Joe Wilson: "You lie!"

[bascule]

 

"You lie!": an outburst made by South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson during Obama's speech on healthcare to a joint session of Congress. This has sadly been overshadowed in the mainstream media by Kanye West jumping up on stage during the MTV Awards when Taylor Swift won best female music video.

 

The comment was made regarding a statement from Obama that illegal immigrants would not receive healthcare under the proposed legislation, a statement which, in fact, is not a lie.

 

Democratic leadership have called for a resolution admonishing him for the outburst.

 

Oddly enough, 20% of Americans support Wilson's actions, with 6% of them describing their reaction as "thrilled".

 

I'm curious what lead him to make this outburst in the first place. No Democratic representative ever called Bush a liar, certainly not during a joint session of Congress. I'm not sure what it speaks too specifically, although given that Rep. Wilson fought to keep the "Stars and Bars" flying over the state capitol, racism seems a likely factor.

 

I'm also curious who these 20% of Americans are who support Wilson's outburst. Whoever they are, they are not people I am proud to call my fellow American citizens.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think there's much to talk about. Guy is a jackass, which most people recognize. A vocal minority (get it?) will call him a "hero." I think it's fair to say that it's part of the same sort of atmosphere of the uglier town hall meetings. I predict "you lie" memorabilia for sale on conservative blogs and news sites. Is Joe Wilson racist? Ugh. Yeah, probably. Who cares? "Playing the race card," even if it's accurate, is just going to be seen as squelching dissent with ad hominem.

[JillSwift]

It is my humble opinion that politics in the United States has become increasingly reactionary since the events of 9/11/2001.

 

Wilson's outburst is a symptom of that.

 

Politics has always had a streak of the grandstander in it, examples are scattered throughout history of such bouts of showmanship. It can serve a purpose, as to bring attention to a subject people were otherwise ignoring, and it can be nothing more than a distraction (as it is in this case).

 

It seems we have a growing number of people that find these sorts of things appropriate even if they fail to serve any useful purpose. 20% is surprising, and I'm curious what the margins are on that poll.

 

His constituency would have been better served if he later demonstrated what lies were supposedly being told, but one suspects there was nothing to demonstrate. Good old American hyperbole made "I strongly disagree!" into "You lie!"

[Pangloss]

My reaction to his remark is that he got caught up in the moment and that the problem is systemic to current GOP tactics and leadership, and not really a "Joe Wilson" thing. He blew it, but the atmosphere they've fostered lead to the outburst and that's the real source of the problem. You can hear this in the video below, because before his outburst ALL the GOP members were reacting verbally to the President's points (just not as rudely, perhaps, although I'm not convinced Wilson is the first one to use the word "lie"). The outburst occurs around the 1.5 minute mark, but start listening at around 1:10 mark. It sounds to me like Wilson or someone else also says "you lie" at around 1:20, it just didn't get as noticed by the room, and in that case it comes right in the middle of a group outburst.

 

TxHKSHvMRWE

 

In all fairness the Dems were verbalizing as well, obviously in support. And Obama says Wilson was sincere in his apology and that's good enough for me in terms of Wilson -- fine, let's leave this specific outburst behind.

 

But it does seem to indicate how wide the aisle is these days. It's notable that Wilson's local challenger racked up half a million dollars from 14,000 donors within a day of making that remark. (source)

[iNow]

And Wilson himself racked up over a million dollars from supporters who liked what he did and how he did it. He's even selling tshirts for people which say, "I'm with Wilson!" on his website.

 

Further, I found his apology empty and insincere. While I respect the president's ability to turn the other cheek... live and let live... let bygones be bygones... Wilsons actions and continued points since the outburst are not indicative of a man who is repentant about his error, but are more indicative of a man who truly believes that his disrespect for the president was appropriate, who questions the legitimacy of the president, who is using this disappointing action to gain fame, and who only apologized because it would have been really bad PR not to. The healthcare "debate" has brought out the worst in Americans, and I (for one) am disappointed, and ashamed of the extremity and insanity of these types of actions and behaviors.

 

That's my two pennies, anyway.

[john5746]

Crazy Carter

 

Good move for Obama to throw Carter under the bus, well maybe put him on the bus. The last thing you need to do when you don't want to be compared to Stalin and have distractions like that is start screaming racism. There is that segment of society, just as there is that segment of society that thinks government is the answer to everything. Doesn't mean they are the chief representatives in the argument.

 

By the way, does anyone think a government option will not cover the children of non-citizens? If so, for how long?

[A Tripolation]

I'm also curious who these 20% of Americans are who support Wilson's outburst. Whoever they are, they are not people I am proud to call my fellow American citizens.

 

I don't "support" it per se, but I did think it was awesome that he said that. Obviously he was mistaken, and Obama wasn't lying, but you have to admit it livened up something that is usually incredibly verbose and pretentious. I can't tell you how much I laughed after that. And "You LIE!!!" is just one of the funniest rebuttals in an argument...right up there with "that's what she said".

 

And Pangloss made some good points. Thought I'd throw in the opinions that some of us non-sciencey people have.

[The Bear's Key]

I have an opposing view of sorts. It's essential for our representatives to call out a *real* lie in public, even in Congress against the President. He's not some kind of idol, and certainly not beyond disrespect when he's not being respectful in kind.

 

Just imagine if a Democaratic representative had balls enough to similarly call out Bush or Cheney (especially the latter). Yeah, keep imagining

 

Thus if Joe Wilson had been frank rather than a weasel, I'd applaud him.

[Pangloss]

There's a time and a place for everything, and there's no shortage of means for the opposition party and its members to voice its view. In my opinion, the middle of a presidential speech is not one of those times.

 

BTW, I thought you guys might find this 12-second clip amusing:

 

BcuE9ghAgFM&feature=player_embedded

[tar]

Is anything a Republican says racist, bigoted, ill-informed and mean, by definition?

 

I had heard of the incident, but did not watch the clip until I checked in on this thread.

 

First thing I heard was the President calling his opponents liars. Then I heard a vocal response to his statement that illegal aliens would not be covered under his plan. I didn't hear Wilson's words in particular, just the general response of incredulity. A response that seemed appropriate to me, considering the President had already called his opponents liars.

 

Can't the President's plan be opposed?

 

My opposition is based on many things, fear of increased taxes as a result, fear of managed care of my life and choices as a result, fear of my company having to pay more toward health care as result, fear of socialism, fear of government making life decisions for me, telling me what to eat, taxing soda, changing the rules, and taking a portion of my wealth from me to redistribute in the "proper" fashion, to insure the same level of health care, for everybody.

 

I know I was out voted back in November. Majority rules. My views have little voice for the next two years. And I have a healthy regard for the wisdom of my fellow citizens. I can be wrong, I can be out voted, and I will in any case, still respect my President, follow the laws my congress passes, and live with the resulting changes to my life and the lives of those around me.

 

And "I told you so" won't do much good for anyone, once the laws are put into motion. The time for opposition is before the law is passed, the time for incredulity is now. The outburst was not out of place.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

Can't the President's plan be opposed?

 

My opposition is based on many things, fear of increased taxes as a result, fear of managed care of my life and choices as a result, fear of my company having to pay more toward health care as result, fear of socialism, fear of government making life decisions for me, telling me what to eat, taxing soda, changing the rules, and taking a portion of my wealth from me to redistribute in the "proper" fashion, to insure the same level of health care, for everybody.

Well, the way I read it, your opposition is actually based on one thing alone... Fear.

[padren]

Is anything a Republican says racist, bigoted, ill-informed and mean, by definition?

Naturally no, not by definition. Not sure why you'd ask that in such a manner, it's pretty self evident. However, like just about anybody they can say things that are, and it's fair to examine that when it appears they are.

 

Can't the President's plan be opposed?

 

Naturally yes, and many people do oppose it. We have an entire system of government dedicated to proposing and opposing plans that is designed (in theory at least) to sponsor healthy debate and expose flaws in the arguments for or against such plans.

 

Shouting over a president's speech to a joint session of Congress is not part of that system. Unless I missed Obama say "I yield the floor to Rep Wilson" under his breath there is a whole system in place for taking turns in speaking that he bypassed - one that he himself relies on when he has something he wants to say.

 

We even accept filibusters as part of our system - even though they do nothing but allow through the letter of the law to ensure all action grinds to a halt. It does have a place and we do respect the law, so we accept and expect that in the Senate. Imagine how it must have felt to be trying to advance the Civil Rights Act and have the entire Senate stalled for 57 days through filibuster? If we can maintain cool heads and work with people under those conditions, we should at least be able to keep a cool head and let the President finish his speech before heckling him.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Yes. I couldn't come up with a better word to describe my opposition. Perhaps "concern that following the presidents plan will continue to take us down a path that I do not like, and find strong reasons to avoid if I can" I am "afraid" that certain unsavory consequences will result. There I am sure is such thing as irrational fear, I hope you are not suggesting that my fears are irrational. I would hope that you do not think, that in this world of 4 billion competing wills, there is no room for the fear that someones will, will dominate yours, and cause your own plans, your own sacrifices, your own effort, to forward your will to be changed, done in vain, countered and squelched.

 

Can we just rationally be afraid of threats from outside the borders of the U.S. if we are U.S. citizens? Can we rationally be "afraid" of threats? What are you allowing us?

 

"There are no threats", is not a true statement. Parsing the threats is something everybody does. Everybody is afraid of certain outcomes, and desires others. We have a world that automatically picks winners and loser. Every victory for one group is a loss for the opposition. Now it would be great, if we could arrange things so a victory for one, was a victory for all. But this is usually not the case. Every problem we solve has a vast body of unintended consequence that follow it. Even unamious decisions, often have weaknesses, that show up later.

 

Many of the decisions that we have made over the centuries, in terms of how to structure a society, have been made for good, altruistic, sound reasons. But always, there is human will involved. And always a balance is reached between competing wills. Sometimes by force, sometimes by reason. "The pen is mightier than the sword" is a testament to the fact that "ideas" are powerful, and can threaten and affect one's desired world as surely as an encroaching army.

 

I have a little joke I tell myself about our recent presidental election.

"We voted for change, but neglected to specify."

 

To expect that the United States, has been doing it all wrong, for the last 200+ years. and now, in the hands of a benevolent, pragmatic, charismatic, dictator, we will do everything right, is a dangerous and false expectation.

 

Our president is now in control of GM, and Citi. He has the production and capital, the ability to write the laws and the ability to enforce the laws. His will, will be done.

 

Any objections?

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

To expect that the United States, has been doing it all wrong, for the last 200+ years. and now, in the hands of a benevolent, pragmatic, charismatic, dictator, we will do everything right, is a dangerous and false expectation.

I suppose, given your choice of words here, that I need to amend my previous post.

 

Your opposition is not based on fear alone, but it appears also based on misconceptions and falsehoods. Dictator? Come on. Articulate an actual argument. Spend some time educating yourself about the proposed changes, and make a focused argument. Calling the president a dictator and suggesting that the claim is that "we've been doing it all wrong for 200+ years" is flatly silly... Not to mention you saying that he's trying to take over the economy when bailouts to Detroit and Wall Street began under Bush. There are some rather important facts you're conveniently ignoring. Stop ignoring them.

[tar]

Padren,

 

"Shouting over a president's speech to a joint session of Congress is not part of that system."

 

Maybe not shouting, but groans and moans and incredulity from the opposition, and cheers and yesses from the aggreers are expected and allowed.

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

iNow,

 

From Wiki. "In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly[citation needed]. see TfD Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality."

 

New York and Chicago have historically been the capital centers of our nation. The capital center is currently in the capitol. The President, by the laws he is promoting, and by moral suasion, is limiting the compensation of executives of companies, deciding what risks people are allowed to take, deciding who has benefited "unfairly" and deciding how capital should be allocated. The FED buys treasuries to fund the government, the people buy the treasuries, the capital flows into the hands and the control of the President, and his congress. No one is allowed to "game the system" for personal gain. Private wealth is a "no-no". Financial instruments held, are effectively "disallowed" and rendered worthless. Rules, and agreements that people built strategies and investment plans around have been changed, with more changes to follow. If you have private wealth, it will be taxed. The more you have, the larger percentage will be taken.

 

If you and the company you work for, has purchased health insurance, you can continue to pay, but there will be changes to the care you will receive. In addition, your company must pay more, and you must pay more, to fund the coverage of people that have not paid for coverage. Everybody that is providing care will have to provide more and better care, for less compensation. "Waste" and "fraud" will be eliminated to pay for it?

 

If the government borrows money, there are only two ways to pay the money back. Taxes increase, or inflation increases (or both.)

 

As a scientist, you would probably agree, that you cannot get something, for nothing. Who is paying for universal health care, how will that payment be extracted, and who will decide what level of care is appropriate, has always been the issue. There is no solution, that does not create winners and losers. There is no solution that does not put decisions into hands, other than yours. There is no solution that eliminates the need for somebody to pay.

 

Regards, TAR

[Pangloss]

"Dictator" means someone with absolute power. Even in the Wikipedia. Certainly it has come to be used as an adjective to exaggerate a case, but if you use it in that sense then you label yourself as exaggerating the case.

[bascule]

Is anything a Republican says racist, bigoted, ill-informed and mean, by definition?

 

I had heard of the incident, but did not watch the clip until I checked in on this thread.

 

First thing I heard was the President calling his opponents liars.

 

When exactly did he call his opponents "liars"?

 

Then I heard a vocal response to his statement that illegal aliens would not be covered under his plan. I didn't hear Wilson's words in particular, just the general response of incredulity. A response that seemed appropriate to me, considering the President had already called his opponents liars.

 

Can't the President's plan be opposed?

 

I'm not sure how you go from "shouting at the President that he's a liar in the middle of his speech to a joint session of Congress is bad" to "the President's plan cannot be opposed". Seems like a bit of a strawman.

[padren]

Padren,

 

"Shouting over a president's speech to a joint session of Congress is not part of that system."

 

Maybe not shouting, but groans and moans and incredulity from the opposition, and cheers and yesses from the aggreers are expected and allowed.

 

Regards, TAR

Groans and cheers are especially popular in the British Parliament. It also occurs in the US in a more subdued manner, but shouting over the speaker (as Wilson did) is not something we do in these affairs. It's not something we consider promoting a healthy discussion or debate. Do you not agree?

 

New York and Chicago have historically been the capital centers of our nation. The capital center is currently in the capitol. The President, by the laws he is promoting, and by moral suasion, is limiting the compensation of executives of companies, deciding what risks people are allowed to take, deciding who has benefited "unfairly" and deciding how capital should be allocated. The FED buys treasuries to fund the government, the people buy the treasuries, the capital flows into the hands and the control of the President, and his congress. No one is allowed to "game the system" for personal gain. Private wealth is a "no-no". Financial instruments held, are effectively "disallowed" and rendered worthless. Rules, and agreements that people built strategies and investment plans around have been changed, with more changes to follow. If you have private wealth, it will be taxed. The more you have, the larger percentage will be taken.

In terms if his power, he is our representative and it's our congress that we voted for, not him.

 

The fact we voted for a congress and senate that supports his plans does not mean he has some sort of dictatorial power.

If you and the company you work for, has purchased health insurance, you can continue to pay, but there will be changes to the care you will receive. In addition, your company must pay more, and you must pay more, to fund the coverage of people that have not paid for coverage. Everybody that is providing care will have to provide more and better care, for less compensation. "Waste" and "fraud" will be eliminated to pay for it?

Your company already has to pay for the uninsured - the hospitals that they use already have to cover the overhead of paying for emergency services of the uninsured. I don't see how this equates to paying more simply by streamlining the mechanisms in place to create more accurate billing.

 

If the government borrows money, there are only two ways to pay the money back. Taxes increase, or inflation increases (or both.)

 

As a scientist, you would probably agree, that you cannot get something, for nothing. Who is paying for universal health care, how will that payment be extracted, and who will decide what level of care is appropriate, has always been the issue. There is no solution, that does not create winners and losers. There is no solution that does not put decisions into hands, other than yours. There is no solution that eliminates the need for somebody to pay.

 

Regards, TAR

 

We already pay for universal health care because we already have to provide health care to those that go to the emergency room. The costs saved by denying the uninsured are (it seems) more than offset by the costs incurred by being forced to treat them by law due to the development of life threatening conditions.

 

You use the argument "you can't get something for nothing" in a manner that would equate building a more efficient car engine to the ludicrousness of building a perpetual motion machine.

 

Lastly, regardless of whether the President is delusional in his belief that it will not result in higher costs or lowering of quality - he is not lying unless he doesn't believe what he is saying.

 

That's a fair debate too - maybe he is lying. The time for that debate however is not by shouting "You Lie!" during his address to the joint session of congress. He has no opportunity to make a counter argument without derailing his own speech, at a time when it was his legal right to deliver that speech.

 

Personally, I find that shouting an assertion at a time that a person cannot defend against without sabotaging the very activity they are supposed to be doing as per their duty is cowardly.

 

Either Wilson expected Obama to drop his speech and engage in a lively debate on whether he was, in fact lying - which would be very disrespectful of not only the President but our entire system of government.... or he expected that Obama would have to continue and not be able to give any sort of nuanced rebuttal - which the debate equivelent of kicking someone when they are down. It is cowardly regardless of whether you agree with his arguments - that is not how you make an argument in our society.

[tar]

Padren,

 

You are right, about the derail your speech portion. It was a rude, emotional outburst that was indeed out of place. If Wilson has valid, reasonable points to make, he has plenty of oppurtunity, and the right venues to do it in. I withdraw my defense of his outburst.

 

And sure, I was exaggerating, I don't think he is an evil dictator. But you have to admit, that given the circumstances that the country is in, and the force of his personality and charisma, combined with his reasonable pragmatic approach, combined with a democratic congress, combined with the power of his office, which is arguably the most powerful position in the world, he is in a position to dictate what happens, in a way that no other President in my lifetime has ever been.

 

People in this country have always looked out for the people that couldn't look out for themselves. There has always been charity, and people that had the social good in mind, in their every day actions. That won't change.

 

And I have faith, that anything overdone or wrongly done in the law will work itself out. We do have a good county, and a lot of good people in it.

 

However, laws are powerful. They represent the way we all (or close to all of us) want to see things go. They should be made about the things we all agree on. They shouldn't be reactions to single events. They shouldn't benefit one honest, reasonable group, over another honest reasonable group. And they shouldn't micromanage. And idealy they should be timeless, not topical.

 

People structure their lives, to live by the rules, and be protected by the rules, and foster in their children the reasons for obiedience of the rules.

 

I like to think of the laws of my country, as my laws, my rules, what I fight to maintain, what I count on to structure my life, what I trust in, to structure the lives of those around me.

 

I just don't like seeing laws that uproot everything, and change the way everybody has to act. The way we act is already reasonable, already good, already thought out, and tested as workable.

 

Sure we can fine tune stuff. Get rid of unworkable stuff. Establish laws that better reflect our current consensus.

 

But lets be careful to not disturb what is already working.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

The way we act is already reasonable, already good, already thought out, and tested as workable.

Not true with our healthcare system.

 

 

 

But lets be careful to not disturb what is already working.

The healthcare system is not "already working," and it is changes to that system which serve to offer context to this entire thread.

[The Bear's Key]

We have an entire system of government dedicated to proposing and opposing plans that is designed (in theory at least) to sponsor healthy debate and expose flaws in the arguments for or against such plans.

 

Shouting over a president's speech to a joint session of Congress is not part of that system. Unless I missed Obama say "I yield the floor to Rep Wilson" under his breath there is a whole system in place for taking turns in speaking that he bypassed - one that he himself relies on when he has something he wants to say.

 

We even accept filibusters as part of our system - even though they do nothing but allow through the letter of the law to ensure all action grinds to a halt. It does have a place and we do respect the law, so we accept and expect that in the Senate. Imagine how it must have felt to be trying to advance the Civil Rights Act and have the entire Senate stalled for 57 days through filibuster? If we can maintain cool heads and work with people under those conditions, we should at least be able to keep a cool head and let the President finish his speech before heckling him.

 

There's a time and a place for everything, and there's no shortage of means for the opposition party and its members to voice its view. In my opinion, the middle of a presidential speech is not one of those times.

 

That's a fair debate too - maybe he is lying. The time for that debate however is not by shouting "You Lie!" during his address to the joint session of congress. He has no opportunity to make a counter argument without derailing his own speech, at a time when it was his legal right to deliver that speech.

 

Personally, I find that shouting an assertion at a time that a person cannot defend against without sabotaging the very activity they are supposed to be doing as per their duty is cowardly.

 

Either Wilson expected Obama to drop his speech and engage in a lively debate on whether he was, in fact lying - which would be very disrespectful of not only the President but our entire system of government.... or he expected that Obama would have to continue and not be able to give any sort of nuanced rebuttal - which the debate equivelent of kicking someone when they are down. It is cowardly regardless of whether you agree with his arguments - that is not how you make an argument in our society.

I've gotta admit, padren, both those quoted are some of the most level-headed answers I've seen here. Difficult not to be convinced. Really. Nice going.

 

And Pangloss I commend your usual attempts to make a situation civil.

 

Given that...

 

I'd be fairly upset with members of the Republican Party if Obama (and/or his subordinates) were lying through his teeth, while driving the nation into a major domestic and internationally volatile efort, with special propaganda that in advance labeled the potential (Republican/conservative) opposition as unpatriotic....all the while they excuse away the critical inconsistencies by postponing necessary debate supposedly only until the big catastrophe or national emergency's over later, when it's fully obvious that debate's not going to ever happen due to the Administration's track record of such deceptive maneuverings...

 

Plus if barely a few were able to reach beyond a secretive, loyal circle encircling the President and it seemed that Biden and (a Democratic equivalent of) Karl Rove were orchestrating the Dems' propaganda machinery via the White Hosue with allied think tanks and industry heads, blocking investigations and deleting emails....

 

And if Republicans under that situation were to allow Obama to speak, not about ideological stuff a party is naturally opposed to, but a continuation of the lies and obvious attempts to grab power -- and no Republican under that situation were to take a freakin stand for the citizens of the U.S with major abuses to the constitution being done in secrecy...well, you know how I'd feel about it. Sometimes one does have to be uncivil, or at least have balls (not a shout and duck). Question is....

 

How would you approach that scenario differently?

 

Explain how you'd go by the regular channels if you were a senator or representative.

[john5746]

Explain how you'd go by the regular channels if you were a senator or representative.

 

They had a response to the speech and any senator can catch a reporter or go on a show and call Obama a liar. That will make the news pretty easily, I would think. If people can be respectful to the President when they disagree with wars that actually involve people losing their lives, then I think they can do the same over economic policies.

[Mr Skeptic]

When exactly did he call his opponents "liars"?

 

I'm pretty sure that he called some of his opponents liars just before that particularly long round of applause. Re "death panel" claims. At 0:42 of the video in post 4. He also called other opposition claims bogus and false. Still, so long as he can support what he said, it seems like calling liars liars is the right thing to do, and something sorely needed in politics. As for Wilson, the rules of debate must be followed by both sides or there is no chance of having civil discourse.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[padren]

I really have no problem with Wilson calling Obama a 'liar' although, I wouldn't be giving him credit on "well won debating arguments" for any one liner that fails to forward discourse at all.

 

However, the fact that he shouted it is the first thing that is offensive, but following his "apology" the fact he then went on to raise money for his interruption is simply atrocious.

That would be like McCain in the election accusing Obama of being a Muslim, apologizing, then cheering a bunch of voters on at a "No Muslims in the white house" rally.

 

From what I can tell, his apology appears far more disingenuous than anything that has come out of Obama's mouth. I'd have respect for the guy if he refused to profit from what he said he did wrong. But I guess we (the populous) have let the bar go so low that's too much to ask.

[Pangloss]

Great posts all over the place.

 

I draw a distinction between accusing a political party of lying and accusing an individual of being a liar (the latter being more objectionable because it's so much more personal), but politics IS a hot kitchen. But what I really wanted to reply to (albeit briefly since I'm at work) is this:

 

Still' date=' so long as he can support what he said, it seems like calling liars liars is the right thing to do, and something sorely needed in politics. As for Wilson, the rules of debate must be followed by both sides or there is no chance of having civil discourse.

[/quote']

 

You're right, and that's a good way of putting it, because you're not talking about spitting in each other's faces, you're talking about setting the record straight.

 

I think you may be on to something there in terms of society's potential "way out" from this endless bickering between the two extremes. It comes down to finding the right combination of record-straightening and fight-picking without the loss of temper that often comes with the package.

 

And if it results in the demagogues having to find a new line of work, well, we all have to do our part.