John Roberts and deliberative bodies
There is so much one could say about the Senate impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, but if you're here, you want something completely different.
Rest in peace, Terry Jones. You will be missed.
Anyway, as the Senate began to debate whether the President is the messiah, or...
... Jerry Nadler, Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow got into an exchange about who is the treacherous liar. The presiding judge in the trial, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, excoriated them for supposedly breaking decorum for their failure to uphold the rules and traditions that make the Senate, "the world's greatest deliberative body." Roberts did not merely chastise those who broke decorum-- the thrust of his admonishment was that the rules of decorum in the Senate are the reason that the Senate is, "the world's greatest deliberative body."
Roberts is, of course, wrong on all counts. He is wrong with respect to whether or not the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body, and wrong on what the formalized rules of decorum mean for deliberation.
Could one argue that the Senate has been, at any point in history, a great deliberative body? Perhaps*, but not only is that more of a knee-jerk platitude, recited the way that Winston Smith eventually agrees that 2+2=5 than a substantive analysis of legislative procedure, the formal rules of Senate decorum really have little to do with the efficacy of deliberation, or even true decency. Unlike many people, I distinguish between "civility," and, "decency." Senate rules of decorum are about civility, and there are plenty of ways to be "civil," but reprehensible. To do so undercuts deliberation.
In other words, there are FOUR LIGHTS!
So let's start with the basic matter of how the Senate stacks up to other legislative bodies as a deliberative institution. Short version: it is as dysfunctional as everything else in American politics. For now, for a weekend blog post, I'm happy to type this and move on, and if anyone wants me to bother with a lit review, cites, and whatnot, lemme know. If you're reading this, you know I write about Congress in my day job, but c'mon. Let's move on, shall we?
Also, water is wet. Y'all need a cite on that? No? The Senate is an unmitigated disaster, and my intent this morning is not to bother wasting my time on this rather banal point.
But, you know what? Those precious rules of decorum about which John Roberts is so concerned? They're still in place! How could the Senate become such a mess if those rules of decorum are still in place? I'm confused!
OK, I'm not really confused. I'm sarcastic and ironic. And I'm going somewhere with this.
Oh, John Roberts! Bless his heart!
See what I did there? "Bless your heart." That's Southern for something that John Roberts would kick you out of the Senate chamber for saying. But, you can say, "bless your heart!" Does that mean "bless your heart" is showing basic, human decency? No! It's condescending and insulting. We all know it's condescending and insulting, but since it is condescending and insulting by connotation rather than by denotation, the Senate rules of decorum permit it. You see the problem? Those kinds of formalized rules don't account for irony and the clear, unambiguous use of irony for the purposes of attack when phrased ironically as kindness.
"Bless your heart" is civil in that it follows the formal rules of social interaction. As I define civility, then, it is civil. But, by my distinction, saying it lacks human decency because it is intended as cruelty. Decency is about intent, and whether or not your intent is malevolent. You can act with malevolent intent, and malevolent effect, even while following the rules of civility. And that's the problem with the formalized rules of civility. They don't account for the gap.
Mind the gap.
I care about intent and effect, rather than the formalized rules of "civility," which are basically meaningless and ironically inflammable garbage that clearly have not protected the Senate from deteriorating into the raging dumpster fire that it is.
It isn't Sunday, but I've already thrown in Orwell and Star Trek, along with Monty Python, in honor of Terry Jones, so let's have some more science fiction. I want as much sci-fi on the new blog as possible. And, it has been a while since I have referenced N.K. Jemisin, so it's time. I'm allowed. One of the best turns of phrase I have ever encountered in modern literature comes from The Fifth Season. One of the most loathsome characters in a book filled with loathsome characters is Feldspar-- a relatively high-level functionary within "The Fulcrum." Feldspar manipulates people with a technique called "weaponized politeness." And as soon as I type that phrase, not only do you know exactly what it is, you probably know a bunch of people who do it.
It's the smile turned into a weapon. The compliment turned into an attack. That smirking/sneering evil, vile person who never breaks decorum, and turns social rules into a weapon against you, and by never breaking decorum, if you say anything, this horrendously reprehensible person makes you look like a petty, pathetic whiner just by continuing to smile while knifing you in the back.
Politely. Smiling. Never forget the smile. That's Feldspar. Black belt bully in social jiu jitsu.
You probably have a Feldspar or two in your life. These people are basically the worst and most dangerous sociopaths around because they are the ones who get away with it. Stupid people let them because nobody pays attention until weaponized politeness is turned on them. Human society kind of sucks that way, most people being cluelessly narcissistic. The violent ones, the ones with poor impulse control... they tend to get caught. No, it's Feldspar who poisons everyone and everything. By turning social rules against you. Weaponized politeness.
Isn't Jemisin the best? How many times do I have to type that before you go read everything she has ever written? Her new book comes out soon! Maybe I'm a little in love with her.
Anyway, my point about weaponized politeness is that Feldspar would never be admonished by John Roberts for breaking the rules of decorum. She would break the Senate as he looked on with full approval. You cannot have anything like small-d democratic deliberation in the presence of Feldspar, because she's just bloody evil.
There is an idea at the core of the Senate rules here, which is that if senators treat each other in a certain way, deliberation can proceed more effectively. That is probably true. The problem is that the rules don't work because the rules are written and applied mindlessly, such that they allow Feldspar-levels of evil, while prohibiting truthful and relevant statements that a person is "lying."
Lying undercuts deliberation at the most fundamental level. You cannot have deliberation without truth. Yet, if we set an arbitrary rule that the word, "lie," is prohibited for being uncivil, we actually facilitate lying by limiting our ability to limit it, and the formalized rules of civility work directly against decency by protecting the worst actors.
John Roberts would have Feldspar's back as she tears the Senate to shreds, using the rules to eliminate any possibility of true deliberation because the edifice of "civility" is easier to protect than anything like human decency. Weaponized politeness, lies... these are the true enemies. You just can't prevent them with mechanical rules, and that's what Roberts wants. Too bad, Johnny.
Think about the Feldspars in your life. I'm sure you know at least one. Would you want John Roberts adjudicating between the two of you? All it would take is one smile from Feldspar, and she's free to keep sticking knives in your back. Politely.
And that's why the Senate is the disaster that it is.
*The problem here is that the supposed bygone era of civility and deliberation is the era in which civil rights were filibustered by those wonderful people, the "moderates" who crossed party lines, AKA, the Southern Democrats. Like, well, Strom Thurmond.
Rest in peace, Terry Jones. You will be missed.
Anyway, as the Senate began to debate whether the President is the messiah, or...
... Jerry Nadler, Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow got into an exchange about who is the treacherous liar. The presiding judge in the trial, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, excoriated them for supposedly breaking decorum for their failure to uphold the rules and traditions that make the Senate, "the world's greatest deliberative body." Roberts did not merely chastise those who broke decorum-- the thrust of his admonishment was that the rules of decorum in the Senate are the reason that the Senate is, "the world's greatest deliberative body."
Roberts is, of course, wrong on all counts. He is wrong with respect to whether or not the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body, and wrong on what the formalized rules of decorum mean for deliberation.
Could one argue that the Senate has been, at any point in history, a great deliberative body? Perhaps*, but not only is that more of a knee-jerk platitude, recited the way that Winston Smith eventually agrees that 2+2=5 than a substantive analysis of legislative procedure, the formal rules of Senate decorum really have little to do with the efficacy of deliberation, or even true decency. Unlike many people, I distinguish between "civility," and, "decency." Senate rules of decorum are about civility, and there are plenty of ways to be "civil," but reprehensible. To do so undercuts deliberation.
In other words, there are FOUR LIGHTS!
So let's start with the basic matter of how the Senate stacks up to other legislative bodies as a deliberative institution. Short version: it is as dysfunctional as everything else in American politics. For now, for a weekend blog post, I'm happy to type this and move on, and if anyone wants me to bother with a lit review, cites, and whatnot, lemme know. If you're reading this, you know I write about Congress in my day job, but c'mon. Let's move on, shall we?
Also, water is wet. Y'all need a cite on that? No? The Senate is an unmitigated disaster, and my intent this morning is not to bother wasting my time on this rather banal point.
But, you know what? Those precious rules of decorum about which John Roberts is so concerned? They're still in place! How could the Senate become such a mess if those rules of decorum are still in place? I'm confused!
OK, I'm not really confused. I'm sarcastic and ironic. And I'm going somewhere with this.
Oh, John Roberts! Bless his heart!
See what I did there? "Bless your heart." That's Southern for something that John Roberts would kick you out of the Senate chamber for saying. But, you can say, "bless your heart!" Does that mean "bless your heart" is showing basic, human decency? No! It's condescending and insulting. We all know it's condescending and insulting, but since it is condescending and insulting by connotation rather than by denotation, the Senate rules of decorum permit it. You see the problem? Those kinds of formalized rules don't account for irony and the clear, unambiguous use of irony for the purposes of attack when phrased ironically as kindness.
"Bless your heart" is civil in that it follows the formal rules of social interaction. As I define civility, then, it is civil. But, by my distinction, saying it lacks human decency because it is intended as cruelty. Decency is about intent, and whether or not your intent is malevolent. You can act with malevolent intent, and malevolent effect, even while following the rules of civility. And that's the problem with the formalized rules of civility. They don't account for the gap.
Mind the gap.
I care about intent and effect, rather than the formalized rules of "civility," which are basically meaningless and ironically inflammable garbage that clearly have not protected the Senate from deteriorating into the raging dumpster fire that it is.
It isn't Sunday, but I've already thrown in Orwell and Star Trek, along with Monty Python, in honor of Terry Jones, so let's have some more science fiction. I want as much sci-fi on the new blog as possible. And, it has been a while since I have referenced N.K. Jemisin, so it's time. I'm allowed. One of the best turns of phrase I have ever encountered in modern literature comes from The Fifth Season. One of the most loathsome characters in a book filled with loathsome characters is Feldspar-- a relatively high-level functionary within "The Fulcrum." Feldspar manipulates people with a technique called "weaponized politeness." And as soon as I type that phrase, not only do you know exactly what it is, you probably know a bunch of people who do it.
It's the smile turned into a weapon. The compliment turned into an attack. That smirking/sneering evil, vile person who never breaks decorum, and turns social rules into a weapon against you, and by never breaking decorum, if you say anything, this horrendously reprehensible person makes you look like a petty, pathetic whiner just by continuing to smile while knifing you in the back.
Politely. Smiling. Never forget the smile. That's Feldspar. Black belt bully in social jiu jitsu.
You probably have a Feldspar or two in your life. These people are basically the worst and most dangerous sociopaths around because they are the ones who get away with it. Stupid people let them because nobody pays attention until weaponized politeness is turned on them. Human society kind of sucks that way, most people being cluelessly narcissistic. The violent ones, the ones with poor impulse control... they tend to get caught. No, it's Feldspar who poisons everyone and everything. By turning social rules against you. Weaponized politeness.
Isn't Jemisin the best? How many times do I have to type that before you go read everything she has ever written? Her new book comes out soon! Maybe I'm a little in love with her.
Anyway, my point about weaponized politeness is that Feldspar would never be admonished by John Roberts for breaking the rules of decorum. She would break the Senate as he looked on with full approval. You cannot have anything like small-d democratic deliberation in the presence of Feldspar, because she's just bloody evil.
There is an idea at the core of the Senate rules here, which is that if senators treat each other in a certain way, deliberation can proceed more effectively. That is probably true. The problem is that the rules don't work because the rules are written and applied mindlessly, such that they allow Feldspar-levels of evil, while prohibiting truthful and relevant statements that a person is "lying."
Lying undercuts deliberation at the most fundamental level. You cannot have deliberation without truth. Yet, if we set an arbitrary rule that the word, "lie," is prohibited for being uncivil, we actually facilitate lying by limiting our ability to limit it, and the formalized rules of civility work directly against decency by protecting the worst actors.
John Roberts would have Feldspar's back as she tears the Senate to shreds, using the rules to eliminate any possibility of true deliberation because the edifice of "civility" is easier to protect than anything like human decency. Weaponized politeness, lies... these are the true enemies. You just can't prevent them with mechanical rules, and that's what Roberts wants. Too bad, Johnny.
Think about the Feldspars in your life. I'm sure you know at least one. Would you want John Roberts adjudicating between the two of you? All it would take is one smile from Feldspar, and she's free to keep sticking knives in your back. Politely.
And that's why the Senate is the disaster that it is.
*The problem here is that the supposed bygone era of civility and deliberation is the era in which civil rights were filibustered by those wonderful people, the "moderates" who crossed party lines, AKA, the Southern Democrats. Like, well, Strom Thurmond.
Comments
Post a Comment