WHY MANNERS MATTER

What do Congresswoman Lauren Boebert and Senator John Fetterman have in common?

“Not much,” might be the first reaction.  Boebert is a far-right MAGA Republican. Fetterman is a left-wing progressive Democrat.

On closer inspection, however, the two share one important trait: lack of manners.

Not to put too fine a point on it, John Fetterman and Lauren Boebert are obnoxious, uncouth individuals. Most civilized people would not welcome them into their homes, even if they agreed with their politics.

These qualities were on display earlier this month.

Lauren Boebert was ejected from the Buell Theater in Denver where she and her date were watching a stage production of “Beetlejuice.” To the annoyance of those unfortunate enough to be seated nearby (which included children), the couple began groping. The congresswoman was also vaping (a charge she initially denied, then admitted after video footage proved that she had been). After several complaints by patrons, they were asked to leave. On her way out, Boebert made an obscene gesture toward the security personnel, and demanded: “Do you know who I am?” Under the circumstances, that was probably not a wise question to ask.

A few days later, in response to the Boebert-Beetlejuice incident, Fetterman decided to define deviancy down even deeper. First, some background. Fetterman chooses to dress like an indulgent adolescent, wearing gym shorts, sneakers, and baggy hoodies on Capitol Hill. This is not related to his well-publicized health problems. He has been doing this throughout his political career, long before those problems surfaced.  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer sanctioned his practice by announcing that henceforth “senators are able to choose what they wear on the Senate floor.” Predictably, Republicans reacted with indignation. Thereupon, Fetterman issued a series of posts that demonstrated that his style of clothing is actually more elevated than his style of rhetoric.

“I figure if I take up vaping and grabbing the hog during a live musical, they’ll make me a folk hero,”the United States senator posted, referring to Boebert’s fondling of her companion’s anatomy.  In a reference to Marjorie Taylor Greene’s display of nude photos of Hunter Biden during a congressional hearing, Fetterman posted: “Thankfully, the nation’s lower chamber lives by a higher code of conduct: displaying ding-a-ling pics in public hearings.”  In yet a third message, he promised to wear a suit “if those jagoffs in the House stop trying to shut our government down.”

The outrage among those on the Left and on the Right toward Boebert and Fetterman was undoubtedly selective.  The widespread pearl clutching seemed to depend upon whose fainting couch the fainter was about to collapse.

But setting aside the partisan posturing, does it really matter if a congresswoman disrespects the theater patrons seated next to her by fondling and vaping, and then lying about it? Does it really matter if a senator chooses to dress and communicate like a prepubescent schoolyard clown? 

Well, yes, as a matter of fact. It does. It matters because such behavior reveals a total lack of manners. And manners matter.

Manners have been described as ways of behaving toward people that demonstrate respect for their comfort and feelings. They may consist of physical gestures, such as opening a door or allowing someone to enter an elevator first. Or they may consist of oratorical gestures, such as waiting for an opponent to finish her sentence before responding. They may also consist of differentiating between an opponent’s position and his person. There is a significant difference between calling an opponent’s opinion “foolish” and calling that opponent a “fool.”

Manners do not exclude passion. One can argue ardently, even vehemently, and still behave with manners. Lawyers are required by their Rules of Professional Conduct to “zealously assert” their clients’ case.  Yet they employ that zeal in accordance with an elaborate set of manners. They dress formally for courtroom appearances. They sit silently and respectfully, waiting their turn, while their opponent speaks. They address the judge as “your honor.” They may believe that the opposing counsel or the presiding judge is an idiot or worse. But if they do, they keep such sentiments to themselves.

What applies to the courtroom applies also to the political process – at least it applies to our American political process.

Ours is a system of checks and balances.  The power of the executive branch is held in check by Congress, and the power of Congress is held in check by the White House. The power of both branches is held in check by the judicial branch – whose members are appointed and confirmed by the other two branches. And the power of the federal government, with its three branches, checks, and is checked by, the power of the states.

Our political institutions push and thrust against each other, in a constant, controlled collision. This is intentional.

Just as our legal system is based on the idea that when two zealous advocates collide in the courtroom, the truth will emerge, our political system is based on the idea that tensions among the governing institutions will safeguard individual freedom by preventing any one of those institutions from amassing too much power.

But just as zealous advocacy in the courtroom works only when restrained by an elaborate set of manners, tension among our governing institutions works only when the participants follow their own set of manners. Manners are the lubricants that keep the gears from grinding together and freezing the machinery. And so members of Congress politely ask whether the “gentleman” or the “gentlewoman” will yield, even when their feelings are anything but gentle.

Our system of checks and balances is a uniquely American innovation. We have the framers of the Constitution to thank for it. It underscores the reason why manners are vital to our system of government, but would hardly matter at all in Putin’s Russia or Xi’s China.

This is also why Boebert’s and Fetterman’s lack of manners is important. No one would care about their loutish behavior if they had regular, private sector jobs. Well, maybe their customers or co-workers would – but that circle of unfortunates would likely be small. But they are our elected legislators. In that field, lack of manners matters. It renders them ill-suited for the tasks in which we entrust them.

In reality, Boebert and Fetterman are performers rather than legislators. Neither has shown any interest in the actual gritty process of proposing, debating, and voting on bills.

Fetterman has the second lowest attendance record in the Senate, behind only the 90-year old wheelchair-bound Diane Feinstein. His poor attendance cannot be attributed to his health issues. As a special accommodation, he has been permitted to cast his votes without being present on the Senate floor. Instead, he is allowed to stand in the doorway of the Democratic cloakroom, and shout his yea or nay from the side entrance off the floor.

Lauren Boebert has a slightly better attendance record, but her record of accomplishment is even worse than Fetterman’s. In the 117^th Congress, she introduced 41 bills and resolutions. None garnered a Democratic co-sponsor and – therefore not surprisingly – none became law. In fact, none made it to the floor for consideration.

This lack of interest stems from the fact that legislating requires hard work. It usually requires dealing with others to build coalitions. It may even involve reaching across the aisle to find common ground.

Doing those things requires manners. Which is why Congresswoman Boebert and Senator Fetterman are ill-suited to their current positions and ought to consider other employment.

Needless to say, this advice is offered with all due respect.