No. I think this is completely wrong, however highminded it sounds.
I understand the decision of some members to boycott the SOTU but I don’t agree with it any more than I did when a member disrupted a speech in the House chamber by @BarackObama. The fact that this @POTUS flouts norms and denigrates institutions doesn’t mean others should follow.
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) January 30, 2018
Yes it does. The fact that the norms this POTUS flouts are the norms that say we should treat other people with respect and fairness and basic empathy does mean that we should not reward him with attention and deference. This POTUS is an evil bullying monster, and he should not be treated as normal or naughty-but-acceptable.
The state of the union address has been puffed into what now looks like a royal ceremony, which is embarrassing. The tv networks are giving it all the solemn awe and hype they bestow on the Oscars, another pseudo-royal ceremony hyped out of all recognition.
Plus there’s the fact that this POTUS has shown us all that the famous checks and balances are worthless, so what else are we supposed to do? What else are legislators supposed to do? Just go on acting as if he’s normal, and wrong but otherwise ok? He’s not in any way ok and we get to say so.
Comments
5 responses to “A piety too many”
You see how Trump is selling space on the SOTU feed to campaign donors?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/01/29/names-of-campaign-donors-to-be-flashed-during-live-stream-of-trumps-state-of-the-union-speech/
The problem is, too many people keep trying to treat this president as if it were politics as usual, someone who has policies they disagree with, but the country is still functioning properly as it usually does. The pundits try to sort Donald’s actions into those of normal politicians. It’s time to stop doing that, because we are rapidly normalizing deviant and unacceptable behavior. If we do this, and somehow make it through this president with any of our institutions intact, it will be that much easier for the next president to take us the next step.
Treating him as just another president we disagree with is too dangerous.
Ben – oh good goddddddddddd
Also, why the hell is he drawing equivalence between “when a member disrupted a speech” and nonattendance of a speech? Attending and disrupting an event is not in the same category as not turning up.
I’ve been assuming it’s because attendance is more or less mandatory? Maybe not an actual rule (I don’t know) but such a strong norm it might as well be?
But even if that is why, yes, the two are still very different.