On Joe Wilson and Democracy

“You Lie!”

Almost one month ago, Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-2nd) made headlines and sealed his spot in the history books when he shouted those immortal two words at President Obama during his joint congressional address on health care reform. The dust has finally settled, the incredulity of Joe Wilson having finished lining both his and his Democratic challenger’s respective campaign coffers. President Obama – in addition to Presidents Carter and Clinton – have all had their respective say, and the US House of Representatives has passed its punitive resolution, capturing forever Wilson’s career-defining moment of infamy and ensuring that even if the public or history forgets what he did, the official Record of the House will not.

Yes, much has simmered down since Joe Wilson’s outburst, an outburst precipitated by the heat of this past summer’s series of town hall meetings about health care reform. All is now quiet on the front, and – with the notable exception of the Senate Finance Committee – the national political conversation as turned at least partially toward American foreign policy and our perennial relationships (read: challenges) with Iran & Afghanistan.

That is, everyone except me.

I reserved my reactions to the debacle initially because I seriously didn’t know what to think or how I felt. The pundits of our popular media didn’t make my task any easier, clouding my mind with explosive questions of race that amplified Wilson’s infraction and threatened to overshadow the political conversation proposed to fix our nation’s broken health care system. And now that the talking heads have finally shut up and I can hear my own thoughts again, all I’m left to listen to are questions:

Why didn’t Wilson make a public apology? Why did he “apologize” to Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel instead of the President – the man who actually incurred the expense of Wilson’s disrespect?

Would Wilson’s defense of “being overcome” and “letting his emotions get the best of him” pass muster? What if he had been a woman – would the same defense have worked in that scenario?

Why didn’t the House of Representatives (read: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority a.k.a “Her Partner Dem”) move to censure Wilson for his flagrant breach of House rules and public decorum?

Is the public option really off the table? Like, “for real” for real?

How close are we really to passing a substantive piece of legislation that lowers health care premiums and drives down costs, makes care more accessible to low-income families and the people that need it the most, and relieves some of the burden off of our fledgling health care system and professionals?

But more than these, the central question that continues to ricochet off of these tangent inquiries and consume my thoughts is this:

Was Joe Wilson’s outburst justified?

I know this probably sounds like a misnomer, but I’ve honestly wrestled with this question since I, too, was burned by Nancy Pelosi’s death stare. See, here’s the thing: while I would agree with most people that Wilson’s comments were certainly unseemly, contrary to the order of the proceedings and deserving of rapt punishment, I kind of like that Wilson and the rest of the GOP are able to openly critique the President. In this grand experiment that we call democracy, freedom of speech is not just a provision for the security of one’s own civil liberty – that same freedom forties our democratic process and underlines one of the most basic principles of liberalism: that in a free market place of ideas in which every opinion is expressed, no one opinion may reign unjustly over another because competing ideas battle for public consensus, unearthing from its ashes a new clairvoyance and forging a truth that will allow a government of the people, by the people, for the people to better agree on how to govern themselves. In a democracy, no opinion is above reproach.

In a democratic republic such as ours, in which every person is not given a voice in the creation of new law and public policy and most of us rely on others to articulate our thoughts and feelings to the larger body politic, it’s even more important that that marketplace remain free and open, scrutinized less by the processes and procedures we’ve established to facilitate its operation and committed more to protecting different opinions and preserving the integrity of producing the best government we desire to establish. I would argue that in a democracy, it is the dissenting opinion that is often the most important, protecting the voice that is most often drowned out by the clamorous monotony and projected moral superiority of popular opinion. At one time, women's suffrage, civil rights and LGBT equality represented dissenting opinions (and in some instances, still do) contrary to the pleasure of the majority of the nation. But the core precept of this democracy perseveres: just because more of us agree with the prevailing ideology does not circumvent the continued importance of the dissenting opinion, no matter how much we disagree with it. I’m appreciative and proud that the pervading significance of dissenting opinion has helped move our nation from a past bigotry of oppression toward a more progressive liberalism. And, to be honest, I wish there had been more Wilson-esque outbursts from my elected representatives during President Bush’s (43) tenure.

Was the manner in which Wilson registered his disdain with that particular pillar of President Obama’s health care plan uncivilized? Sure. Was his volatility motivated, even in part, by racism? Perhaps – probably, even. But was Joe Wilson justified in making so egregious of an eruption, in the name of open debate and better government?
I’m still not sure what the correct answer is.

But, in the words of Texas blogger Kathleen McKinley,”criticism can be an act of great patriotism.”