The value of democratic decorum

Representative democracy is supposed to be, at least in part, a process of discovery through deliberation. That requires a modicum of respect and civility increasingly missing from our politics.

During his State of the Union address, Donald Trump called congressional Democrats corrupt, liars, cheaters, crazy, pro-crime, and sick. After that, he got downright rude.

In the modern era, the State of the Union had assumed the attributes of a democratic ritual, an occasion in which, in part, the country commemorated our shared commitment to self-governance. That’s the rationale for the attendance of Supreme Court justices and the military brass. Their presence would be inappropriate for a purely political speech and occasion.

This is a modern invention. The Constitution only provides that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”.

Presidents George Washington and John Adams gave an annual address to Congress, although without the pageantry and theater of the modern practice. Washington’s first address was about the length of this column. Thomas Jefferson abandoned the practice of delivering an address in person, and a written report sufficed until the in-person address was resurrected by Woodrow Wilson in the early 20th Century.

To the extent the modern-day State of the Union address is supposed to be, in part, a democratic ritual, Trump trashed it with his partisan screed. A commemoration of our shared commitment to self-government requires at least a modicum of civility and respect toward those who disagree politically. There wasn’t a scintilla of that in Trump’s speech.

There may be a silver lining to that. The modern-day State of Union has become very bad political theater. The speeches, even before Trump, have become a series of political applause lines. The members of the president’s party respond like trained seals, rising and applauding every one of them, while the opposition mostly sits in stony silence. Ronald Reagan introduced the practice of celebrating worthy guests in the gallery as a prop. It was his only lamentable contribution to our political culture. The practice reached its point of reductio ad absurdum in Trump’s speech.

The silver lining? If Democrats take over control of the House, as widely expected, I can’t imagine them extending an invitation to Trump for an encore presentation. Such an invitation is the current protocol. Trump would have the constitutional authority to order the convening of both chambers. But convening Congress on his own authority to hear him deliver a partisan screed would be a bit much, even for him. Perhaps we can be spared the bad political theater, and the trashing of democratic decorum, for the remainder of his term.

There was recently a pertinent illustration of the degradation of democratic decorum that has infected the Arizona Legislature. A bill (Senate Bill 1635) was being heard in the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee that would create a new crime of “unlawful alerting”. The prime sponsor, John Kavanagh, says that it is not intended to criminalize the sort of behavior that was employed in Minnesota to alert people to the presence of ICE in their neighborhoods, but the bill focuses on what was done there, such as blowing whistles, to achieve that result.

Regardless, the bill is contentious and has generated substantial opposition. Despite that, according to the Arizona Mirror’s account, committee chair Wendy Rogers limited the number of opposition speakers to five and each speaker to just 90 seconds. One of those speakers went on an emotional rant and triggered a disruptive protest chant from the audience. The Republicans on the committee bolted from the hearing room, which was cleared. After which, the committee reconvened and voted to advance the bill.

The Democratic committee members left to meet with the opponents and returned late in the renewed proceedings. At first, Rogers was disinclined to allow them to explain their votes against the bill, a legislative custom. She relented but also limited them to just 90 seconds. She cut off Analise Ortiz, who has personally been threatened with legal action for engaging in some of the behavior potentially covered by the bill.

The breaches of democratic decorum in this episode are multiple. Limiting the ability to express meaningful opposition is a breach. The opportunity to express meaningful opposition is an element of the acceptance of democratic outcomes. Protests to disrupt the legislative process is a breach. Stifling the ability of fellow lawmakers to register the reasons for their dissent is a breach of the comity conducive to a healthy and productive representative government.

This is not an isolated incident. Every year there are reports of the MAGA Republicans in control of the Arizona Legislature engaging in some egregious breach of democratic decorum.

The Arizona Legislature didn’t used to operate like this, even though it has long been controlled by Republicans. Opponents were given a full opportunity to express themselves meaningfully. In particular, there was respect for the ability of all members of the Legislature, irrespective of party, to participate fully in the legislative process, equally in form if not in actual influence.

Today, being rude and disrespectful of the opposition is part of the MAGA political culture. As it is for the woke left. Democratic decorum seems so yesterday.

It was thought to be very important yesterday. I am slogging through a history of democracy, Toward Democracy by historian James Kloppenberg. It covers the development of representative government in the United States in copious detail.

I have been struck by the value those early pioneers in self-governance gave to deliberation in representative democracy. Legislating was supposed to be, in part, a process of discovery of the public good. Elected representatives weren’t supposed to bind together to ram though a preconceived result. They were supposed to be open to persuasion, reflection, and accommodation.

That’s certainly how the U.S. Constitution came to be. What resulted wasn’t what anyone went into the convention believing should be the outcome. It was very much a process of discovery through deliberation.

I’m not pollyannaish about American politics or history. It has always been a raucous affair, tinged with demagoguery particularly about political opponents. But there has also usually been at least a modicum of respect for democratic decorum, an acknowledgement of our shared commitment to self-governance. An understanding that no one is a permanent winner or loser in a representative democracy. A belief that the majority should govern with that in mind.

If democratic decorum is important to successful and sustainable self-governance, it isn’t yesterday’s relic. Its degradation is a worry for today.

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.