Joe Wilson v. Harry Taylor

This shall be our final battle!

By now it's pretty clear that Joe Wilson is a huge douche-bag. This, already, is old news. Do I need to say anything more about that? The Republican representative from Columbia, South Carolina interrupted the President of the United States while he was addressing congress. But might we say about the essence of his douchebaggery? Perhaps if we examine two very similar cases of public, political dissent we might find the nature of douche in their differences.

Case #1: Joe Wilson

OR
"The Mystery of the Man Who Doesn't Know What the Word 'Lie' Means"

Let's not kid ourselves -- yelling at privileged assholes is fucking awesome. And Jeebus knows Americans love to run their mouths about, well, everything. We've made it into a national pastime. This is the country of Jerry Springer for crying out loud. We need not look far into our past to see that liberals created their fair share of theatrical political mischief.

This is a picture of a woman and a man standing in front of Pablo Escobar, with Neil Young hanging around in back, thinking about his pink shirt. They look pretty happy with themselves, having made a breakthrough with their clever signs.

Furry Grinch Lady: Whatever are we going to do, Clarence? We told the Socialist League we'd make some signs for their rally, but we're all out of ideas and the protest is only a day away!
Anton Chigurh: What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?
Furry Grinch Lady: Holy shit, Larry, I've got it. Are you ready? What's the one single issue that cannot be disputed in logical argument?
Anton Chigurh: The most. You ever lost. On a coin toss.
Furry Grinch Lady: Hitler. Now I know his government was legitimate because he was voted into office and then appointed Chancellor, and I know Bush doesn't have a mustache, but fuck it.
Anton Chigurh: Call it.
Furry Grinch Lady: You're not helping.

And we can see, the lovely Code Pink uh, ladies utilizing their First Amendment rights by expressing themselves right in Rumsfeld's stupid hellish face:

So I don't know anyone would be shocked to see Preston Brooks Joe Wilson make a fool out of himself in front of the entire country. We should be used to it by now. Damn proud, in fact. That kind of political action is what topples governments (and fails, in the case of the War of Northern Aggression).

But here's the thing, Joe-Wilson-you-fucking-idiot. The only thing more powerful than the fire poker you're hitting Lord Byron over the head with here is a lie. It would be one thing if Joe Wilson was a loud, selfish, self-promoting asshole who also happened to be telling the truth. His actions the other day are in the realm of something totally fucking different given the fact that, of course, the President wasn't lying. Wilson should have just started screaming "Pants! Pants!" because it would have had the same semantic content. What's the real difference between any two untrue statements? They make equal nonsense.

Case #2: Harry Taylor
OR
"The Truth and Attention Whores Are Not Mutually Exclusive"

Very similar situation.

Here we got a regular Joe who takes it to the president in his own house. Let's all relive the moment here. Because when I saw this the first time, I felt really, really good to come from a fine American tradition of running my fat mouth:

So let's just look at two different excerpts from his stones-of-steel "Q&A" with President Bush in which he doesn't ask any questions. Mr Taylor tells the president: "You never stop talking about freedom, which I appreciate, but while I'm listening to you talk about freedom I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges." Taylor of course is referring to The Patriot Act, which allowed him to obtain "Sneak and Peak" warrants and suspend Habeas Corpus. Let the record show that the President did both these things, unabashedly, and in the same of my safety. Thanks, George. So Mr. Taylor's observation that we're giving up rights-type freedoms to maintain our freedom from harm is true. Very intelligent.

And another: "In my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of my leadership in Washington. And I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and grace to be ashamed of yourself." Now, this is where Taylor earns his reputation for having huge stones. Telling the most powerful man on the planet that he should learn some humility is admirable, if not a little (ironically) arrogant. [But is it really, though?].

But the important thing to notice here -- the thing that saves Taylor from being a total douche-bag -- is that he clearly states that he's not asserting any facts. "I have never felt..." is an indisputable claim. It's the perfect cover. How could Bush possibly respond?

Bush: "Hey. buddy. I think you're mistaken for feeling like that."
Taylor: "...."
Taylor: "No. I'm not."

So to get back to my original point, Taylor has a much stronger claim to acting like a total prick because even though he's ruffling feathers, he's not making a fool of himself in the process. Speaking the truth doesn't lend itself to foolishness. It's admirable, especially in these times. Yeah, he's rocking the boat. A lot of people have in the past, and no one should be surprised when an American does it in the future. In a way, it's healthy for our democracy, and it cuts through the kinds of aristocratic bullshit that keep important conversations out of the public sphere. But unless what you say is true, your heckling is just empty, vapid noise. It doesn't actually mean anything. And then your political dissent looks less like democracy, and more like blowing an airhorn, which is what I think most people want in the first place.