctors) existed? What happened? - Mercy absorbed all these & now there are virtually no private practices here - its either Dean or Mercy.
Sep 17, 2009 at 1:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Surprised Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton haven't jumped on Jimmy Carter's racist bandwagon yet.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Reparati...
Sep 17, 2009 at 12:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce: I don't doubt what you say, but I do doubt that, despite them saying so, that 45 percent of U.S. physicians would seriously consider putting themselves out of business (and income). I have just one thing to say to those doctors: "YOU'RE LYING!!"
Sep 16, 2009 at 11:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Whythink, how will someone use the national healthcare system (new one)? For health care now, do you not already show a health insurance card at to your care provider? Every place I have used for health service also takes a photo copy of that card. If/when the cards are issued, for someone on the public option, what criteria should be used to get one? Most people think the basic criteria should at least be citizenship.
We could banter all day over technicalities on who was right or wrong (speech vs “you lie). Both of these two made mistakes. One apologized for it the other had holes plugged in pending legislation to remove the chance of it happening (legally).
Name calling from both sides is not going to end on this or future issues; that is politics and the current two party system feeds on it. Your pointing of idiot protesters is endemic to that; it happens from both sides depending on the issues.
Your proposal of a health care company not making profits sounds utopian. We have that already, Medicaid and Medicare. These two cover ~ 30% of Americans and spend ~ 40% of the health care related money in this country. If profits were the big savings in this game these numbers would look vastly different.
Lastly, your link. Yes there are doctors who are for a single payer system, everyone knows this. There are also many more against it…65% are against expanding a government option and 45% are considering shutting down their practices if it is approved. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...
Sep 16, 2009 at 11:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gina, you need to look things up for yourself before you echo non-truths.
Has he received money from insurance companies? Yes. How much? $73,000, during his whole career in congress. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/i...
For a “little” perspective, the current President raised 43 million dollars from lawyers in just the last election.
Sep 16, 2009 at 10:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
The fact still remains that Wilson received huge amounts of money from insurance companies.
Sep 16, 2009 at 6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Excuse me, Kathleen Parker... stop trying to subvert your very slanted article by stating that calling someone a liar is "childish." It is not. Especially, when the statement is true and fits it's intended target like a glove. Get over it.
Sep 16, 2009 at 3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF,
You will rip me for this but it is all about a technicality related to wording.
.
Republicans want a national I.D. and want that to be necessary for anyone using the national health care option.
.
Democrats don't believe that should be required.
.
Bottom line, the bill/plan does not say illegal immigrants will be covered but it also does not say they won't be covered. I believe Obama was talking about the later so technically he wasn't lying. He, was being a politican and misleading.
.
The problem I still have with this debate is the name calling...on BOTH SIDES!
.
Natzi, Hitler, Stalin, Socialist, Communist...UGH!
Did anyone see the posters from the DC protests this weekend? One stated We should bury health care next to Kennedy. Once showed Obama as Hitler, another as the devil.
.
QUESTION: How does any of this get something done? BTW, this wasn't just Glen Beck and some nuts Republicans spoke to the audience.
.
Democrats aren't any better.
.
Something needs to change.
.
Here is my new proposal. Effective tomorrow...
It is against the law for a Health Care Company to make a profit. Add some regulation to CEO pay and costs will come down. Period, end of story.
.
BTW, something you won't here about on Fox
madashelldoctors.com
.
Check it out.
Sep 16, 2009 at 2:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
So many people have glossed over the reality in this. The fact remains when the President spoke he was wrong, either willfully or ignorantly, he was incorrect. The White House and the Senate corrected the very thing he spoke of, after the fact.
It was not respectful, shouting, during his speech. But in all the political banter over the congressman’s actions most people have lost sight in the fact he was correct and the President was wrong.
Sep 16, 2009 at 12:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sprout: I beg to differ.
Sep 16, 2009 at 12:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Barry Soetoro lied, and Jimmy Carter is a moron.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.