« Khamenei's not so veiled threats to Iranian protestors | Will the NoKo's fire a missile at Hawaii on July 4th? »
PrintJune 19, 2009
No, Senator Boxer. We confer no titles in America.
No titles - no Dukes, no earls, no viscounts, no Marquis - have ever been conferred on anyone in the United States, in or out of government.
And I think it says something very profound about the corruption of our most cherished beliefs and founding principles in Washington that some "servants of the people" don't actually see things that way and demand that we bow and scrape before them like medieval serfs.
The scene: a senate hearing on the coastal restoration of Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. Fox News gives us this exchange between Senator Boxer and Brig. General Michael Walsh:
Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was testifying on the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He began to answer one of Boxer's questions with "ma'am" when Boxer immediately cut him off.
"You know, do me a favor," an irritated Boxer said. "Could say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?'"
"Yes, ma'am," Walsh interjected.
"It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you," she said.
"Yes, senator," he responded.
"Senator" is not a "title." It is perhaps good manners to refer to Boxer as "senator" but beyond that, there is no significance whatsoever if someone prefers to call a senator "sir" or "ma'am."
The point is, Boxer felt entitled to being called senator. She believes that she "worked hard" to be called "senator"and deserves the appellation. This is arrogant nonsense. People have worked a heck of a lot harder to achieve far more than Boxer and did not receive a "title" to show for their efforts. It's clear that Boxer does not see herself as a servant of the people, but rather the other way around - an attitude not confined to liberal Democrats but infects the entire political culture in Washington.
Servants of the people do not have titles or any other designation. The very first Congress meeting in 1789 twisted itself in knots over what to call the president. "Your Excellency" was briefly considered but smacked too much of aristocracy. John Adams suggested "His Highness, the President of the United States of America, and Protector of the Rights of the Same." It goes without saying that went nowhere.
Finally, the simple and elegant "Mr. President" won out - as it should have.
Boxer's outburst was very revealing. I wonder if anyone else in the senate understands how revealing it actually was.
