Lack of Civility Is Nothing New

When Representative Wilson shouted “You lie!” during a speech by President Obama a few years back, his bad behavior was quickly denounced. What most people did not comment on, because we forget our history, is that Representative Wilson was not the first congressman from South Carolina to behave badly on the floor of Congress.

When the Wilson story first broke what got my attention was the implication that this rude behavior was something new. In the back of my mind there is a U.S. News and World Report article from the 1980’s about America’s “epidemic of rudeness.” If you do a Google search on the phrase “epidemic of rudeness” you’ll find 354,000 web pages on the topic.

One editorial on Wilson’s behavior seemed to justify it by saying the Democrats did it, too, when they booed remarks by President Bush during a speech in 2005. Since when is my bad behavior justified because someone else behaved badly?

As we look at the Trump and Biden years, this kind of thing shows no signs of letting up. During Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address, Democrats interrupted when he discussed legislation  regarding prescription drug pricing, reacting vocally to his call for bipartisan support. This was noted as a breach of decorum, though not explicitly labeled as heckling.

Democrats’ protests during Trump’s addresses were often framed as reactions to his provocative rhetoric, but sources note these actions contributed to perceptions of a divided and undisciplined party response.

In a bit of tit-for-tat, Republicans repeatedly interrupted Joe Biden’s 2023 SOTU address with jeering and booing, particularly when he accused them of wanting to sunset Social Security and Medicare. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) shouted “Liar!” during this segment, echoing Rep. Joe Wilson’s 2009 outburst. Other Republicans also heckled, creating a raucous atmosphere. These interruptions were seen as part of a growing trend of heckling, with Biden responding ad-lib, engaging in a back-and-forth that some viewed as a rhetorical victory for him.

In return, during Trump’s return to Congress in 2025, House Democrats again engaged in disruptive protests. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) heckled Trump early in the speech, questioning his claimed “mandate,” leading to his removal from the chamber by the House sergeant-at-arms after ignoring Speaker Mike Johnson’s warnings. Other Democrats, staged a walkout, displaying “Resist” on their shirts. These actions were described as an “extraordinary display of partisan scuffling,” with Democratic leaders appearing pained by the lack of decorum.

Both parties have contributed to the erosion of decorum in Congress, with heckling and protests becoming more common. The 2009 incident with Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouting at President Obama set a precedent, after which interruptions became less shocking. Democrats and Republicans alike have justified their behavior by pointing to the other side’s actions. However, historical incidents like the 1856 assault by Rep. Preston Brooks on Sen. Charles Sumner illustrate that extreme breaches of decorum are not new, though modern instances tend to involve verbal rather than physical confrontations.

In May 1856 South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks demonstrated less than model behavior by assaulting Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a cane while he sat in the Senate Chamber. The beating was so severe that Sumner was blinded by his own blood and passed out whereupon the South Carolina representative continued to beat him. It's clearly one of the more infamous moments in Congressional history. 

Brooks' brutal assault of Sumner after Sumner delivered a fiery antislavery speech, “The Crime Against Kansas.” In his address, Sumner mocked pro-slavery senators, including Andrew Butler, Brooks’ relative. Days later, Brooks entered the Senate chamber and struck Sumner repeatedly on the head and shoulders until the cane shattered, leaving Sumner bleeding and unconscious.

The attack shocked the nation, deepening the already fierce sectional divide. In the South, Brooks was celebrated as a defender of honor, receiving gifts of replacement canes. In the North, Sumner became a martyr for the antislavery cause, his lengthy recovery symbolizing the violence of slavery itself. The incident intensified hostilities between North and South, fueling the polarization that would soon ignite into the Civil War.

In short, civility in Congress has often been fragile, strained by deep divisions and personal animosities. While the tools of disruption have changed—from canes to shouted insults—these incidents reflect a recurring struggle to maintain decorum in the face of passionate disagreement.

We imagine that our nation has never been this polarized before, but guess what? It a bit of deja vu of sorts, isn't it? By remembering our history, we can better recognize that today’s challenges are not entirely new, but rather part of a long, complex narrative of conflict and confrontation in American governance. 

What do you think?

EdNote: The illustrations on this page are AI-altered versions of my original paintings.

Media Coverage of Russia-Ukraine Conflict Criticized

How the world has changed. It used to be, during the Vietnam War, that there were essentially three networks and we'd be fed updates once a day in the evening news. You could also pick up newspapers for a little more and magazines for in-depth stories. But these media bytes were relatively brief. 

Most of the news was produced by professionals who, even if slanted, sought to give the appearance of neutrality, of being fair and balanced. With the advent of cable television people could become news junkies, engaged in covering happenings 24/7 as they happened. With so many hours to fill and stories to tell, it should not be a surprise to find the caliber of reporting to be uneven as regards accuracy.

On Friday evening I was listening to NPR's coverage of the Russian incursion into Ukraine. A journalist on the air made a statement that went something like this. "This is the first time since World War II that a major superpower invaded a lesser state." Those may not be the exact words, but it was incredibly absurd of an assertion. 

While driving, the countries rolled through my mind. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan twice (Russians in 1980, the U.S. circa 2003), Iraq, Yugoslavia.

Newspapers regularly contain a page or two for editorial opinion pieces. These are generally vetted by the editorial staff which sometimes, as in the Duluth News Tribune, includes a citizen or two. With social media, the Twitterverse and blogs have produced a deluge of opinions that are sometimes quite shrill and silly, but often they are exceedingly perceptive. 

When the talking heads speak, their biases and ignorance can emerge despite their best efforts to be intelligent. The example above is one case in point. And in the Twitterverse, the audience response can be immediate and brutal.

This article from Al Jazeera has a lot of good examples of this point.

‘Double standards’: Western coverage of Ukraine war criticised

Social media users accuse the media of hypocrisy in its coverage of Russia’s war on Ukraine compared with other conflicts.

The first example is a CBS news correspondent who said that this invasion (Ukraine) is all the more shocking because it is taking place in a civilized nation not a backward one like Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's one response:

Utterly stupid and ill informed statement. Afghanistan was also a peaceful and “civilised” place in 1979 before the Soviets invaded (and became the battle zone between the West and Soviet block). Ditto for Iraq (before the American attack in 2003)

You can follow a full thread of comments on Twitter in response to that transgression.

The next illustration in the Al Jazeera piece is of a high official from Ukraine being interviewed by BBC in which he says how emotional this is because he sees "European people with blonde hair and blue eyes being killed every day with Putin’s missiles and his helicopters and his rockets."

The immediate response from Twitter again:

But people with 'blue eyes and blonde hair' dropping bombs over the Middle East and Africa is OK.

Social media is a minefield indeed.

When Sky News broadcast a video of brave Ukrainians getting lessons on how to make Molotov cocktails, the response was illuminating:

If this was done by Palestinians, Afghanistan or other nations resisting occupation, it would be terrorism. And during Mandela's anti-apartheid era, it was also dubbed terrorism. For Europeans facing similar situations, it is resistance!. Western duplicity knows no bounds.

The article contains more thought-provoking examples. You can read the full Al Jazeera piece here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-coverage-ukraine-russia-invasion-criticism

And I'll close with this interesting Tweet that I saw this a.m. 

Going to be awkward when the war in Ukraine is over and the left have to go back to being against nationalism, borders, and an armed citizenry

Whatever happens, this is a a good time to exercise caution and to embrace a measure of humility.

George Orwell on Wells, Hitler and "Patriotism vs. the World State"

Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell

Something I'd read this past week prompted me to see how many George Orwell books there were in our local library. I was surprised at the number of books written by or about this man. Thursday I put in requests for about eight. Friday I lay them out on a table and riffled through the contents of each, finally withdrawing four for further review, foolish because I already have a short stack of books I'm gripped by, clambering through.

Orwell is a writer whom nearly everyone is familiar with through his dystopian 1984 or the dark tale Animal Farm. These were certainly jewels, but his essays show him to be an exceptionally perceptive observer of his times. 

One of the books I brought home is titled Dickens, Dali and Others. It's a compilation of essays on various people, one of them being a barbed 1941 critique of H.G. Wells. 

The essay begins with a long quote from Wells' pen nearly mocking those who are afraid that Hitler is about to overrun England. As proof he states "The German air power has been largely spent. It is behind the times and its first-rate men are mostly dead or disheartened or worn out." 

The quote goes on for two more paragraphs in which Wells derides the experts who talk as if Hitler is someone to be feared and concerned about. Wells sees Hitler as nothing more than a silly defective, nothing more than a phantom threat. 

Orwell extracted the quotes from newspaper columns that had been assembled and published as a book titled Guide to the New World. The rest of the essay is Orwell's response. 

He sets up his rebuttal by drawing attention to how quickly the German army had overrun the Balkans and invaded Russia and could march through Turkey and Spain at will. In other words, Wells appeared pretty naive about Germany's incapacity to be a real threat to anyone and Wells' predictions were wrong almost as soon as the ink dried on the printing press.

The real problem with Wells, Orwell points out, was that his world view and belief system blinded him to the realities that were right in front of his face.

Wells at this time was an old man who for decades had been a proponent of a World State in which all people lived in harmony. To this Orwell observes, "What is the point of pointing out that a World State is desirable? What matters is that not one of the five great military powers would think of submitting to such a thing." Even if sensible people believe in such a dream, the reality is that the sensible people have no power, he writes.

It may be that Hitler is a criminal lunatic, Orwell notes, he still has an army of millions, thousands of airplanes, tens of thousands of tanks and a nation that has been working six years of overtime for this man and fighting for two years more, "whereas for the common-sense, essentially hedonistic world-view which Mr. Wells puts forward, hardly a human creature is willing to shed a pint of blood."

That sentence alone had me sit upright and take note. He continues:

"But before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have to eliminate Hitler." 

I love the feel of well-worn old books. 

Here's the thing he underscores. While the liberal elite scoff at patriotism, Orwell asks, "What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking people that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the S.S. men patrolling the London streets at this moment."

"Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defense of Holy Russia..."

The people who identified Hitler with the Antichrist or, on the other hand, the Holy Ghost, were nearer to an understanding of the truth about him, Orwell says, than the intellectuals who saw him as a character from a comic opera not to be taken seriously. 

One reason English authors were unreliable interpreters of the times is that they lived life too leisurely. The best writers, Orwell says, are those "who have seen totalitarianism up close quarters and known the meaning of exile and persecution." 

As I read that last sentence writers like Solzhenitsyn and Koestler came to mind.

What stood out for me in this essay was how these world-views continue to be in conflict amongst us today. Take for example this constant repetition in our time of the phrase, "trust the science."  When people say this, what I hear is, "Trust our narrative of the science." 

Here's Orwell on Wells again:

"If one looks through nearly any book that he (Wells) has written in the last forty years one finds the same idea constantly recurring: the supposed antithesis between the man of science who is working towards a planned World State and the reactionary who is trying to restore a disorderly past."

Our attitude toward the past determines much regarding how we go forward. Years ago I remember hearing a speaker contrast the two perspectives in this manner. The conservative view is that the past is a foundation upon which we build. For the modernist the past is an anchor that holds us back. Their solution is to cut the cord and leave the past behind. 

If you look around, read and listen, you'll see that the ideas in this essay are still at war with one another.  Here's the full essay, a relatively short one and a worthy read:

https://orwell.ru/library/reviews/wells/english/e_whws

Related Links 

Public Introspection: George Orwell's Why I Write

Shooting an Elephant

 

Who's the Bad Guy Here?

"This world is ruled by violence, but that's better left unsaid." ~ Dylan

When my brother Ron was eleven and I thirteen, there was a lot of conflict between us because though we had been close, I was now imagining myself more grown up. For sure I had more school work to do, and my passion for sports and interest in girls wasn't as fully developed yet in my younger sibling.

We used to get into a lot of fights during that period. I remember vividly on one occasion where I was at my desk doing homework in my room. Ron came in, hit me on the back and scampered out. I ignored him. A little later the imp repeated the annoying attack, and I continued to ignore him. It must of been five or six times this happened before I sprang into action. Actually, I was waiting for him at this point and when he hit me, like an uncoiling spring I leaped up, chased him down and gave him a very solid punch on the arm. My intention was to hurt him and I hurt him. He cried and ran to mom.

Mom could be wise in these things. She knew what was going on and listened to both sides of the story. I was not punished in this instance. This is not to say that I was always right nor even right to use violence. The story is intended to note that there is more than meets the eye to even a simple incident like that one.

Today, Israeli ground troops entered Gaza after a week of air strikes. The Pope has called for a cease fire. The ELCA Presiding Bishop has called for a ceasefire. The British Prime Minister has called for a cease fire. London demonstrators are calling for a cease fire. Hollywood stars are even weighing in, calling for a cease fire.

If one compares the Hamas to my brother's annoying interruptions, who is going to stop them if not the one who continues to be hit? Despite the pummeling by the Israeli army, the Hamas has not discontinued lobbing missiles into Israel.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Israel's policy is perfectly proportionate and that Hamas are the real war criminals in this conflict. (As if violence that destroys innocents can ever be "perfectly" proportionate.)

Another variable here is the upcoming Israeli election in February. My brother, who visited Israel in December, says that the fighting will continue until the election. There's a political aspect to this invasion that to my knowledge has not appeared in the U.S. press.

I am not one who believes in the notion of "Israel right or wrong." I do know that both sides have an axe to grind. And I have no clue how we will ever see peace in the Middle East, which is pretty sad.

At a blog for the United Church I read this statement yesterday: "We at Churches for Middle East Peace mourn the loss of life on both sides and call now on the United States to exercise bold leadership to immediately end the violence, restore the cease-fire and lift the blockade of Gaza's borders."

But amidst the comments at the United Church of Christ blog, this one shines light from a different angle. "It's time to stop pretending that a cease fire equals peace. A cease fire to Hamas only gives them time to re-arm and attack Israel when they are stronger militarily. They do not desire peace with Israel - they do not desire a co-existence with Israel. They do not even allow for Israel's right to exist."

Which is why there is weeping in Jerusalem.

The China Factor

I remember in my youth when Communism was portrayed with two faces. The Russia face, which was aggressive and seeking world domination. And the China face, which was home grown and contained its interests within its own borders. This was, purportedly, how the world was and why Moscow was the big bad wolf during the Cold War.

Of course this view was simplistic. It is our nature to hope for simplistic solutions to everything. In point of fact, Chinese Communism was likewise vigorous, with tentacles in South America and Africa as well as Southeast Asia and even connections to the Middle East.

The June issue of Fast Company magazine has a detailed feature story by Richard Behar called "China Invades Africa." It’s an eye opening account of current events in the African subcontinent as multi-national corporations and Chinese opportunists battle for natural resources. According to Behar, “The sub-Sahara is now the scene of one of the most bare-knuckled resource grabs the world has ever seen.”

In the 1800’s European Colonialism divvied up Africa and exploited the peoples there, but rebellions and persistence with a pinch of conscience mixed in helped to peel back the blanket. Perhaps journalism contributed by revealing what was going on in the “dark continent” just as journalists helped reveal British brutality in the face of Ghandi’s non-violent uniting of disparate groups in India.

The situation in Africa today is this: the Continent has natural resources that the world needs. And preserving the environment, or helping the vanquished masses, is not on the agenda here.

What follows here is a brief intro to a longer backgrounder by the Heritage Foundation. It’s a good read, and gives a measure of insight into why there will continue to be problems in Africa in the 21st Century.

China's Influence in Africa: Implications for the United States
by Peter Brookes and Ji Hye Shin

Amid growing concerns about the People’s Repub­lic of China’s burgeoning influence around the globe, Beijing has now set its sights on Africa. China’s inter­est in Africa is not new. In the 1960s and 1970s, Beijing’s interest centered on building ideological sol­idarity with other underdeveloped nations to advance Chinese-style communism and on repelling Western “imperialism.” Following the Cold War, Chinese interests evolved into more pragmatic pursuits such as trade, investment, and energy.

In recent years, Beijing has identified the African continent as an area of significant economic and stra­tegic interest. America and its allies and friends are finding that their vision of a prosperous Africa gov­erned by democracies that respect human rights and the rule of law and that embrace free markets is being challenged by the escalating Chinese influence in Africa.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) aids and abets oppressive and destitute African dictatorships by legit­imizing their misguided policies and praising their development models as suited to individual national conditions. Beijing holds out China’s unique develop­ment model—significant economic growth overseen by a disciplined, one-party totalitarian state with full authority, if not control, over all aspects of economic activity—as an example for others to emulate.

Moreover, China rewards its African friends with diplomatic attention and financial and military assis­tance, exacerbating existing forced dislocations of populations and abetting massive human rights abuses in troubled countries such as Sudan and Zimbabwe. As a consequence, Chinese support for political and economic repression in Africa counters the liberalizing influences of Africa’s tradi­tional European and American partners. China’s vigorous campaign to develop close ties with indi­vidual African nations also reflects Beijing’s global quest to isolate Taiwan diplomatically (seven of the 26 countries that have full diplomatic relations with Taiwan are African).

If interested in more, you can read it here

EdNote: I am not encouraging you to lose sleep over this, but as the future unfolds, you might find it helpful to have seen some of it coming.