11 September 2009
Decorum
When has it become acceptable behavior to shout out "You lie" at the President of the United States giving an address to a joint session of Congress?
Post a Comment
How did this individual, an elected member of the House of Representatives, believe that it is proper to act this way, in these circumstances, toward this man? What outcome did he want from vocalizing these words? Why would it even occur to him that doing what he did would be the right thing to do? There seems to have been more media attention to this man's action than to any criticism and subsequent action by his colleagues to show disapproval and sanctions for it. This guy walks among them.
Clearly, the standards of civility and decorum, even appropriate dress codes, have changed significantly in the past forty years, by two generations and condoned by "the Greatest Generation." Through experience, I do believe the social maxim that "you act according to the way you dress." Every so often, young people will discover this and I am somewhat heartened by the life span for this maxim.
As I was learning to write in grammar school, in the early 1950s, I was taught that one always capitalized the "p" when writing about the President of the United State, but for no other presidents. This spelling maxim applied to any derivative of 'President' as well. Sure that was a time of hyper-patriotism, yet I still consider the maxim appropriate as the proper title's spelling, even when used without the current President's name.
All my life, when the President of the United States gave a nationally broadcast speech, on radio and later television, I was raised to listen closely, attentively and even at home, respectfully. I will admit to ignoring most of GWB's speeches after 2004, yet he was our President and deserved the high respect considered for that office. When I reacted, having read GWB's speeches, by sending him letters by fax, I was courteous and respectful of his office even though I could not respect the man. Until the 1968 election, I heard Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson being accorded the respect of his office by the press and the audiences. That public respect did not mean there were no dissenters or extremists in opposition to those Presidents; however, people respected the Presidency.
By 1968, however, President Johnson was the target of significant numbers of public demonstrations against the Viet Nam War. Maybe this cause created more disrespect for the Office than respect. Even though most soldiers were draftees, the common reaction to a man in uniform was antagonistic rather than grateful. Television brought that war into our homes so that the realities of war's evil conduct and outcomes became visible to all, not just to the soldiers, adding significant numbers of persons who became antagonistic to any participant in it. Then, the treatment of opposition groups assembled to demonstrate at the Republican Convention in Chicago fortified war opponents and the candidates for the Presidency in 1968.
I was stationed in Europe for most of Nixon's first term of office, after having been relatively isolated to what was happening in the public arena since February of 1968. When I returned to the States in late December 1971, I had missed what I consider to be a social revolution that had changed America. Everyone was using first names at the office, even the executives. President Nixon had implemented most of LBJ's "Great Society" vision with Congress, and Senator McGovern was running for President as an opponent of the Viet Nam War.
So, besides the significant degree of change in society's interpersonal mores, seen in popular music, on television and in the theaters, when Watergate occurred in 1972 and Nixon's unwilling resignation from office in 1974, I believe that most of the nation had lost their traditional respect for a President. There was no longer any distinction between the Office and the man who was President.
This change, for me, has been most unfortunate. Civility in social discourse seems to occur only under power-based circumstances and not automatically. A person's integrity can be challenged and damaged without having any basis in fact. Criminal trial trials seem anachronistic when the public has already found blame in the person on trial. Our courtroom-based television shows do not portray a defendant or a suspect as presumably innocent of any crime, and the prosecutor has to be the hero bringing justice to the victims. The screenwriters actually present the way British juris prudence functions, that the defendant has to prove his or her innocence of the charges. American juris prudence has its stated ethos that a person is innocent until the state's prosecutor proves the person to be guilty of the charge. Just the opposite paradigm from the British system.
Fictional, criminal cases on television and in movies concentrate on the likely person that the police or detective is looking for, rather than on the viewpoint of the district attorney who must find sufficient evidence to arrest and charge the suspect, let alone to have sufficient evidence to convince a jury or judge that the defendant at trial is culpable for crimes against society. The same "bad guy" person will be portrayed in plots that involve the President. Even if innocent of any criminal behavior by someone in his Administration, innocence becomes equivalent to incompetence as President for not knowing about the criminal activity. The last time I checked, incompetence is not a crime in and of itself.
Respect in social settings seems to have fallen victim to an inversion effect, so that most persons worry about the respect they are shown versus any respect they accord as due to others. In the recent town meetings of August 2009, individuals among the constituents in attendance showed no respect for their elected representative, senator or President. The media reported only the most "exciting" reactions to the announcement of President Obama's speech to the nation's children in school. Mothers were accusing the President of interference with parental rights, with dictating school curricula that are the right of local school boards to make.
Several parents said they would not allow their children to see the President of the United States address the nation's children because it would harm them. The media dwelt on these incidents of disrespect without commentaries that such conduct is the wrong attitude to have to judge the anticipated content of the speech without knowing the content. No one criticized these individuals about their behavior and lack of respect for their own elected official. Indeed, there were organized groups shouting opposition to any Presidential address who traveled from location to location. The degree of expressed anger, outrage and righteousness far exceeded civility, let alone respect.
<< Home
