I will give Joshua Tucker credit for a very clever headline to a post about Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, yelling “Lie!” during President Obama’s speech last night:
However, clever though the headline is, I don’t quite get it. Yes, British Question Time can feature brutal give-and-take and heckling. But cries of liar? I don’t know, but I think not. Or a least not without a stern warning (whatever little that might be worth) from the Speaker (who, unlike in the US, actually is an arbiter and not the head of the majority party in the chamber–the latter role is played by the PM himself/herself, of course).
More fundamentally, there just is no parallel between speeches by a president and by a PM. The latter is by definition accountable to parliament, and thus expected to have to face, and respond to, harsh criticism from his or her fellow elected representatives of the people. A president, on the other hand, is essentially giving a Throne Speech, not engaging in a Question Time. It is one-way communication, notwithstanding that it is presented by the head of government, not (merely) the head of state. We would not subject THE CHIEF to such abuses of his/her dignity as questions from mere delegates of the commonfolk–which perhaps builds up the pressure that leads to said delegates (“Transcendent Hero/Dastardly Villain,” as Steven Taylor puts it) from time to time being unable to exercise dignified self-control.
I certainly am not defending the institution of “state of the union” and similar speeches, such as that given last night. In fact, I think it is a “worst of both worlds” practice. I am just pointing out the problem with the analogy to parliamentary practice.
____
Also, on the (misleading) British reference, Alex Knapp and Matthew Yglesias.
But cries of liar? I don’t know, but I think not.
Not in the UK, no. But in Canada? Absolutely. Every single day.
Have a look at our Question Period sometime–you’ll be horrified.
Seed planted by Idealistic Pragmatist — 10 September 2009 @ 15:57
IP, good to ‘see’ you again!
Actually, maybe they say such things in the UK. The point is that these parliamentary question times are meant to be combative, though at least in the UK there is supposed to be an arbiter.
I am not an expert on the UK, but I have watched Question Time off and on over many years. I personally do not recall “lie” or similar charges, though I know of many times when the opposition disrupts the PM and then gets admonished as being naughty by the Speaker.
Seed planted by MSS — 10 September 2009 @ 16:19
IP is wrong. It is considered unparliamentary to directly question the veracity of an honourable member in the Canadian parliament. One cannot, for example, say that a minister is not telling the truth, whether in a question or heckling.
Such language generally requires withdrawal, and if not withdrawn, or if repeated, results in removal from the House.
Now, members get animated in the Canadian House of Commons, but they rarely if ever use the word liar or related words.
Seed planted by Peter Loewen — 10 September 2009 @ 16:24
At the risk of belabouring this, I’ve searched the word “liar” in Hansard in the last four years. It has occurred three times.
Seed planted by Peter Loewen — 10 September 2009 @ 16:29
Peter, thanks very much for that info!
Seed planted by MSS — 10 September 2009 @ 17:03
The Germans appear rather rambunctuous in comparison. A search for “Lügner” on the Bundestag’s website yielded 204 hits. Far from all are from debates, but occasionally the feathers fly. But then again, German also has the word Streitgesprech…
(A classic is Joschka Fischer’s interjection. “Mit Verlaub Herr Präsident, Sie sind ein Arschloch” to the speaker of the Bundestag.)
In Denmark and Sweden any kind of interjections or reactions (positive or negative) in parliamentary debates are strongly discouraged.
That said, Joe Wilson might deserve some of his own medicine.
Seed planted by Jacob Christensen — 10 September 2009 @ 21:03
‘Liar’ is unparliametary language in Australia. The following words used in the house by former PM Keating, compiled by the great Mungo McCallum, are all parliamentary language:
Much more importantly, I do not think it advances the cause of democracy or transparency in any way to surround the president with royal protocol or to limit what critics can or cannot say to the president, even on state occasions.
Seed planted by Alan — 10 September 2009 @ 21:30
“A lie is a lie, except in the legislature where even the word is not allowedm” Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun (27 August 2009).
I would distinguish “what legislators can’t say to or about the President because s/he is Our Head of State” from “what legislators can’t say to or about other legislators because we want a workable legislative body capable of some degree of deliberation”. As JS Mill noted, a parliament isn’t going to function well if the MPs shoot guns at one another (although the NSW “bear pit” did survive one Minister giving himself a trial tasering on the floor of the Legislative Assembly).
Seed planted by Tom Round — 11 September 2009 @ 01:13
The presidential bubble is a notorious fact of life that impedes good decisions and accountability. It is only exacerbated by insulating the president from face-to-face criticism and comes dangerously close to one doesn’t discuss a topic with the sovereign unless the sovereign first raises it.
Augustus once met a man who looked strikingly like him and asked if his mother had ever worked in the palace. The lookalike answered that his father had. Augustus laughed. He did not invoke maiestas or imperium.
Seed planted by Alan — 11 September 2009 @ 01:54
1. Have now heard the sound clip and noticed that it was Obama who started calling his political opponents liars. He was making a stump speech, not delivering a eulogy.
2. Churchill, Sir Robert Menzies or Gough Whitlam would have made mincemeat of an interjector like Joe The Legislator.
3. Someone once told me (MSS, pls confirm) that in synagogues it is permissible to object loudly from the pews if the rabbi preaches something heretical…
Seed planted by Tom Round — 11 September 2009 @ 03:39
I think that Obama didn’t point over at the Republicans and say “you all are a bunch of liars”. He said more or less “lies had been told”.
There is a certain air of unreality about the atmosphere in estminister parliaments-I guess its a holdover from the days when most MPs were independents and humiliating your opponent could stampede his supporters into your lobby.
But even if David Cameron, say, made minemeat of Gordon Brown, would a bunch of Labour MPs rush over to the other lobby convinced of Cameron’s superiority? I other words who believes that MPs are convinced by anything that is said in the Chamber on any important issue?
So its just as affected as the pseudo-royal pronouncements of the US president, IMHO.
Seed planted by Dermot — 11 September 2009 @ 04:47
I may be getting old and conservative, but Bush and Howard convinced me you have to have a separate head of state who is in some way insulated from politics. Otherwise the head of government is forever parading about draped in the flag, no matter how naked they might otherwise be. A speech about a proposal before Congress that argues the proposal should be passed does not strike me as a head of state function at all, it is what a head of government does.
It’s perhaps more interesting to ask who was doing the lying rather than who called what who. Obama had denied a series of untruthful Republican talking points and slogans. I do not know that he had specifically called anyone a liar.
Incidentally, I have rather a soft spot for Paul Keating, but I shudder to think what he would have done to Joe the Legislator.
Seed planted by Alan — 11 September 2009 @ 04:52
“You lie”– the second-person and the accusation of lying– is, as far as I know, always unparliamentary language, whether directed at a fellow member of not. Indeed it’s prohibited under the rules of decorum in Robert’s Rules.
Seed planted by Jacob T. Levy — 11 September 2009 @ 10:10
Alan, yes, your point summarizes the reasons why I have increasingly come to favor premier-presidentialism.
A parliamentary system can also “solve” the problem, except that if you do not have an acceptable “native” monarch, you have to figure out how to select the unelected president. (As discussed elsewhere on this blog, Turkey, Moldova, and perhaps soon Greece, all have issues with such procedures.)
Seed planted by MSS — 11 September 2009 @ 13:32
The combination of head of state and head of government is a serious problem for the United States, it means that the head of government gets far too much deference and the head of state gets too little.
Seed planted by Ed — 11 September 2009 @ 13:43
It would be an interesting intellectual exercise to try and construct a form of government that included a directly elected head of government and (I suspect) a directly elected head of state. I just cannot see an indirectly elected head of state receiving the same kind of deference in the US.
Seed planted by Alan — 12 September 2009 @ 10:37
To add to Alan’s point, there would also be the “legitimacy” problem in the USA of head of government (HoG) who was not directly elected (or should I say, “relatively directly elected,” as with the current Presidency).
After all, direct democratic transitions from elected HoG to unelected HoG constitute an empty set; it seems rather unlikely that Americans will pioneer the filling of that set.
So, if an unelected head of state (HoS) would not garner sufficient deference, and an unelected HoG would not garner sufficient legitimacy, we would indeed have to come up with a way to elect both the HoS and the HoG.
An interesting intellectual exercise indeed!
We Americans are known for our ingenuity, and if the Vice Presidency can be its own branch of government, surely this challenge is within our capability as well.
Seed planted by MSS — 13 September 2009 @ 13:59
Or there could be a governor-general of the United States on the model of the Yang di Pertuan Agong. Each state could give up its governor for a month. The job would rotate among the states so that a particular state would not again provide the governor-general until all other states had done so. The magic PNG phrase ‘acting, and in accordance with, the advice of…’ would need to be used a lot. The magic US phrase ‘commander-in-chief’ would belong firmly to the governor-general.
Seed planted by Alan — 15 September 2009 @ 10:02
Ahem ‘acting with, and in accordance with, the advice…’
Seed planted by Alan — 15 September 2009 @ 10:04
The governor general idea is interesting and somewhat similar to the currently rotating European presidency.
One problem you run into, again, is the messed up nature of the US federal system. All states are equal, but you get some ridiculous population discrepancies. Though I guess the EU treats Malta the same as Germany for many purposes.
Seed planted by Ed — 15 September 2009 @ 12:02
I’m not sure the big states would really want their governors to be doing something else for quite as much time as they would spend in the White House if you gave each state say as many weeks as they have presidential electors. Weirdly enough, a couple of Malaysian states have governors instead of hereditary rulers so they miss out on the Yang di Pertuan Agung rotation completely.
Seed planted by Alan — 15 September 2009 @ 12:57