The Umbrage Game
Michael Kinsley on Rep. Joe Wilson and the rules of umbrage:
it is against House rules for a representative to call the president a liar during an official session of the House, even if you sincerely think he is one. Or, for that matter, even if he really is one -- as all of them are, on occasion. The purpose of this rule is to attempt to enforce a level of civility in the political debate. The result, though, is just the opposite: It is simply another opportunity for a fusillade in the Umbrage Wars. No matter how important or otherwise the underlying issue may be, it seems that about three-quarters of American politics can now be distilled down to "How dare you say that!" Taking offense at someone else's possibly over-vigorous exercise of free speech, demanding an apology and so on has replaced much serious discussion about, oh, health care, the financial crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, stuff like that. Umbrage is so much easier: You can do it in your sleep, or on talk radio.
Umbrage is itself, generally, a lie. The ostensible victim of the offensive remark (call him or her the "umbragee") is actually delighted at the opportunity, while the ostensible offense giver (call him or her the "umbragor") is sorry to have wandered into this thicket, or is made to feel sorry as the umbrage game plays itself out. The rules of the game are perverse but simple: I scream with pain until you cry "uncle."
And yes, this blog post is taking umbrage at all that umbrage when it could be engaged in serious discussion about, oh, health care, the financial crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, stuff like that. Hypocrisy noted. In my defense, it does give me an excuse to post this video:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And yes, this blog post is taking umbrage at all that umbrage when it could be engaged in serious discussion
Valid point, but the article does articulate this situation in terms that seem to satisfyingly cover all relevent motivations, which is useful if you don't follow this stuff for a living.
In short: they got their umbrage in a bunch, the pansies.
Joe Wilson is already in my office scratching "I will not call the President a liar" into the back of his hand 500 times.
Serena Williams and Kanye West are racists.
They should be forced to apologize.
I am NOT a gay fish.
For some reason, most people think that "that's offensive!" constitutes an argument.
Is "Why not?" a question too quaint?
"I am NOT a gay fish."
Love ya, my man.
"There's no way I said that thing everyone watching heard and saw me say on live TV and you have a videotape of saying and that you've shown 20 times."
Valid point, but the article does articulate this situation in terms that seem to satisfyingly cover all relevent motivations, which is useful if you don't follow this stuff for a living.
I was mocking myself, not Kinsley, though we're equally guilty of hypocrisy here. I liked his piece anyway.
"I'm a motherf**king lyrical wordsmith motherf**king genius!"
You know why Pelosi was so eager to applaud during that speech?
Because she wore a pearl necklace.
Of course Kinsley is guilty of even more hypocrisy by not bringing up the most recent situation where a House member did call the President a "lair" on the House floor-- Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) calling GWB one a few years back. Not that he's anything like the only media coverage to ignore it.
From the media's own ridiculous shocked umbrage, you would think that nothing like this had ever happened before.
So, can I say that the President has spoken incorrectly about the facts or misrepresented the truth of the matter? Is it permissible to say the President's actions are completely disconnected from his stated positions? Can I say he hasn't displayed the fortitude of a leader by vetoing a bill? Or is it just certain words that are forbidden? Because if you can't think of 5 or 6 ways to call somebody a lying hypocritical scumbag, you're just not trying.
Pete Stark will throw you out the fucking window. Watch out.
Exactly what I was thinking, T. If the rules say explicitly what may not be uttered, that leaves a whole world of possibilities to those with imagination. In fact I imagine, were I in that position, I'd practice a few appropriate lines, just to be prepared.
The problem: "The president's actions are completely disconnected from his stated positions" just doesn't pack the same punch as "The president is a fucking liar," you know?
In fact I imagine, were I in that position, I'd practice a few appropriate lines, just to be prepared.
Oh, hell yeah. While under stress I have a tendency to revert to my misspent youth and just start spewing profanity, maintaining your calm and explaining in detail exactly why and how someone is congenitally predisposed towards suboptimal cognition and poor decision making is always more fun, if not more effective.
How many times have we heard "respect for the office" or "not the proper forum" mouthed in the last several days? Once, I submit, was more than enough.
Truth trumps decorum.
maintaining your calm and explaining in detail exactly why and how someone is congenitally predisposed towards suboptimal cognition and poor decision making is always more fun
Parliament is much more fun than Congress for just that reason.
There's always hell to pay when the truth sneaks out, especially when it's televised.
I like the way Michael Kinsley can use his intelligence and outside-the-box thinking to defend liberalism without being boring or annoying about it. Even (or especially) if this means departing from the latest talking-point of the less sophisticated liberals.
Nevertheless, I actually think Wilson should be ordered to apologize on the House floor (technically, ordered to appologize on pain of expulsion if he doesn't). If we let these things slide, the U.S. Congress could become like those unruly parliamentary bodies portrayed in earlier *Reason* links.
There are plenty of *other* outlets for these kind of things. Each venue has its own set of rules. What is acceptable or even required in, say, a wrestling match may be unacceptable in Congress. Behavior which is encouraged in a drawing room would be totally unacceptable at a tailgate party. It's not that one set of rules is inherently better than another, but that the rules appropriate for one venue should not be arbitrarily imposed on another.
The fact that the President actually is a liar is no excuse. There are plenty of other ways to make that point - from political rallies and blogs to the use of certain accepted euphemisms on the floor of Congress itself. Winston Churchill gives perhaps the most famous example of an acceptable substitute for "lie" - "terminological inexactitude."
The very fact that these rules strike adolescents of all ages as hypocritical and inauthentic is an excellent argument in their favor. We should not be striving to please adolescents, but adults.
"Of course Kinsley is guilty of even more hypocrisy by not bringing up the most recent situation where a House member did call the President a "lair" on the House floor-- Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) calling GWB one a few years back. Not that he's anything like the only media coverage to ignore it."
That's a key ingredient to the umbrage wars. If you dig up some event parallel to your own, such as calling the president a liar, then you can claim umbrage while protecting your rear flank. Lost in such a lame defense, of course, is the fact that somebody else's boorish behavior doesn't excuse your boorish behavior ("your" used in the general sense). Even worse, people will call behavior done in year x by a party opponent treason, but laud similar behavior a year later by their own umbrage pimp.
I passed umbrage and headed straight to "Don't fucking care." I also didn't collect $200. The preoccupation with stupid shit these days has reached dizzying heights. I'd make a circus and bread comment, but we passed that with Clinton and Bush or sometime in there. It's hard to tell which clown is doing the entertaining when surrounded by clowns.
According to section 370 of the House rules manual, members may not:
* call the President a "liar."
* call the President a "hypocrite."
* describe the President's veto of a bill as "cowardly."
* charge that the President has been "intellectually dishonest."
* refer to the President as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
* refer to alleged "sexual misconduct on the President's part."
Jesus fucking christ, no wonder this republic is so fucked up, One is disallowed to speak the truth and say that the emperor that he is wearing no clothes. We are actually fucking stupid enough to build that into the system.
I'd never make it sitting in a chamber like Congress. I'd be drug out in cuffs or arrested for assault in a matter of minutes. Stupid reaches a point at which discussion is no longer a viable means to combat it. Sometimes you just need to exercise the primal expression of STFU with a boot to the ass. With the current state of politics I'd need a fucking army to hit all the asses enough times to make an impact.
Kinsley concludes his column with "Wilson is obviously a bozo." The putdown is a non-sequitur as there is nothing in his opinion that sets up the slam-unless calling a leeching, parasite socialist president with a propensity for prevarication a liar is the act of a bozo.
The dems are demanding that Wilson issue another apology on the house floor.
His reply to that should be that he'll do it right after Harry Reid makes an apology for calling Bush a liar.
I wonder how Joan Walsh feels about another Reason blogger making *RACIST* comparisons between Obama and black rappers.
Mad Max-
Didn't a fellow, about whom you have expressed great admiration, exlcaim, "the truth shall set you free?"
I may be mistaken, but I do not recall the statement being conditioned by respect for Caesar's forum.
"His reply to that should be that he'll do it right after Harry Reid makes an apology for calling Bush a liar."
Did Harry Reid call Bush a liar during one of Bush's addresses to Congress? Or did Harry Reid do it on a political news show?
"Didn't a fellow, about whom you have expressed great admiration, exclaim, 'the truth shall set you free?'"
I think it was the "knowing" of the truth that sets you free, not the screaming it at the top of your lungs while somebody is trying to make a speech.
Reason used to be pretty good. Too bad it became a "Gateway Pundit" clone.
Wilson lacked both. His outburst came after the president called out one of the right's big lies about the health bill. This was apparently too much for Wilson. He couldn't very well stand idly by while the president attempted to demolish one of the central ideological planks of the new GOP: anti-Latino hysteria.
Technically, Wilson didn't violate those rules. The rule specifically forbids the word "liar", not "lie". Wilson's free and clear.
"Technically, Wilson didn't violate those rules. The rule specifically forbids the word "liar", not "lie". Wilson's free and clear."
Not so fast. The phrase "you lie" signifies that the accused is habitual in their lies, whereas "you are lying" suggests a fixed-duration, non-habitual lying.
But really, for all the attention he has received, Wilson could have just as easily yelled "Freebird".
I say after the last lie-fest, Republicans should refuse to attend another joint session.
-2 for not using "defenestrate".
"I say after the last lie-fest, Republicans should refuse to attend another joint session."
Whoa, there. They are called Republicans, not Banana Republicans.
If they boycott the session, the Democrats will just use it to withdraw all the troops from Korea.
Too bad it became a "Gateway Pundit" clone.
Because Gateway Pundit links approving to Michael Kinsley columns all the time.
I say after the last lie-fest, Republicans should refuse to attend another joint session.
I diagree because it would lend truth to the constant accusation that they want to do "nothing."
But really, for all the attention he has received, Wilson could have just as easily yelled "Freebird".
Without holding up his lighter? Inconceivable!
Sage, they went and held up their bills, and still Obama is allowed to say they want to do nothing. So, what's the difference?
Error in original., BakedPenguin.
My bad - you posted that last week, I should have remembered. It's not that often that our public officials do such obvious Lavrenty Beria impersonations.
The dems are demanding that Wilson issue another apology on the house floor.
How about: "Too bad you felt offended" or "Words cannot express my concern about the utterance" or "[crossing fingers] I lied!!" or "I'm so choked up that Rep. Rangel will be my proxy apologizer" or ...?
"How about: "Too bad you felt offended" or "Words cannot express my concern about the utterance" or "[crossing fingers] I lied!!" or "I'm so choked up that Rep. Rangel will be my proxy apologizer" or ...?"
....I feel strongly about this issue, but I acted like a complete cockbag during the President's speech.
I personally know a little bit about lying vs. being mistaken. I accused Strom Thurmond's daughter of "smearing" him when the woman claimed she was his daughter. I truly believed that she was lying. It turned out I was completely wrong. So I know that there is a difference between lying and being mistaken. I just chose not to acknowledge that difference when I yelled at our president for the same reasons I accused Essie Mae Washington-Williams of lying.
Oops. That was supposed to be a mock Joe Wilson quote.
The problem: "The president's actions are completely disconnected from his stated positions" just doesn't pack the same punch as "The president is a fucking liar," you know?
I think it's more effective, at least for me, if you call someone a lying scumbag in such a polite way that it takes a couple seconds for it to sink in. Especially when said with an upper-crust British accent on the floor of Parliament. Now those Limeys know how to insult with style!
Would the rep in question have gotten in trouble if he had said the following using a faux-courteous demeanor?
"The President's views on this matter do not seem to comport with objective reality."
"The President's formulations of policy during his campaign seem at odds with his subsequent actions."
"Some of my constituents have questioned his veracity, his sexual proclivities, his curious and possibly inappropriate levels of affection for livestock, in particular -- mutton."
It is widely agreed among my constituents that many of the President's words are truthful, though admittedly they feel those words that are not obvious and transparent misstatements of fact are largely composed of "and" and "the".
"Is there an end in sight to your parade of prevarications?"
"The problem: 'The president's actions are completely disconnected from his stated positions' just doesn't pack the same punch as 'The president is a f*cking liar,' you know?"
Part of the problem is that Joe Wilson has erroneously called non-lying people liars in the past. While I understand trying to make his words have some pop, he would do better by crafting words that are more accurate. Or, if you prefer, Joe Wilson should get his shit together before making an ass out of himself during a speech.
"Did Harry Reid call Bush a liar during one of Bush's addresses to Congress? Or did Harry Reid do it on a political news show?"
It makes no difference.
It's all the same.
It is widely agreed among my constituents that many of the President's words are truthful,, but whether the particular combinations of words he employs are truthful is not so clear.
"It makes no difference. It's all the same."
Yeah, House rules about decorum on the House floor apply to Senators on TV shows. Tool.
"Is there an end in sight to your parade of prevarications?"
Nice, but needs more alliteration. I'd go with "a possible end", myself.
Michael Kinsley is still my favorite liberal.
I suppose it's fitting the Congress would get leery whenever someone yells "liar". After all, no member can know whether it's directed at him. Because they're dishonest pieces of crap.
"Please pause your parade of prevarications, and perhaps ponder a practical prelude to pissing off."
Endorsing Joe Wilson's idiot tactics signals the end of Reason's cosmo era.
the end of Reason's cosmo era
Aye thawt that *hic* was a yerbin legund.
"Aye thawt that *hic* was a yerbin legund."
*hic* Back in my day..... *hic*