The controversy surrounding Joe Wilson’s interjection into President Obama’s health care address has moved beyond claims of prevarication. Wilson’s outburst, we are told, suggests that America is experiencing yet another crisis: a crisis of political incivility. Apparently we should long for the good old days when politicians respected the other side’s positions and gallantly held back their emotions.

I certainly miss the good old days. In particular, I miss May 22, 1856, the day Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Senator Charles Sumner with a wooden cane, beating him until he lay unconsciousness on the Senate floor.

Congressman Brooks had taken umbrage at a speech given three days earlier by Senator Sumner criticizing Brooks’s position on slavery. Slavery was finally coming to a head after decades of compromise, and tempers apparently were easily stirred. Brooks broke his cane during the attack, and it took Sumner three years to fully recuperate. In response to this brutish display, supporters sent Brooks boxes of canes (today they would have to send them to his PAC first). Brook even survived an expulsion vote.

Throughout history, the tone of American political debate has often been unpleasant. Smear tactics in presidential elections are hardly a modern trend, and today’s campaigns seem quaint when compared to the exchanges between Jefferson and Adams in their contest for the presidency. To say that American politics has become less civil is to ignore history.

In the broader historical context of American politics, shouting “liar” seems rather drab. Obama probably was lying when talking about illegal immigrants. Bush probably lied to us. Clinton, well, c’mon. Reagan probably lied and even you, reader, have probably lied. Half of the Democrats in the room thought Obama was lying (if they were listening). It seems unlikely that Democrats could be seriously bent out of shape over any disrespect Congressman Wilson might have slung upon the office of the President.

The real issue is that Joe Wilson broke an unspoken rule in politics: calling a fellow politician a liar. Though politicians often insinuate that their opponents are liars, they generally refrain from using “liar” in debate for the same reason football players generally refrain from blocking in the back: Such a block can effectively clear the field for your team’s runner, but anyone can do it. To sanction its use would make the game less enjoyable. But in every game some player gets away with it a few times, on both sides, and neither team is in any position to chastise the other for its use.

If politicians were to accept the use of “liar” openly, the entire political fabric would implode upon itself (not necessarily a bad thing). But politicians probably disagree, and to maintain a nice orderly game they frown upon calling each other liars in a very gentlemanly sort of way which is quite civil, yet also slyly perfidious.

But, ultimately, the real problem with the censure resolution is its implication that government must dictate the proper tone of debate. The censure vote implies that if Congress does not like how Congressman Wilson talked to the president, America should not either. But we do not have a king. The President is not instilled with divine wisdom: he is “one” of us. If a politician wants to scream out that the President is a liar, he should feel free to do so and suffer the political consequences at the election booth, not via censure.

Ed Grossi is a regular contributor to The D.C. Writeup.

Related Articles

1. Personality Politics
2. David Brooks Channels Inner Teenage Girl: “I Was Like, ehh, Get Me Outta Here”
3. Obama Gives A Rallying Cry to Joint Session of Congress
4. Joe Wilson Faces Resolution of Disapproval
5. The Right’s Media Bias Hypocrisy