COMMENTARY: Rituals _ of debutantes and impeachments

c. 1998 Religion News Service (Tom Ehrich is a pastor, writer and software developer living in Winston-Salem, N.C.) UNDATED _”Dad, what exactly happens at a debut?”asks my 19-year-old son. Society’s winnowing fork, it seems, has started to thresh his former high school classmates. One-time cheerleaders are discovering an impenetrable wall that not even perky popularity […]

c. 1998 Religion News Service

(Tom Ehrich is a pastor, writer and software developer living in Winston-Salem, N.C.)

UNDATED _”Dad, what exactly happens at a debut?”asks my 19-year-old son.


Society’s winnowing fork, it seems, has started to thresh his former high school classmates. One-time cheerleaders are discovering an impenetrable wall that not even perky popularity can surmount.

As I respond to my son’s question, I see why Jesus spoke in parables when asked questions that had no simple answers.

At one level, I say, debuts happen because self-anointed”society”wants to celebrate itself. The glistening few need to be reminded who they are. Parvenus need not apply. Or, as often happens, they can buy their own debut.

At another level, debuts draw lines on the playing field. An important part of the ritual is the group photo that will run prominently in the local newspaper, complete with parents’ names. Many of the girls find it embarrassing, but oddly pleasing, to be set apart this way.

At yet another level, I tell him, debuts _ and not just THE debut, but similar events in other social circles _ continue the anachronistic practice of parading marriageable daughters before suitable men. Young women whose hearts probably are set more on law school than Junior League suddenly are gowned in white and put on display, as if dowry-minded fathers and nervous mothers were saying,”Here, pluck this blossom before she fades.” I sense my son’s impatience. He wants an answer, not philosophy. So I explain the mechanics of a debut: the invitation list, the dress, the presentation, the curtsy, the formal waltz.

Now he understands why two of his friends said,”No way,”when offered their turn in the blossom festival. Now I understand his question.

And now _ to make an intuitive leap from real life to Washington politics _ I understand why the impeachment ritual proceeds despite the voting public’s near-total lack of enthusiasm for it. The Hyde hearings, Starr’s marathon testimony, the clever 81 questions, the clever 81 answers, the ritual fury over same, the majority whip’s busy counting of votes, the delicate negotiations over censure vs. impeachment, the flood of press releases and backgrounders, and the press corps’ frantic hustle to get the group photo just right _ none of this is about a democracy’s self-government.

This is the self-anointed few celebrating themselves. Like a society matron who clings to bloodline but does little else for the public good, a Congress that has been among the least productive on record suddenly asserts its reason for being. Like a girl who will be 19 only once, this Congress knows the end-of-term clock is ticking and its measure is about to be taken.

Like a debut that ventures way beyond subtle in order to catch public attention, the impeachment crowd waxes increasingly bombastic and outraged. Otherwise, an American public hunting for parking places at the mall might not even notice.


Like shrewd fathers who know that business dealings are also social dealings, ambitious legislators use an arcane constitutional waltz to gain stature in the next Congress.

For the people, life goes on. Performance evaluations at work, gift lists at home, another semester’s tuition due, the”holiday blues”that will dampen many people’s cheer _ none of this has to do with December debuts or impeachment proceedings. Debutantes will blossom in white and return to jeans, Judiciary Committee zealots will return to obscurity and fund-raising, and the people won’t know any difference. But nothing is without consequences. Ten, 20 years from now, this month’s debut waltz will pay off in a club membership that produces a job promotion, or inherited wealth that follows a trail of bloodline, not achievement.

Similarly, the American public who spoke loud and clear at the polls on November 3 could awaken one morning and find themselves without the president they elected and recently affirmed. The public will be surprised. We thought we had expressed our desires, many will say. We have deeper interests, and not just shopping lists. Who invited this self-serving in-crowd to draw new lines on the playing field? Who orchestrated this dance to which we aren’t invited?

The wise guys will chuckle at people’s gullibility. Did they really think they were included?

DEA END RNS

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!