Words That Offend

Many, many years ago, American culture was united in the belief that certain words were not appropriately uttered in public.  Those included obscene, vulgar and profane terms.  They gave offense to listeners. 

Now days, all forms of such formerly inappropriate speech are bandied about in all sorts of forums, with apparently no consideration as to the effect on listeners.

 

Who cares anymore if some people remain offended by vulgar, obscene or profane language?  After all, doesn’t our President, himself, occasionally so engage?

It’s as if the old school yard chant: Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me has become the national motto for uncensored discourse.

 

Except that the expression is not true.  Words can indeed hurt, and very deeply, causing pain which often long outlasts the recovery period for broken bones.

Yet, our modern culture ignores – even celebrates – that reality when the verbal offense of old is “merely” profane or crude.

But “woe” is the response if someone feels targeted by “perceived micro-aggressions” in which the speaker is believed to be uttering racist, xenophobic or anti-feminist  sentiments that significant segments of society (surely most on the Left) seem to believe justifies “safe spaces” popping up and barring from platforms those committing the verbal transgressions.

Of course, swearing and vulgarity are sanctioned.  Those who are old fashioned and, therefore, offended should simply get over it, right?  Don’t they believe in free speech?

Ah, the irony.  Some can say what they want but others had better watch their language.  Free speech isn’t meant for all, is it?

Increasing Partisanship Threatens National Unity

Partisanship – favoring one side over the competition – has been a feature of our politics since 1796 when Americans chose sides between John Adams’ Federalists and Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Democrats.

Partisanship is a normal reaction to conflict.  “Our team” is favored over “theirs”.  Loyalty to one’s side is viewed as a priority before consideration of policy or performance.

 

So it’s non-productive to bemoan the existence of partisanship:  it’s a fact of human nature.  But that’s not to say that partisanship is harmless.

Idealistically, one likes to think that differences of opinion are resolved in a peaceful, respectful manner, as in “let’s agree to disagree” politely with our foes.

 

That ideal may have once been an expectation held by many, perhaps most, Americans, except for the few decades before, during and after our Civil War.

 

Are those bitter, hostile times returning?  Take note of the increasing coarseness and vulgarity of American life.  TV “bleeps” obscene comments by presidential candidates during the recent campaign and by representatives of the losing campaign (newly elected DNC chairman Tom Perez, in particular).

 

Those on the receiving end of such diatribes are not likely to consider such verbal assaults as “respectful disagreement”.  Rather, the speech conveys the source’s apparent hatred and disgust with the target.  It is to be expected that the appraisal is reciprocated.  And the circle closes.

 

It is no surprise, then, that polling reveals a dramatic increase in the level and intensity of the partisan divide in the country.

Twenty years ago, according to a Pew Research poll, 57% of Democrats had a negative view of Republicans.  Now it’s nearly 80%.  The GOP view of Democrats two decades ago was 68% antagonistic.  Today it’s over 80%.  Twice as many of each party since 1994 view the opposition “very unfavorably”.

Members of the other party are condemned not merely for contrary views but for personal and character deficiencies.

 

Democrats consider Republicans more than other Americans to be dishonest (42%), immoral (35%) and stupid (33%).

As a reverse, Republicans see Democrats, more than other Americans, to be Immoral (47%), dishonest (45%) and lazy (46%). 

Polling did not sample Independents’ views of the two major parties.  And since such voters represent an increasing percentage of the American electorate, one does not wish to overstate the negative consequences of the deep and harsh views that these two parties have of each other.  But the trends are, nonetheless, foreboding.  How can a nation remain united in confronting its foes in the world when the two principal political segments hate each other? 

It is not hyperbole to suggest that there’s more than a touch in the present circumstances to compare our predicament with that existing before the Civil War which began in 1861. 

Chicken Little Still Lives Among Washington’s Liberal Elite

The hysteria on the Left and among so called mainstream media generated by President Trump’s from the “Paris Accord on climate change” reminded the Sensible Conservative of the folk tale about Chicken Little.  Chicken Little caused panic in the chicken coop.  An acorn fell on his head and the hysterical fowl cried “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”.  The flock took the bird at its word and they all ran around (forgive the cliché) like chickens with their heads cut off.

Sound familiar?

In fact, the voluntary agreement, even if complied with by the entire world, would have had a nominal effect on the climate in the long term.

In the short term, the main cost would have been incurred by the U.S.  which would pay billions to third world countries in their emission control efforts and impose environmental policies which would be a drag on the American economy.

Here’s a sampling of the hostile reaction to the White House pronouncement.  John Kerry, in a feverish commentary, warned that the U.S. withdrawal would cause increased episodes of asthma, among other calamities.  NBC’s Andrea Mitchell declared that America had thereby abandoned its leadership role in the world.  Keeping with that theme, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said, by this act:  “the U.S. resigned as the leader of the free world.”  And so on.

Giving the frantic reaction, one could be forgiven for looking skyward to see if it was still there.