A Macaca Moment: My Two Cents on Slips of the Tongue

Spare Change | Novemeber 1, 2006 | Dave Aland

[Natty Bumppo@frontier.net]

Some weeks ago, Virginia Republican George Allen used a term of dubious etymology (“macaca”) to refer to a member of his opponent’s staff. Although he explained it as a slip of the tongue, it has been used ever since then as apparent evidence of his inherent ethnic insensitivity. In short, it doesn’t matter what he intended to say, it only matters how it came out.

If that sounds unfair, it is – but the verbal gaffe has been used by Democrats to demonize Republicans so much lately that it seems deeply ironic that the they should now seek refuge in Allen’s “but-that’s-not-what-I-meant” defense to explain John Kerry’s recent slapshot about how smart people don’t “get stuck in Iraq.”

Democratic Party apologists spent Halloween desperately trying to spin Kerry’s comments at the Pasadena City College, where he said: “…if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Aside from the inarticulate syntax, it’s hard to read anything from his smarmy comments other than this: Stupid people go to Iraq. Naturally, the remark has aroused ire from every quarter. Was the Senator actually suggesting that only stupid people join the military? The White House lambasted his comments, and even the normally conciliatory John McCain expressed outrage and demanded an apology.

Kerry fired back immediately, accusing the White House of exaggerating a “bad joke”, and indulging in a bit of Clintonian finger shaking. "I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium." Reporting for duty, indeed.

Kerry’s stuffed suits and talking heads would have us believe that Bush’s stuffed suits and talking heads have manufactured out of nearly whole cloth an insult Kerry never offered, and a snideness towards the military never intended. Kerry is, after all, a veteran himself, and his White House critics largely are not. Why would a veteran say such a thing about other veterans?

Well, for one, there is a pattern to all of this. Kerry is, after all, a veteran who returned from Vietnam to spread lies and give false testimony about alleged atrocities committed by American soldiers. He later recanted these wild accusations, saying he didn’t mean to impugn fellow servicemen. Kerry is also, after all, the veteran who recently accused Americans of terrorizing Iraqis, something he explained away as a poor phrasing of the idea that Iraqi soldiers should be the ones terrorizing Iraqis? He comes from a political party whose most recent White House occupant once said he “despised” the military. Dick Durbin compared American soldiers to Nazis, and Ted Kennedy accused them of operating a gulag. Nonetheless, we are told that such comments were never meant to impugn our Armed Services. We are being asked, in essence, not to take their comments seriously.

While it may be tempting not to take much of what they say seriously, this is exactly what Senator Allen has already learned from the Democrats this year: intentions don’t count as much as actions. This is a precept the Democrats have taken some pains to establish, so it seems a bit disingenuous for them for them now to insist that we ignore what they say and concentrate on what they meant to say. It didn’t work for Dan Rather, so why should it work for John Kerry?

Of all the many truisms of the political environment, this one would seem to be relatively self-evident: speak carefully lest your words be used against you. John Kerry, and indeed, far too many of his fellow Democrats, have not yet figured out that even the appearance of condescension towards our military personnel is not easily excused or forgotten these days. And touting one’s own military service as a defense sounds too much like protesting that “some of my best friends are [fill in the blank].” – it tends to confirm the impression rather than refute it.

John Kerry, whatever his intentions, and regardless of what he meant to say or who he meant to insult, has plainly insulted our servicemen and women. Someone with his alleged education and diplomatic skills should be able to recognize that fact. Someone who would seek to be the Commander in Chief should understand why that’s wrong. He needs to apologize.

To “stay the course” of indignant defiance is just a whole lot of macaca.

David J. Aland is a retired Naval Officer with a graduate degree in National Security Affairs from the U. S. Naval War College.

[TampaDude]

Kerry is a penishead.

[syriacus]

Beautifully written. Thanks for posting this.