The Father of Our Country has a verdict on Rep. West's e-mail
Rep. Allan West (R-Fla), a Tea Party rock star, shot off a wounded and combative e-mail to Rep. Debby Wasserman-Schultz after she made a speech on the House floor that attacked as “unbelievable” that a South Florida representative (That is, West) would back a plan that slashes health-care entitlements:
“The gentleman from Florida. who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries, unbelievable from a Member from South Florida [and that]…slashes Medicaid and critical investments essential to winning the future in favor of protecting tax breaks for Big Oil, millionaires, and companies who ship American jobs overseas.”
Wasserman-Schultz’s comments were, as many of her comments are, of questionable quality: why would it be unbelievable to her for a Representative to vote against the perceived narrow interests of his constituency for what he felt, rightly or wrongly, was the greater good? Is Wasserman-Schultz such a poll-driven hack that she can’t even comprehend why a member would support a measure out of conscience rather than electoral self-interest? That quibble aside, however, there was nothing about the Democratic National Committee chair’s remarks that crossed the lines of accepted political speech.
West was apparently angered because she leveled her criticism after he had left the floor. Point taken: okay, maybe he was justified to take offense. He was not justified to send an e-mail, copied in to leadership of both parties, saying this, however:
From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz
Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!
I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.
You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!
Steadfast and Loyal
Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)
How uncivil is this? Let’s consult an expert on civility, President George Washington, or rather his list of 110 Rules of Civility that guided him in his dealings with others throughout his adult life. West’s intemperate and unnecessary attack message directly violates no fewer than twelve of the 110, or more than 10%. Here are the breached principles of civility from George’s list:
1. Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present.
40. Strive not with your superior in argument, but always submit your judgment to others with modesty.
45. Being to advise or reprehend any one, consider whether it ought to be in public or in private, and presently or at some other time; in what terms to do it; and in reproving show no signs of cholor but do it with all sweetness and mildness.
48. Wherein you reprove another be unblameable yourself, for example is more prevalent than precepts.
49. Use no reproachful language against any one; neither curse nor revile.
58. Let your conversation be without malice or envy, for ’tis a sign of a tractable and commendable nature, and in all causes of passion permit reason to govern.
59. Never express anything unbecoming, nor act against the rules moral before your inferiors.
65. Speak not injurious words neither in jest nor earnest; scoff at none although they give occasion.
69. If two contend together take not the part of either unconstrained, and be not obstinate in your own opinion. In things indifferent be of the major side.
70. Reprehend not the imperfections of others, for that belongs to parents, masters and superiors.
73. Think before you speak, pronounce not imperfectly, nor bring out your words too hastily, but orderly and distinctly.
83. When you deliver a matter do it without passion and with discretion, however mean the person be you do it to.
George’s verdict on West’s e-mail: pretty uncivil. The reason for all of these rules should be obvious. Incivility, name-calling and insults don’t accomplish anything constructive. They are designed to upset the recipient, which in a professional setting means that if such a letter is successful, it will make productive work more difficult. It demonstrates neither prudence nor gentility, and marks the sender as an intemperate boor who doesn’t have the common sense to express grievances in private or the Golden Rule instincts to avoid trying to embarrass a colleague in public. (Sending an e-mail like this to a mass of politicians is the equivalent of putting it on a billboard in Times Square.) And, of course, it further diminishes the stature of the Congress in th eyes of the more rational memebers of the public, a stature that already resembles Thumbelina after a visit to the laboratory of Dr. Cyclops
Mostly, however, authoring and sending such an e-mail is unprofessional, irresponsible and amateurish. West, like too many of the Tea Partiers, betrays his lack of training and experience with such a tyro move. Sure, it plays to his red-meat supporters, but it undermines West’s ability to govern, which is what his real job is.
Wasserman-Schultz isn’t blameless, to be sure: she violated one of George’s 110 Rules too, Number 89:
“Speak not evil of the absent, for it is unjust.”
She is also encouraging some colleagues—Reps. Gwen Moore (Wis.), Lois Capps (Calif.), Jackie Speier (Calif.), Donna F. Edwards (Md.) and Carolyn B. Maloney (N.Y.)—to play the sexist card and protest that House GOP leaders should publicly disavow West because he said the Wasserman-Schultz was “no lady.”
“We see this as a historic and systemic way that women have been subjected to sexism particularly in this venue, in this political environment,” Moore said. ”Just once again, we have been told that in order to be a ‘lady,’ we need to just stay in our places.”
Oh, give it a rest, ladies. Saying a female representative is “no lady” is presumptively the same s saying a male representative is “no gentleman.” West couldn’t say his distaff colleague was “no gentleman,” now could he? West owes Wasserman-Schultz an apology, but not for sexism. Does anyone seriously think this hot-head wouldn’t have sent the equivalent e-mail to a masculine adversary?
As dumb and cynical as the attempts of Democratic allies of Wasserman-Schultz to score gender-politics points off of West’s incivility, West trumped that too by telling conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin that he was being attacked because he was black.
No, Congressman, you are being attacked because your conduct and deportment is more appropriate for junior high school than for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Ethics Alarms 
I agree in general. Unfortunately, Rep West does have a bit of a history with misogyny: http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/04/allen_west_women_breed.php
I think this take strikes a good balance. It’s not exactly PC, but it puts things in perspective: http://www.deusexmalcontent.com/2011/07/capitol-shrill.html
But you can’t be arguing that a complaint based only on specific words in a specific e-mail should be interpreted based on past conduct…are you? The W-S gang is saying this e-mail is per se sexist, not that it shows a pattern. It might show a pattern, but we can’t censure a Rep. as sexist for saying “you’re no lady”—that’s nuts. We can’t assess communications on the basis that the exact same words in the exact same context can be impermissible and worthy of sanctions and condemnation or harmless and benign depending on the past acts and words of the speaker or writer. Talk about opening the door for bias and discrimination!
I steadfastly deny that words can only have 1 meaning. See the Trotsky joke: http://volokh.com/2011/07/07/the-trotsky-joke/. I have noticed similar things without the need for inflection in my personal and work life.
That said, I’m also definitely not arguing that this specific email and his history means he is being sexist. I’m agreeing with Chez (second link) that West’s email is slightly less of a non-sequitor if you assume he is feeling slighted by a mere woman.
Addendum: I think the Dear God, Stop Calling thread brings up another example. Bachmann saying “I was called to public service.” is very different from me saying “I was called to public service.” I don’t think it’s out of place to assume Bachmann is invoking religion, while no one would think I was.
Excellent example. Though Bachmann herself defines a different context—almost everything she says is linked to the Bible and evangelical teachings.
I’d reply that Allen West, lately a battalion commander in a war zone, is unused to handling cynical attacks from corrupt politicians in the “accepted” manner. Washington’s rules of conduct pre-suppose that ladies and gentlemen form the bulk of the asemblage and that an unruly minority is swiftly marginalized by the higher conduct of their peers. Unfortunately, that corruptive element is too deeply entrenched in the process and is backed by a media that is no better. There are times when one must expose such persons for what they are to the body politic. Congressman West was, in my opinion, rather mild in his statement. He could have gone on to expose Wasserman’s record of foul play in long detail. There’s a lot of it.
I don’t see how you or anyone can excuse West in this case, Steven. Just sending public invective without any constructive message other than “I hate you’ and “you better watch out” does less than nothing—it doesn’t further the legislative process, it doesn’t make allies, it doesn’t solve problems, it doesn’t increase the public’s trust in its elective bodies. No respectable profession approves of such discourse, unless you consider “insult comic” a profession—and then it would have to be funny. And, as you know, “She had it coming” is a rationalization, not a justification. “Unused to handling cynical attacks from corrupt politicians in the “accepted” manner.” is itself a euphemism for “over his head” and “incompetent.”
I don’t understand your claim that it’s “unfair and disrespectful” for a Representative to criticize another Representative’s policy views when that Representative has left the floor.
1) If we took your view seriously — which, fortunately, we don’t — Representatives could protect their policy views from criticism on the floor of the House merely by walking out of the chamber the moment they’ve finished speaking. That would be harmful to public debate.
2) Criticizing someone behind their back, where they’ll never hear it, is unfair. Criticizing someone who won’t have a chance to respond is unfair. But it’s not “unfair” to criticize someone in a forum where they are certain to hear about the criticism — especially when the person criticized has many prominent forums available for rebuttal.
3) As for “disrespectful,” if US Representatives are really such shrinking violets they should grow thicker skins. Professional politicians, above all other people, must accept that their policy views will be criticized publicly, including in those moments when they’ve chosen to leave the chamber.
* * *
For the record, I also think it’s fair for Rep West to criticize Wasserman-Schultz in a press release, rather than criticizing her to her face. The criticisms themselves were pathetic, but that’s another subject.
* * *
Finally, it’s perfectly fair for Representative West (or any other politician) to decide to put the country’s good above his constituents’ preferences. But it’s also fair for others to point that out, and for the voters to decide if they agree with West’s perception of the greater good.
In context, Wasserman-Schultz seemed to be suggesting that West is serving the needs of wealthy corporations, not the country’s greater good. That’s a fair criticism to make, if correct, and you haven’t shown that it isn’t correct.
1. You don’t? See George’s Rule # 89: “Speak not evil of the absent, for it is unjust.” Your argument is that it’s done all the time. That’s not an ethical argument. The criticism of West was gratuitous…Wasserman-Schultz could have waited until he was present. You’re arguing that the whole body is rued and boorish, so that measn its OK. It isn’t. West had a legitimate beef.
2. It is cowardly, and especially unfair when you don’t even mention the member by name, but only innuendo.
3. Really terrible argument. I agree that West’s reaction was completely out of proportion to the offense, but defending incivility by saying “don’t be so sensitive” is a cop-out.
This is like a Media Matters release, Barry. You would think, from what you wrote, that the post was wholly a criticism of Wasserman-Schultz, when it was primarily a critique of her adversary.. When partisanship stops you from perceiving clear misbehavior, it’s time for that 60,000 mile bias check-up.
Regarding my “bias check-up,” Jack, you’re seemingly concluding based on a sample size of two. (You criticized two politicians in this thread, and I happen to disagree with one of the two criticisms.) That’s extremely illogical. Nor am I obliged to comment on every single line of your post, rather than just concentrating on the part that was wildly illogical.
If you expand the sample beyond this one thread, you’d see that although I’m unabashedly left-wing, I’ve criticized Democrats many times, including once I recall in the comments of this blog.
Arguments from authority are not persuasive. Why is it unjust? Until you answer that, you’re not making an argument at all.
I made no such argument. Please respond to what I wrote, not nonsense you’re making up and falsely claiming I wrote.
I argued, correctly, that it would be harmful for debate for Representative West (or any other representative) to be able to make remarks on the floor, and then make himself immune from criticism by walking off the floor until debate time for the bill under consideration runs out. That’s not even remotely the same as saying “everybody does it!,” and it shows the extreme weakness of your position that you had to misconstrue what I wrote, rather than responding to it.
No, she couldn’t have. She can’t determine when exactly she gets called upon, nor did she even know if West would return during this debate. Finally, it’s not gratuitous for politicians to call each other out on substantive policy disagreements; on the contrary, it’s healthy for a representative democracy that they do so. (It’s not healthy when they make personal attacks, or if they lie about another politician’s policies, but you haven’t argued that W-S did either of those things.)
Wow, are you stretching, Jack. If I posted a comment here saying “The Hope and Change man from Chicago is wrong,” rather than “Obama is wrong,” that wouldn’t be objectionable; you, me, and everyone who read this blog would have all known who I was talking about.
You seem incapable of distinguishing between Wasserman-Schultz criticizing West behind his back in the sense of secretly whispering nasty things about West into people’s ears, versus criticizing West in a public forum where West was guaranteed to see her remarks, and where her exact words were instantly available for all (including West) to see and criticize.
The former is cowardly, because it would be attacking West in a manner that he’d never know about, be able to respond to, and because it would shield Wasserman-Schultz from taking public responsibility for what she said (because no one would be able to prove she said it). The latter is not cowardly, because it was said openly, where West was certain to hear, and where she can be held responsible for her words.
Do you really see no distinction at all between those two situations? Because you’re acting like criticizing West on the House Floor in front of cameras is ethically indistinguishable from whispering nasty things about him in back rooms. That’s illogical.
3, You say “don’t be so sensitive” (or the equivalent) all the time, when people with far less power to defend themselves than West complain; and you do so with a great deal less civility and more anger than anything I’ve said here.
More importantly, you have in no way established that Wasserman-Schultz was uncivil. I could see your point if Wasserman-Schultz had called him “vile” or attacked him personally, but her remarks (that I’ve seen) were reasonably confined to criticizing West’s policy views.
I stand by my claim: If West finds it unbearable for his policy stands to be criticized unless he’s in the room, then he should either grow a thicker skin or get a new job. Having your public policy views criticized is part of the job, and not one that can be reasonably objected to.
Publicly criticizing a politician’s policy views is not uncivil. Period.
Barry: Re-reading Wasserman Schultz’s remarks, I agree with you: they weren’t uncivil, and West is too thin-skinned. I still think personal remarks critical of a colleague should be done with the colleague present, but I’m not sure her remarks qualify even at that level—he took them personally, but I don’t think they were.
Thanks for being persistent. Gotta learn to read my own post before making snarky replies.
My apologies. You were right, I was wrong.
I hate when that happens.
Wow. Thank you, Jack. The ability to admit to making a mistake is rare in the blogosphere (and admirable).
You are gracious to say so, Barry, thanks. Unfortunately, my tendency to send stinging replies without sitting, thinking, and making sure I have checked the facts and a commenter’s points is not rare enough!