The
End of Civil Rhetoric
Recently, I defended Harry
Reid for saying something dumb. He made
a couple of unfunny jokes about Asians – to a group of Asians. Last week, Vice
President Joe Biden joined the insensitivity parade, using the term “shylocks”
while speaking to a crowd of lawyers. The term has long been street slang
for loan sharks, but its origin is the unscrupulous Jewish money-lender in
William Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice,” and it has long been viewed
among Jews as an anti-Semitic slur. Both Reid and Biden apologized quickly, and
more or less got a pass.
Leave aside, for the
moment, the obvious double standard by the media when it comes to Republican
and Democratic gaffes. Also, please look past the fact that Harry Reid and Joe
Biden are recidivists when it comes to idiotic locutions. But neither man
uttered his unfortunate remark with any ill intent, which matters — or at least
it should.
The same cannot be said of
other prominent Democrats, three of whom hit rhetorical lows in recent weeks.
While campaigning in
Wisconsin earlier this month, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the
Democratic National Committee, declared that “Scott Walker has given women the
back of his hand. I know that is stark. I know that is direct. But that is
reality."
As the second and third
sentences indicate, this was not a spontaneous, off-the-cuff comment.
Wasserman Schultz knew this was highly inflammatory rhetoric. Later she
returned to the theme, saying, “What Republican Tea Party extremists like Scott
Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.”
Even some Democrats were
shocked that Wasserman Schultz would stoop to invoking domestic violence to
criticize a political opponent. One of those Democrats was Mary Burke, who is
in a tight race with Walker, and she quickly distanced herself from the
remarks. Wasserman Schultz issued a grudging non-apology apology shortly
thereafter — saying, “I shouldn’t have used the words I used” — while reiterating
that her larger point about Walker’s policies being hostile to women still
stood.
A few days later, House
Democratic Nancy Pelosi appeared on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher.” The
uber-liberal host asked Pelosi, after kissing her, why he should care if
Republicans took control of the Senate.
“It would be very important
for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate.” Pelosi said, “Civilization
as we know it today would be in jeopardy if Republicans win the Senate.”
“Oh,” a surprised Maher
responded. “This and ISIS are threatening civilization. Oh, no!”
‘Yeah, no, it’s really
important,” Pelosi responded.
Was she trying to be funny?
Maybe. Watch the video and
decide for yourself. But even if you conclude it was merely a lame attempt at
humor, as I mentioned, intent matters. Pelosi’s intent in this case, as it
often seems to be, is to demonize her political opponents as enemies of
civilization. In other instances she has characterized Republicans as bigots
who hate women, gays, immigrants, children, and old people. Apparently taking
his cue from the leader of the legislative body he wants to join was Democratic
candidate J.T. Smith, running for Alabama’s 3rd Congressional District. Earlier
this month, he tweeted the following:
"The greatest country
on earth is being bullied from within. Actions of Republicans in Congress are
worse than #ISIL.”
Smith later tried to
“explain” his tweet, writing on his Facebook page, “I am not saying that the
republican party is beheading people in the streets, obviously.” But, Smith
added, continuing to refuse to even capitalize the word, “The republicans have
used the economy as a means to terrorize the people of this country."
Overheated political
rhetoric is a long American tradition, and Republicans often engage in it, too.
But at a time in human
history when actual terrorists are beheading Americans and filming the carnage
— and calling on extremists to murder Americans everywhere in the world, such
rhetoric seems not only out of place but uniquely offensive. We seem to
have arrived, to paraphrase writer Francis Fukuyama, at the end of civil
rhetoric. When one of the highest ranking members of the Democratic Party
is willing to compare her political opponents to wife beaters, and another is
unwilling to distinguish them from murderous enemies who behead our own
citizens, how much more shocking can the rhetoric get? Where else can we
possibly go?
It’s true that the current
media environment isn’t helping matters. We live in a digital media age so
cacophonous and condensed to sound bites and tweets that saying something
outrageous is the only way to break through.
It’s also true that
Democrats are under pressure to rev up what appears to be a lethargic
electorate or face defeat at the polls in November. It’s unfortunate that we’ve
come to accept the idea that voters can only be motivated by fear and anger
toward their political opponents. But here’s another thought: Maybe Democratic
leaders aren’t finding success in expanding their liberal base because
fair-minded Americans don’t easily gravitate to a political party led by people
whose default election tactic is to demonize its opponents.
Tom Bevan
is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics and the co-author
of Election 2012: A Time for Choosing.
No comments:
Post a Comment