At least since C-Span entered the picture, American politicians have been known for their monotone, and rather boring speaking style.  Perhaps because there is so often no one else in the room when they present their bills. They seem to get more civil and less interesting with every passing session. Here’s a typical Congressional Debate clip from last year, actually fairly impassioned as these things go. By comparison, the British House of Commons has a more, um, raucous style.

If you missed President Obama’s health care speech, I’m guessing you didn’t miss the replay of Joe Wilson’s interjection, at least not if you live within reach of American television. Regardless of where your politics fall or your opinion of what should happen to health care,  that was probably the most exciting part of the speech. It wasn’t the most polite thing to say, but the reaction to it did get me thinking that we have become a very passive audience; both members of Congress and television viewers. We wait our turn and raise our hands like we were taught in grade school, for the most part. Then we wait to be called on, or just talk back to the TV.  While I’m not advocating that people go around calling each other liars, maybe it’s time we re-assessed politeness and Congressional etiquette in general. We could stand to be a little less civil if there was a corresponding increase in getting something done.

The British Parliament has quite well documented rules of conduct.  Here’s the applicable part on language:

Unparliamentary language
Language and expressions used in the Chamber must conform to a number of rules. Erskine May
states “good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language”. Objection
has been taken both to individual words and to sentences and constructions ‐ in the case of the
former, to insulting, coarse, or abusive language (particularly as applied to other Members); and of
the latter, to charges of lying or being drunk and misrepresentation of the words of another. Among
the words to which Speakers have objected over the years have been blackguard, coward, git,
guttersnipe, hooligan, rat, swine, stoolpigeon and traitor. The context in which a word is used is, of
course, very important.

The Speaker will direct a Member who has used an unparliamentary word or phrase to withdraw it.
Members sometimes use considerable ingenuity to circumvent these rules (as when, for instance,
Winston Churchill substituted the phrase “terminological inexactitude” for “lie”) but they must be
careful to obey the Speaker’s directions, as a Member who refuses to retract an offending
expression may be named (see below) or required to withdraw from the Chamber.

Although we definitely made some changes along the way, The U.S. government is a direct descendant of the British parliamentary system and in fact those states that were originally British colonies can have case law that goes back to British rulings. (this is why there are different rules about public beach access on the west and the east coasts.) So why did we also deviate from the debating style? It would make for more interesting TV and since it would be impossible to script and release to the media in advance, more people might watch to see what would happen. If we adopted some similar rules on language, Representative Wilson would still be ‘out’ for what he said, but he could have gotten the point across with a more creative phrase. TV news would get that much more interesting too!