THE UNITED STATES SENATE | 2006-01-10
From my replies to comments today, one theme keeps being repeated:
Whether it is the word lie or admitting you are wrong on a point or a gentleman's apology, it is critical that when you speak, you take what you say seriously and reserves the big ones for a single sentence.
If you are like National Review ( see "Peter Has One of Two Rules Right" below) and you don't take your own pronouncements seriosuly, why should anybody else take you seriously?
This reminds me of the United States Senate as it USED to be.
The first time I saw the United States Senate in session was in the 1950s. My brother and I were up in the Senate Gallery.
What we first noticed about the Senate was how QUIET it was.
We both were impressed and we both knew why it was so quiet:
When one of those men spoke every word carried weight. They didn't have to shout.
Now the Senate is just one set of politicians. They are always talking about Senate traditions and respect, but the meaning of these things has completely disappeared.
In The Partisan Dictionary I gave a definition that is relevant here:
"Manners, n, A formalized substitute for courtesy."
"Manners" is a lot like the Cargo Cult (See "Mondo Cane" below. The idea is htat if you follow all the rules you see gentlement and ladies follow, you will be a lady or a gentlemen. If you follow the rules, you will be a gentleman or a lady.
So today's senators tell us about Senate Traditions. They give examples of how they act formally the way earlier, real senators acted. They follow the rules, and they can give you examplesof how real senators used to act that way.
But manners cannot substitute for courtesy. And following the rules cannot substitute for the real traditions which today's senator is incapable of understanding.
When the senators went up to vote, Strom Thurmond, who was a genuine segregationist, passed by Hubert Humphrey, the fanatical integrationists from Minnesota. Thurmond was our hero, Humphrey out ultimate villain.
As they went up to vote, Thurmond passed Humphrey. Thurmond patted Humphrey on the arm and Humphrey sort of tapped him back.
This was NOT hyprocrisy. As I said, I found out later that Thurmond genuinely despised everything Humphrey stood for and I am sure Humphrey believed in every word he was saying.
What they did wasnot for galleries. I was watching Strom very closely and that pat would have gotten him no votes in South Carolina.
Strom never showed the slightest friendliness to senators like Jacob Javits of New York.
He thought Humphrey was a damned fool but Humpphrey was an enemy he respected.
And vice-versa.
Nowadays a senator who heard about his might pat ALL his enemies on the arm to show he was like the old senators.
That little bit of mutural respect was rare and genuine.
Strom and Humphrey thought of each other as genuine senators. Strom thought of Javits as a hunk of trash from New York City.
Today's senator would never understand this distinction. He thinks that if one gets the title "Senator" he is a senator. He thinks in terms of arm-patting rather than the attitude behind it.
Am I making myself sufficiently obscure?