Words Have Meaning; A Short Discourse On Civility In Politics

This has been something that's been brewing for some time. Coarse language in politics is nothing new. It's been around as long as there has been politics. Vulgarity, personal attacks, and smears are part and parcel of American politics, and yet there is something fundamentally distasteful about all of it.

It was awful when the left smeared President Bush and clamored for his impeachment and claimed the 2000 election rendered him an illegitimate president. They have called him a chimp, fascist, and all other manner of epitaph.

It's little different now that the right is spewing nonsense about President Obama's lack of birth certificate somehow proves he shouldn't be President since he's not a US citizen, calling eight House GOPers traitors for voting to approve the cap and trade in the House, or clamoring for a nuclear attack on the United States.

That latter bit is from Glenn Beck on FoxNews. He was busy interviewing Michael Scheuer and the bit about hoping for a mass casualty attack came out and that the nation was slipping into a pre 9/11 mindset that will have deadly consequences. Beck nodded approvingly.



Ah, the joys of free speech and the freedom to make complete asses of themselves.

Sorry, but that goes beyond the pale. I was in NYC on 9/11. I smelled, saw, and viscerally felt the terror in NYC on that day when the murderous Islamic terrorists killed thousands of people in a matter of minutes. No one knew how many people were murdered - it could have been 10,000 or more, and the entire city panicked into wondering whether there were more attacks on the way.

That's not an experience I'd want anyone else here in the US have to experience (or again, since NYC remains a top terrorist target).

The nation is rushing headlong into a pre-9/11 mindset courtesy of this Administration, particularly its inept attempt to shutter Guantanamo Bay, tightening up rules of engagement for airstrikes against terrorists that tie the hands of those on the battlefield, and hoping that lawfare will protect the nation when it should be abundantly clear that it takes a focused and dedicated effort from military and intel assets abroad to disrupt plots and groups before they can strike all the way to domestic law enforcement to thwart attacks by groups inside the US. Forsaking the overseas component to claim some mythical improvement in how others view the US undermines the US national security, which should be a President's paramount concern.

Meanwhile, Mark Tapscott was excoriated by the right for noting that calling the eight House GOPers who voted for cap and trade traitors is an assault on the English language. Words have meanings:

Sorry, folks, but, as much as I agree this bill is a disaster for America, calling these eight RINOs "traitors" is beyond the line. Here's why: The word "traitor" has specific reference to national loyalty. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, as were spies like John Walker, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and Aldrich Hazen Ames. The traditional penalty for treason is death, though in recent decades that sentence has been all but forgotten in the U.S., though not in other nations.

When somebody promises you they will take a certain course of action not involving national loyalty, but then does another, they are a rat, a double-crosser, or a jerk, but they are not a traitor because national security is not jeopardized by their failure to do what they promised to do. The Obama-Waxman-Markey bill will certainly burden the U.S. economy, but it won't destroy it. Thus, referring to the eight GOP members who voted for the bill is unjustified.

But isn't "cap and traitor" simply an acceptable rhetorical device whereas "General Betrayus" is self-evidently character assassination? "Rules for Radicals" author Saul Alinsky, President Obama's inspiration, would see both terms as illustrations of his principle of isolating opponents, discrediting them and making them objects of disgust, hatred and villification.

Obama's economic policies are socialist in intent, and redistribution of wealth through the tax system is socialist. It is an objective fact that President Obama is spectacularly inexperienced having held no executive positions prior to being elected President. That's not attacking Obama as a person, but his policies and experience. Express all the disgust you want at the policies, but attacking the person does little to stop them. It is a diversion.

The cap and trade and health care policies are going to be particularly destructive to the economy in ways that its proponents can hardly imagine. Far from improving the quality of health care, it will have the opposite effect, and people will be worse off for it.