the limits of civility

written 9/13/2009

Much commentary has been made about congressman Joe Wilson's outburst during the president's speech Wednesday night. It was not something any of us like to see in a solemn setting like this. Mr. Wilson apologized immediately, citing his own weakness in overcoming "the passion of the moment". He says the outburst "You lie" was not pre-meditated. I take him at his word, seeing no evidence to contradict his statement. But it raised a question in my own mind - is there ever a time when such a harsh rebuke could be justified? Is politeness the highest value in the land? What about the truth?

Just hours before the speech, Mr. Wilson was reviewing HR 3200, the house version of the bill to revamp our health care system in the United States. He had just concluded from his reading and research that there were no guarantees against giving free medical care to illegal aliens in this country at the expense of tax-paying citizens. Whether this country should do this is a matter of intense debate. Mr. Wilson and many citizens don't believe it is right to spend tax money on something like this without a real clear decision made by the American people to do so. This was the background to his surprising shout. Most of us recognize our own propensity to do something like that, even against our own better judgment. Our laws make a distinction between a "crime of passion" and pre-meditated murder, which is not to say that speech comes close to a crime like that.

George Bush made a personal decision, announced in his first inaugural speech, to set a "new tone" in Washington. For better or worse, he was tired of the partisan wrangling, harsh allegations, and insults regularly tossed about between the two political parties. Some considered this as an honorable goal, something missing in our government, but others thought his judgment here to be naive. His opponents fashioned his style to be "tone deaf", a stubborn refusal to listen to his critics. There were things said about George Bush that shocked even some Democrats. Some critics even wished for his assassination and even made a movie on how it could be done. Our former president was not blind either, acknowledging "the one finger salute" he received in a visit to Canada. Bush went out of his way to show respect to all, even his harshest enemies. Bill and Hillary Clinton were invited to the White House during Bush's first term for the unveiling of their White House official portraits and the president found many good things to say about the former president and First Lady. I remember that occasion vividly and was struck at by his kind words. The very next day Hillary made several demeaning and insulting statements about Bush's decisions and motives.

I'm the first person to say that we should not sink to the level of our opponents. There is a time and a place to question someone's knowledge and competency. Sometimes we even have to wonder what motivates others to do what they do. The downside to Bush's style was that many good people began to believe his opponents, since the president did not appear to defend his actions and statements. It raised some questions in many minds and over time his poll numbers reflected that. Some have made the case that the elections of 2006 and 2008 reflect on Bush's approach, at least partially. I believe he had noble intentions and much good has come from his example. He just went too far.

A very wise priest and spiritual leader, Father Benedict Groeschel was once asked if he had any regrets to his 50 years of ministry. He said : "I think I placed too much value of prudence. There were times I should have spoken out more forcefully when bad things were going on in the Church, but I was told to exercise prudence". I think we need to say the same thing about having a "civil debate". There's a time for debate and there's a time to shout out the truth, lest it be lost in the misguided ideas about what true virtue is.

Gary