My Unorthodox Take on Joe Wilson

This was originally intended as a comment on the previous posting, but given its length I think it’s more appropriate as a separate posting. I know you’re all probably sick of all my bloviating by now, but I feel the length is necessary to justify my position in this instance, since, I'm probably the only conservative/republican—with the only exception I know of being Ann Coulter—that actually agrees with Joe Wilson on this one, albeit somewhat reluctantly. I guess I'm hoping that given my position, you all will be curious to find out WHY I would even bother sticking up for Joe Wilson...assuming you don't already think I've simply lost my mind... :)

First a disclaimer: considered in isolation, I would normally agree that this was inappropriate. That is, generally speaking it's not polite to interrupt someone and call them a liar...obviously.

That said, however, I think that IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, it was justified for numerous reasons.

The first and obvious point to anyone who is informed or at least heard Wilson’s explanation is this: Obama really WAS lying. Sorry dad, but I don't think this was merely political spin or parsing hairs like we’re accustomed to from our politicians. Obama’s claim (along with many others in this propaganda speech) was absolutely false. Or if you don’t agree on that point, there are numerous other examples to choose from in the speech. In fact, Rush Limbaugh feels strongly enough about it to say that Obama lied THE WHOLE TIME. So there’s plenty to go on here, if not the one Joe Wilson spotted.

Now this is the point where, I believe, most people would bring up the point about “respecting the OFFICE of the President,” suggesting that he shouldn’t have to justify his points in the middle of a speech to a “disrespectful heckler” (or something along those lines). I take issue with that for three reasons: first, it’s not just up to Americans to respect the President NO MATTER WHAT—rather the President has to EARN our respect by living up to the public trust;—second, you can’t condemn Wilson’s response without condemning audience participation in general; and third, the political arena is often governed by a separate set of rule where teleological (I’ll explain the concept later) concerns often override common standards of decency.

For those who don’t agree with me on the first point, I would make mention of another incident involving a lying President …which, if memory serves me, resulted in IMPEACHMENT. And the lie at issue merely involved the man’s personal life, yet many people felt that lying about that meant he no longer deserved to lead us. The question I’m asking, then, is why lies over a LIFE AND DEATH issue are considered less important than lies over an affair?

To be fair, some would claim there’s a distinction between following legitimate political process (impeachment) and interrupting the President during a speech. In other words, one could argue that impeaching the President wasn’t DISRESPECTFUL in the same way Wilson’s interruption was. I can accept that, and I shall address that concern later. For the time being my point is simply that there’s nothing wrong with expecting a certain level of decency and professionalism from our President (and all elected officials, for that matter), and that honesty OBVIOUSLY falls under that umbrella. My argument suggests such behavior effectively UNDOES the claim to automatic respect afforded to the person by virtue of the office itself…otherwise it would just be too easy for the President to take advantage of our respect (look how Obama’s already been treating “naysayers” and “dissenters”).

Now I imagine there are some who don’t agree with Clinton’s impeachment, who could therefore consistently say “it wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now; impeaching Clinton was no more justified than interrupting Obama.” But this is where my second point comes in (well it’s actually Ann Coulter’s point, but I agree with it anyway): audience participation wasn’t exactly discouraged in this speech. Anyone who watched it had to notice that half the room (obviously the Democrats) gave standing ovations repeatedly throughout the whole thing. So this wasn’t exactly a low key speech where everyone felt compelled to remain silent to “respect” the President. On the contrary, cheering was actually ENCOURAGED, not to mention obviously appreciated by Obama himself (I wonder if he even could give a speech without people cheering him on the whole time). So how, then, can you cut off the other half of the room (the Republicans) if they don’t share the same sentiment? If people who agree can cheer, then why can’t others boo if they don’t? Isn’t that an obvious double-standard? I’m sorry, but once you open the door for cheers, then you can’t automatically expect not to be booed: you just can’t have it both ways. If those who complain by saying “this isn’t the House of Commons” were honest, they would have an equal complaint with the cheering democrats as they did with Joe Wilson. Though I suppose some could potentially draw a distinction between booing and Wilson’s interruption, I would submit that they’ve never been to any kind of sporting event—the two go hand in hand, I’m afraid.

Here's the clip in case I didn't explain it clearly:



Now I know there are many idealists (no offense: I often proudly consider myself an idealist) out there who are still convinced that you can’t fight evil with evil—so to speak—and therefore Wilson should have kept his cool EVEN IF Obama deserved what he got. My response to that sentiment is this: you also have to remember that this is politics, and typical behavioral guidelines don’t always harmonize with our normal moral standards (in certain cases). What I’m alluding to is teleology, which is the idea that sometimes “the end justifies the means.” Though this is typically used as an excuse to justify something morally questionable (otherwise the “means” would need no justification in the first place), it isn’t always a bad thing in practical terms, such as instances involving choosing the “lesser of two evils,” for example, which is something we see ALL THE TIME in politics.

So how does that apply here, then? Earlier I alluded to the extremely important nature of this particular issue, since it literally involves matters of life and death. In a literal sense, OUR VERY LIVES are the “ends” at issue, so the proper (teleological) question to ask is this: what “means” would I be justified in employing in order to SAVE MY OWN LIFE (the “end,” in this case)? Though the question would require serious philosophical discussion to adequately answer, the immediate point is that framing it in THESE terms is CONSIDERABLY different than simply saying “Joe Wilson’s interruption was disrespectful to the President.” If, in other words, I change that statement to “Joe Wilson’s interruption was disrespectful to the President EVEN IF IT SAVES OUR LIVES,” then all of a sudden we’re having an ENTIRELY different discussion. Indeed, I doubt there’s ANYBODY out there who would have the audacity to make the second claim (assuming, of course, they believed the interruption actually could change the eventual outcome).

Though the second statement admittedly could not be proven, even after the fact, I think one can reasonably conclude that it did have at least SOME effect. To illustrate, let’s compare Wilson’s interruption to the Republican response: which has gotten more attention? Aside from casual mention at the end of articles/stories involving the President’s speech, I don’t think ANYBODY is talking about what was said in the Republican response. In fact, I don’t even remember the guy’s name, nor do I remember much of what he said. Joe Wilson, on the other hand, I remember, and so does most of the country, because WE’RE STILL TALKING ABOUT HIM. It really is like the adage: “bad publicity is still publicity.” Few things in American politics are as powerful as a good old-fashioned controversy, because—I would argue—people are naturally fascinated with conflict. Though most would look at that as a negative thing—I’m not saying it isn’t, don’t get me wrong—it is, nevertheless, a VERY powerful tool. Even though most people aren’t very happy with Joe Wilson right now, I still think this was probably THE BEST MOVE OF HIS CAREER: now he’s a significant national figure. I almost wonder whether he did it ANTICIPATING all this controversy and exposure...