The benefits of civility cannot be overstated. This can be difficult to bear in mind when confronted by those who make being civil seem overrated. One wonders if our current head of Health and Human Services had this experience when testifying two days ago before the House Energy and Commerce Committee regarding the troubled health-care website.

     Secretary Sebelius, a model of decorum and control, managed to maintain her composure throughout her questioning by committee members. Most likely, that is how she believed she should have conducted herself. Apparently, it is what most witnesses before Congressional committees believe, as most behave civilly even when such behavior is not deserved by those doing the questioning. Be polite, use your manners, act like your mother taught you some sense.

     Here’s a question: does anyone who has voted in excess of forty times to repeal the health-care law deserve a civil response while pretending to be concerned about its implementation. Having repeatedly proven one’s enmity, it takes an enormous sense of entitlement to then expect respect – a sense that can only be reinforced when such respect is forthcoming. The law’s detractors, the political theater they created with their questions and the nation’s interests all would have been better served had the committee been confronted with a WWA – a Witness With Attitude.

      It is doubtful Ms. Sebelius ever considered asking the President for permission to give the committee as good as she got. It is equally doubtful the President – Mr. Cooler-than-Cool – would have granted such permission had he been asked. For future reference, both should remember our history offers examples of those who were able to speak with civility while simultaneously giving off the unmistakable air of disdain for asininity.

      The bad taste left by watching the Secretary’s deferential performance was washed away later in the day. Quite providentially, while searching for a legal document among old piles of papers, I came across the draft of a play written years ago by a mentor and friend. It was based on the speeches, letters and verbatim testimonies of various American historical figures. The play opens with the great Paul Robeson’s testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in June 1956.

     In April of 1949, Mr. Robeson had given a speech in Paris in which he said black Americans would not fight for this country in a war against the Soviet Union, our World War II ally. He was subpoenaed by the members of HUAC, and appeared before them like a leviathan among Lilliputians. His testimony, like that of so many others before that committee (including my father-in-law’s) is essential reading.      

     When formally asked by the staff director, Richard Arens, if he was appearing in response to a subpoena, Mr. Robeson asked “Do I have the privilege of asking whom I am addressing and who is addressing me?” When Arens answered with only his name, Robeson followed with “And what is your position in such affairs?” When asked if he belonged to the Communist Party, Robeson noted it was “a legal party like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.” When asked again, he answered “Would you like to come to the ballot box and see?” After being pressed, Robeson invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. Arens asked “Do you honestly apprehend that if you told this committee truthfully…”, but was cut off by Robeson who told him “… it is none of your business what I would like to do. So, forget it.”      

     International star that he was, Robeson briefly turned his attention to the cameras that were clicking away. He made a few jokes to the photographers, much to the annoyance of committee members. When a very upset Arens stated the proceedings were not a laughing manner, Paul Robeson summed up the sentiment most likely felt this week by Kathleen Sebelius. “It is a laughing matter to me.” he said. “This is complete nonsense.”