Sometimes an observation from elsewhere is illuminating. Sometimes, not :)
Today I read this blow by blow on the lead up to this vote on Trump’s Tweets, culminating with Democrat Steny Hoyer ruling Nancy Pelosi out of order for calling Trump’s Tweets racist.
www.msn.com/...
In Canada, where I am from, this kind of language is common place in our British parliamentary system. And if you’ve ever seen PM Question Period in the British Parliament, you’ll know it’s no holds barred to say the least. We, in BPS nations (system with God knows their own issues!), are rarely deferential to the office of government leader (we have the Queen as head of state, for deference, for bad or for good.) While I do value respect and decorum in the highest halls of our democracies, I do wonder if the extreme nature of adherence to such constricted, limited language in the US Congress (and, BTW, the extreme deference US journalists give the president when in front of him/her) again, two features missing in my country and the UK, are part of the problem in US democracy? And, too, for these arcane (?) rules to be so worshipped in the land of no hate speech laws and unbridled freedom of speech (both of which are much more regulated in the UK and Canada) seems like a massive disconnect to me.
It’s like Congress, which should be the place for the most frank, honest discussion, is constraining itself out of the ACTUAL dialogue altogether!
Remember, if we let the Dems spout off, the Republicans will as well — and then, hopefully, sink themselves.
Not saying this thesis has any merit. But from here, the way things work in US Congress relative to the rest of the political discussion, and relative to other democracies, is glaring, perhaps creating an façade of “reasonable disagreement” at odds with both the nature of the political game and the threat US democracy faces. Perhaps creating and maintaining the fiction that seems to guide Joe Biden and most of the main stream media?
Thoughts?