John Barry, Newsweek: Wilson’s shouted comment "a healthy sign...This wasn’t a church service"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Posted Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:54 AM
A Defense of Joe Wilson: the Democratic Right to Dissent
Newsweek

By John Barry

Am I alone in thinking that Rep. Joe Wilson’s shouted comment to President Obama in the middle of his address to a joint session of Congress last night was a healthy sign? Rahm Emmanuel, the president’s chief of staff, reportedly approached two senior Republicans immediately after the speech and said: “No President has ever had that happen. Ever. My advice is that he apologize immediately. You know my number.” Congressman Wilson (R-S.C.), chastened or perhaps merely pressured, did make the call, and later issued a public apology. But why?

OK, Wilson’s comments were way outside the bounds of civil debate. “You lie” would have got Wilson thrown out of any legislative chamber in the western world. And whoever shouted “Not true” would also have suffered instant “suspension”. But other Republican shouts of dissent during Obama’s speech ---- “It’s true”, “Read the Bill”, and “Shame” --- would have been reckoned fair comment. Yet here they have been greeted with shock and horror: evidence of “the insolence of House Republicans”, as Dana Milank put it.

The notion that dissent, temperately voiced, was in principle out of place seems to me odd. This wasn’t a church service. It wasn’t a ceremonial occasion to celebrate some event inspiring or requiring national unity. It was a highly political address about a passionately contentious topic. It was laden with sentences carefully crafted to elicit applause from Democrats, while the TV cameras could show the Republicans sitting in surly silence. Why is silence thought the only proper means of dissent ?

I'm from Britain. Despite my years here, I still find value in a rougher political culture. In Britain, the prime minister has to face the House of Commons every Wednesday afternoon to answer any and all questions posed to him. It’s a daunting ordeal. The PM and his staff swot for hours that morning to figure out what he may be asked and to dream up the most crushing answers --- or, of course, the most evasive ones. One prime minister, Harold Macmillan, found the weekly ordeal so nerve-wracking that he was physically sick as he prepared for it --- and back then Prime Minister’s questions came twice a week. (It was cut to once weekly only in 1997.) Dissent, even heckling, are reckoned part of the baptism of fire the PM must face. Mastering this weekly inquisition is seen as a brutal test, in real-time, of the PM’s grasp of the business of government.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/10/a-defense-of-joe-wilson-the-democractic-right-to-dissent.aspx

[treestar]

1. This isn't Britain

We're still working in healthcare in which the British are light years ahead.

it's not in our tradition

[malaise]

2. Joe WIlson was lying

when he called Obama a liar. How does anyone defend that shit.

[closeupready]

3. In America, such an event has NEVER been the time or place for heckling the President.

End of discussion.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. The fact that Wilson- despite his odious comment- wasn't hauled away to Gitmo-

I suppose THAT's "a healthy sign" of living in a democratic country where dissent is tolerated. It just seemed really disrespectful and tacky but he still had a right to say it without fear of legal consequences. He may be facing some POLITICAL consequences for his actions, however.

[gopiscrap]

18. Bullshit he doesn't have right to say it in the House

It's against House rules..therefore he should be censured!!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be censured- if he broke the House rules

I'm just making a comment about the fact that Wilson still had the right of free speech and, whatever happens to him, he wasn't- and is never- going to get hauled off to Gitmo for his dissent like he might in a more dictatorial country. I was scoffing at the author of the article in the OP suggesting that Wilson's comments were "a healthy sign" (presumably of Democracy?).

[Bill McBlueState]

5. sure, we would all benefit from British-style debate

But that in no way excuses calling the President a liar when he actually is not.

Barry has to confuse the two issues for his point to stand.

[seabeyond]

6. the obvious. not britian. nt

[spanone]

7. where's his article...in defense of the birthers...in defense of the death panels

fuck these hateful people

[izquierdista]

8. Yes, you are alone

Unless you want to defend my "democratic right" to wear a brown shirt and set fire to newsstands that carry Newsweek. And your stupid little House of Commons tauntings are straight out of Monty Python's 'Holy Grail'.

[Wilms]

9. Same asshole who wrote that there ought not be criminal investigation of the * WH.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/180442?tid=relatedcl

I guess that would be a little too healthy for Mr. Barry.

Probably a member of the Double Standard Party.

[myrna minx]

10. This wasn't the Prime Minister's Question Time in the

House of Commons, this was a Presidential address.

[still_one]

11. This isn't about dissent, this is respect and courtesy for the President. Dissent has had

more than adequate time on healthcare

This isn't Britain. You prefer that type of rudeness, don't let the door hit your ass when you leave

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. In Congress, it is against the rules to do what Wilson did.

He can be and should be censured.

[Barack_America]

13. This ain't Parliament, bub.

We do it differently here. And while the GOP's outbursts were only typically disrespectful, Wilson's outburst was against the written rules of the House.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

14. Answering your own questions Volume MCCXXXIV

'But why?

OK, Wilson’s comments were way outside the bounds of civil debate*. “You lie” would have got Wilson thrown out of any legislative chamber in the western world.'


*This was not a debate. Nor was it a town hall meeting. Wilson acted like a fool, and for obvious reasons. He is one.

[librechik]

15. Look, there is something really wrong about a Southern white man yelling liar

at a black man who btw was telling the truth, is a historic figure , and is in a context where yelling epithets has never been allowed.

Even somebody from Britain should be sensitive to that small perspective.

[ScreamingMeemie]

16. Yes, John, you are alone.

As you should be.

[Jennicut]

17. The US has always had a tradition of politeness in joint sessions of Congress

It was rude.

[ellie]

20. It's only a healthy

sign if it was a repuke yelling at a Democrat. If the roles were reversed it would be called treason. There is no other way to say it. There is a double standard with the media who are excusing this immaturity. The press is despicable. And I am a journalist by trade.