Colorado Democrat Senator Mark Udall has put forward the
oh-so-Boulder idea that politicians
of both parties should intermingle for their State of the Union
address seating on January 25th. Udall, and his letter’s
cosigners suggest that “partisan seating arrangements at State of
the Union addresses serve to symbolize division instead of the
common challenges we face in securing a strong future for the
United States” and further that “the choreographed standing and
clapping of one side of the room — while the other side sits — is
unbecoming of a serious institution.”
Senate cosigners include touchy-feely and “red state”
Democrats and the usual list of “bipartisan” RINOs (including
notably John McCain): Mark Udall, Lisa Murkowski, Kelly Ayotte,
Mark Begich, Barbara Boxer, Ben Cardin, Susan Collins, Kirsten
Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Joe
Manchin, John McCain, Claire McCaskill, Jeff Merkley, Ben Nelson,
Jack Reed, Jeanne Shaheen, Olympia Snowe, Sheldon Whitehouse, and
Ron Wyden. There is also a handful of House cosigners.
I have no doubt that Mark Udall is sincere. He is that
sort of guy.
Indeed, there is something ridiculous (or at least
unserious) about one side of the chamber cheering while the other
side sits somberly, especially when the scene is repeated a dozen
or more times, slowing down a speech that most of us watch only
because we feel that we must. But we’d read the Cliff Notes if we
could and certainly don’t appreciate applauding senators keeping us
from the latest episode of CSI: Des Moines, or whatever
we’d prefer to numb our minds with that evening.
And a part of me likes the idea of less
partisan-for-its-own-sake government. But only a part.
When a politician or party promotes policies which aim to
destroy, whether in large chunks, or bit by little bit, the
fundamental fabric of our republic, to cripple free markets, to
increase dependency on government, and to whittle away at the
liberties which have made America the greatest nation in history,
patriots, including the very few members of Congress able to claim
that mantle, are obligated to protest with force at least equal and
opposite to that of the left’s destroyers.
Congressional kumbaya is fine as long as it does not
diminish the actual and perceived force of such
protests.
Given the tendency of the American left to want to muzzle
debate, especially once they have power, as shown by Barack Obama’s
masterful use of the Internet and his mass media lackeys to win
election, followed by his
warning to people not to pay so much attention to the
news and the Web once he began to implement his
anti-American policy agenda, skepticism of “getting along” is more
than justified.
Whether it’s wanting to reimpose the “Fairness Doctrine”
or Senator Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) statement that he’d like to put
Fox News and MSNBC out of business (and what leftist wouldn’t make
that trade, given Fox’s massive viewership advantage?), the left is
not and never has been about free political speech even
while it supports the First Amendment at most other opportunities.
Can you imagine what James Madison would say upon hearing that
political speech, the speech the Founders most wanted to protect,
is the least protected class of speech in America, falling
somewhere behind phone sex and (perhaps related) ads for “ED”
drugs.
Not surprisingly, semi-Republican Lisa Murkowski (AK) who
won reelection with the support of many of her state’s Democrats
after losing the Republican nomination and running as a write-in
candidate, is going along with Udall. A Murkowski spokesman said
“the seating arrangement is largely symbolic but also a heartfelt
gesture.”
What Murkowski probably doesn’t understand is the power of
symbolism, particularly the symbolism of Democrats — enabled by
well-meaning useful idiots within the GOP — being able to subtly
parlay the actions of a madman in Tucson into an implicit
acknowledgement by Republicans that they need to “tone down” their
criticism of all things Obama.
If Murkowski, along with Maine Senators Snowe and Collins
go sit with their liberal friends, or if Nebraska’s Ben Nelson
makes a show of sitting with Republicans as he faces reelection in
2012, nobody would be particularly surprised. But as nice as the
idea sounds of bringing more “civility” —- the buzzword of the
month, or at least in a dead heat with “vitriol” — to American
politics, what is at stake is too great to be sacrificed for
pleasantries.
As Finley Peter Dunne famously put it, “Politics ain’t
beanbag.” As he less famously put it, “A man that would expect to
train lobsters to fly in a year is called a lunatic; but a man that
thinks men can be turned into angels by an election is a ‘reformer’
& remains at large.” Perhaps the same could be said of a
seating chart.
