Posted on 02/10/2007 4:42:20 PM PST by Natty Bumppo@frontier.net
George W. Crane once said that “Language is the apparel in which your thoughts parade before the public – never clothe them in vulgar or shoddy attire,” and the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer theorized that vulgarity was the product of will without intellect.
Unfortunately, there seems to be an abundance of vulgarity coming from the political Left lately, as if such shoddy attire might somehow better project the thoughts and intellect of the New Majority.
John Edwards, the gentlemanly former Senator from North Carolina, began assembling his Presidential Campaign team last week, and surprised many observers by selecting Amanda Marcotte, the vitriolic commentator of the web-log “Pandagon” to be, as she put it, “Blogmaster (mistress?)”. Marcotte is well-known in the blogosphere for her posts which use more vulgarity than most rappers, and whose opinions teeter so far out on the fringe that ABC’s Terry Moran was prompted to wonder “Does John Edwards condone hate speech?”
Her contributions to the political discourse include scatological depictions of Immaculate Conception, crude sarcastic condemnations of the Duke lacrosse players, and a defense of birth control that employed just about every imaginable variation of the f-bomb. Her cyber trail is, in short, littered with language that would embarrass the most accomplished vulgarian, which makes one wonder why her talents should be courted by a man who would be President.
Almost simultaneously, William Arkin, touted as a “Defense Analyst” for both NBC and the Washington Post, created havoc when he let slip his blogs of war this week. Writing for the WaPo blog, Arkin lit into American soldiers for having the temerity to criticize American citizens who do not support the war. Bolstering his arguments, he implied that our soldiers are spoiled and pampered – but what can you expect from “a mercenary – oops, sorry – volunteer” force?
That such opinions rest in the diverse bosom of the Left is not surprising. That they are expressed in terms both vile and vituperative is nothing new. That these vulgar screeds should be found on the web-logs of the Left is only logical, given the fairly free-wheeling nature of the blogosphere. What is disturbing is that this sort of fringe behavior is showing up in places normally reserved for more respectful dispute. Say what you like of the ideological bent of the Washington Post, it is a major American newspaper with considerable credibility that is certainly not enhanced by featuring this kind of hateful and hate-filled rant. If anything, it gives credence to those that say the paper is a partisan rag. Similarly, whether you agree with John Kerry’s former running mate or not, John Edwards is generally viewed as a man of no small amount of political acumen. To foul his own Presidential nest with the scat of a Catholic-baiting, online gutter-mouthed howler is politically imprudent, to say the least, particularly if the Democrats are serious about retaining Catholic voters.
After thirty years in the Navy, I am hardly a linguistic prude, but what may work on the forecastle is rarely the same as what works in the parlor of public debate. Undeterred, the Left seems hell-bent to make use of the “netroot” phenomenon exploited in ’04 by Howard Dean, and make the ubiquitous reach and relay of the internet work for them, with, apparently, little consideration of the hazards.
Blogs at all ends of the political spectrum are full of carnal discourse, revealing the lowest instincts in American political debate, and clearly intended only for mature audiences. However, many other web-logs routinely feature more thoughtful insight and the kind of discussion that appeals to a very different kind of maturity. There is nothing inherently wrong with using this new and effective mode of communication to get your message across, but the age-old warning about messages and messengers still holds true. Truth is rarely convincing from a liar, and honest debate is rarely accepted from a ranter.
NBC, the Washington Post, and candidate Edwards have all stood by their bloggers – probably for more political reasons than rational ones, which is telling – but a word of caution for them all: One may lie down with some blogs, but then one shouldn’t be surprised to wake up with sleaze.
David J. Aland is a retired Naval Officer with a graduate degree in National Security Affairs from the U. S. Naval War College.
Well said.
Just came from a board where Libs and Conservatives can argue.
A conservative asked why do the Libs always resort to foul language?
I wish I had read this earlier.
Or a product of my Scots Irish ancestry, and my father's blue collar occupation. :-)
This is a very well-written article, BTW. Good post.
“Does John Edwards condone hate speech?”
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.