This doesn’t help. The Speaker of the House needs to insist that his party members adhere to basic standards of dignity, civility and decorum both in the House and in public. Mace is a repeat offender. She’s an embarrassment to her party, her district, Congress and the nation. Behold….
Ethics verdict: the Representative is 100% in the wrong in this confrontation. To say Mace was looking for a fight is an understatement. There was nothing inappropriate or uncivil in this constituent’s demeanor or rhetoric. For Mace to immediately stereotype him because he appeared to be gay was obnoxious; for her to resort to crude language, especially in a public setting, is indefensible.
Finally, for Mace to post this incident as if it is something to be proud of is profoundly disturbing. She appears to be seeking cognitive dissonance points with homophobics.
What did this Democrat (if he indeed is a Democrat) say that marked him as “nuts”? He was being civil, and it was Mace who acted like she was angry at the man’s very existence.
I challenge anyone to offer a justification or excuse for her conduct. (Hint: There isn’t any.)
Ethics Alarms 
The Daisy Dukes reference had me expecting something else…
PWS
Good grief! What would have been so hard about (1) answering the man’s question, (2) thanking him for his interest, and (3) moving on?
I’m against manufactured outrage, no matter which side instigates it. She was clearly in the wrong.
I was wondering how this conversation started; I do not think that Nancy Mace started it. My impression is that she was being followed while she was shopping by an activist who was also at one of her townhall meetings; and that activist is like some of our banned commenters on this board who cannot let go of discussions and always need to have the last word in every encounter. Many Ethics Alarms commenters, plus our host, lose patience with these types, and for good reason.
I am not a fan of Nancy Mace. GOP representatives need to become more winsome to LGTBQ people, while at the same time be critical to excesses such as sexual mutilation of minors in the name of T, sexualization of children at schools, and pronoun enforcement.
Also, answering criticism from constituents well is part of a politician’s life. Nancy Mace is not particularly good at this.
The GOP has a social conservative constituency that is viscerally opposed to sexuality that does not square with Biblical teachings. This may lead to attitudes and expressions that appear bigoted. However the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” clause in the Declaration of Independence should inform us of a better way, namely of tolerance of other people’s life choices on private matters such as sexuality; including homosexuality, and gender reassignment for adults. In 2025 we should not have any politician show visceral animus against other people’s sexuality (legal and consensual).
Yes, I found myself wondering what the 30 seconds of conversation prior to this tape were like. However, we call congressmen public servants for a reason. One really shouldn’t engage in squabbles like this with constituents.
The other thought I would tender to Mace is: Not everyone you meet is George Stephanopolous. You did all right sparring with him last year, but different encounters call for different tactics.
And on a purely partisan, practical level: This is how you can lose in a safe seat.
I partially agree, but we do have some strong ideas about other people’s sexual activities, such as beastiality. Many people also think porn is terrible for society. Look at everyone struggling with addiction.
Sexuality is not a free for all. The principle of tolerance is good, but it can’t go too far.
We should be allowed to have strong ideas about other people’s sexual morality, however I also believe in minding our own business, and not having the government interfering in our business. In my comment I used the qualifier “legal and consensual”. Bestiality is not legally allowed in the USA as far as I know, porn is constitutionally protected as a First Amendment issue. I do not advocate that we change that. However I would like to distinguish between moral and legal; I may have moral issues with certain practices but still advocate that we legally tolerate these.
Sure, and that distinction is always good to remember, but I don’t think any and all consensual sexual activity should be above reproach (even if legally protected).
Think of the KKK spewing hate. The speech is protected, but it’s still worth arguing against. We don’t throw our hands up and say that it’s protected so I have no business saying a word, right?
I think our society needs to rediscover some stricter sexual norms. I’m not advocating for anything specifically, but two options would be to reinforce the stigma against promiscuity and bring back more modest clothing (without going to far backwards).
But even if you don’t agree on my specifics, wouldn’t it be fair to say that it’s okay to feel uncomfortable if someone is into something weird like orgies?
Yes it is perfectly OK to call out behavior and speech for being wrong, e.g. in church, via lectures, at social media and internet, etc.
However elected politicians should always be aware of their role as legislators; any preaching on their part can be regarded as a pretext for proposed legislation. Politicians have correct priorities and principles, e.g. the right to free speech carries more weights than the words of a KKK member, and the right to privacy carries more weight than a sexual practice that make some people uncomfortable, such as homosexuality and adult gender reassignment. Politicians need to be careful considering what is at stake when speaking.
Politicians also need to be realistic in recognizing that certain ships have sailed. There is no point for a GOP politician to address gay marriage like Nancy Mace did; it is actually harmful because it perpetuates negative stereotypes about her message and the GOP. She better keep focused on the excesses related to transgender issue, where minors are being indoctrinated and harmed, and parental rights are being abridged.
Somebody posted a clip that had the man’s initial question. “When are you going to have a real town hall?” A bit derisive, but instead of asking “What you mean, ‘real town hall'” she took the low road.
Going into a conversation cameras rolling implies he wasn’t engaging in a good faith conversation. Doesn’t diminish her inappropriate response.
We’re an unserious society of camera-armed drama-queens.
She was the one rolling the camera, though.
They both were. In fact the guy she confronted started rolling well before she responded.
That’s the issue, though: when isn’t such a confrontation going to be videoed?
The implication is the guy, recording secretly (and he was, watch his phone the whole time in Mace’s recording), was hoping for an outburst.
He approached the conversation in bad faith.
Again, doesn’t diminish the evaluation of her conduct.
We’re a society of drama queens intentionally seeking the worst in people.
(To be clear, intentionally provoking the worst)
She actually answered his question which he asked multiple times before she got ugly about it.