Culture and Politics

Miss Spoke

It was a YUUUGE night in little New Hampshire, after a spectacularly crazy week of words heard everywhere.

Prior to the primary primary, Madeline Albright, campaigning for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, declared, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Gloria Steinem, when asked why Hillary does so poorly among younger women said, “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’ ”

HUH??

That even trumps Trump’s repetition of one of his supporter’s sentiments that Ted Cruz “is a pussy”.  Trump considered the impact of those words before quoting his supporter. He knew he wasn’t supposed to say that! Eh….what the heck….

We hold Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem to a higher standard (and they are not contenders for POTUS).  I was cringing when I heard each of them. These are public figures who know the impact of words. They have forged not only careers, but changed the landscape through their words that inspired actions. They understand consequences–intended and unintended. They are seasoned. They have contended with difficulties and experienced breakthroughs and tremendous success. And they are merely insulting now.

I read an article about how we shouldn’t diminish Albright and Steinem based on this past week’s comments. Their long and distinguished lives and careers are testaments to their iconic statuses, and their work has been profoundly significant, not only as feminist leaders, but as principled, inclusive, democratic, encouraging women whose influence is (was) global and intergenerational.

Well, sorry….that all ended rather abruptly. Shaming women (or anyone) into voting for a particular candidate is shameful. And it is a losing strategy. Younger people are generally more attracted to idealism. In general, people want leaders who inspire. Even Bill is beginning to repeat the 2008 over-the-top attack dog bit that bit the Clintons in the behind. Hard to see how their being offensive while feeling defensive will win hearts or minds or votes.

The obvious reaction to Albright’s admonition is: REALLY??? Sarah Palin. Michelle Bachman. Carly Fiorina. Because they are women?

And Steinem….the ulitmate Feminist icon…sounding like Connie Francis: Where the Boys Are. My brain still hurts from trying to figure this out. It’s actually rather tragic. These two (3?) ladies seem so sadly out of touch with not just this generation of female voters, but with the last few decades.

And the response to the justified outrage and backlash? Steinem said that she misspoke.

No. Miss Spoke just didn’t consider that idealism is more interesting (especially to youger people) than pragmatism; that women and any other demographic group are not necessarily homogenous; and that thinking critically means evaluating beyond gender or race or generation or any other category.

Miss Spoke was not only insulting, but inaccurate. Trump’s appeal to many is that he is acutely aware of his rhetorical choices, and disregards accuracy or respect with the intention of garnering support by appealing to baser instincts and emotions.

There seems to be a different set of rules for the one who claims Miss Spoke (whichever one): we expect a different sort of discourse and program–one that appeals to our aspirations with critical thinking; our better angels and productivity. Miss Spoke needs to think and speak more broadly. And we know more than one Miss Spoke recently.

 

In Other Words

I’m not big on banning words, but I am pro thoughtful and considerate usage. Words, like actions, have consequences. That’s why we use them.

Before the real bloodbath of Friday the 13th in Paris four days ago, we were grappling with the sometimes conflicting necessities of racial sensitivity and free speech. For some, sensitivity means easily piqued; for others, sensitivity means the opposite— consideration, discernment, understanding, empathy. We see this different use and application of the word sensitivity much like the application of the word entitled; for some, entitled implies deserving based on qualification; for others, entitled implies someone who thinks s/he is deserving without having to do anything; spoiled.

In cases like entitlement and sensitivity, usage often falls within political party lines. It’s as though we are losing a common language. But, language does evolve, and reconsidering words and their usages reflects cultural (and sometimes personal) evolution.

It is easy to grasp the phrase “a clash of civilizations” when referring to terrorist groups who want to topple governments and seize territory through violence, distorted religion, and regression, as we have seen with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and with what we tend to call ISIS or ISIL (including more than Syria) or now the derogatorily named Daesh. Some have countered that the phrase “clash of civilizations” is hyperbolic and inaccurate because the fight is against Civilization, not against two civilizations. In other words, we dignify or dishonor depending on our word choices.

On the home front, we tend to distinguish between “politically correct” terms deemed considerate and preserving dignity, and terms that may be considered as derogatory or used to degrade or keep one outside. The recent backlashes to “politically correct” speech are sometimes motivated by discrimination, but other times, they are an effort to reclaim dignity in a new context; in effect, to show control over what was once terminology used for oppression. Others seek to acknowledge that speech is a protected right in this country and must not be silenced regardless of content.

I don’t believe that just because we have a Constitutional right to free speech, that speech is free. It is, like all freedom, embedded with responsibility, and that means consequences, intended and unintended. Our own grappling with words and phrases and how they reflect on us as a culture can get a bit messy, as we have seen many times during the last year alone, and recently on college campuses. Political rhetoric has always been with us, but we also see grassroots cultural rhetoric that seeks to dismantle some of the prevailing policies, and politics, cultural norms as well as inconsiderate behavior.

The way in which events are characterized is now mostly a matter of politics. Our task is to be aware of rhetoric. How words are used reflects and fosters dispositions. Even the word rhetoric, which refers to the way with words, can be defined as eloquence or as bombast; persuasion or lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. Politicization of events occurs through rhetoric—through word usage intended to persuade, either with eloquence or bombast.

The politicization of deaths to due terrorism and other violence seems to have the effect of dividing rather than uniting us in mission, which halts progress.
What should be done with so many Syrians fleeing Syria? We debate whether we should call them migrants or refugees. Refugees are those who flee their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. However, for the politicians who fear terrorists entering our borders (not an unreasonable fear), they can state their position as not wanting to give refuge to terrorists, thereby conflating refugees with giving refuge to terrorists. And migrants? I don’t remember hearing that term before recently to describe those fleeing persecution. The politicization of the word refugee has created the current use of migrant as an alternative to refer to those seeking refuge from war and persecution.
I started by saying that I don’t generally believe in banning words, but I am in favor of thoughtful and considerate usage. The manhunt for the so-called “mastermind” of the recent Paris attacks is one case in which I think it’s time to abandon the term “mastermind” when used to describe perpetrators of violence against innocent people. We often use it with an invisible or silent “evil” preceding the word mastermind. The title “Mastermind” aggrandizes those who conceive of methods to kill innocent people. Life takes much more mastery than killing innocent people and inspiring fear. This guy may have been the chief organizer and strategist, but why dignify the monster with a title that should be reserved for those whose intelligence produces that which is constructive and life affirming?

We tend to denigrate honest, hardworking, patriotic people who may have different opinions, but we aggrandize and empower the real troublemakers, criminals and monsters, especially when we foment fear. In other words, we can consider or ignore; dignify or dishonor; empower or degrade. Words, like actions, have power and consequences. Use them wisely.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

Kevin McCarthy will forever be known as the competent, upstanding guy who realized that the population in his community was being taken over one by one.

Kevin McCarthy was the actor best known for the 1956 sci-fi horror flick (and political allegory) “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. Representative Kevin McCarthy, House Majority leader in 2015, and presumptive Speaker of the House following Speaker John Boehner’s recent announcement of his retirement, abruptly dropped out of the race (practically uncontested) for the Speakership. One minute he’s practically Speaker; the next– he’s out, throwing the GOP into chaos.

The dissatisfactions with our culture get played out in our Body Politic; in this case, the political body that everyone detests, Congress. Regardless of political party affiliation, there is utter distrust and fear of the other, and the sense that the other is snatching away our culture and our future.

Those who are elected to set national policies emerge from local cultures that have geographical and demographical distinctions that no longer serve to broaden our thinking and experience, but in fact, narrow them. The 21st Century sense that compromise is weakness, has taken hold and has rendered governing a lost art. John Boehner saw this, and had had enough. Kevin McCarthy the Congressman saw this before he even started.

Kevin McCarthy the not-actor and not-Speaker may have realized that his “gaffe” last week regarding the Benghazi Select Committee, (and therefore Hillary Clinton), may have been rather damaging. He suggested that the Benghazi Select Committee is really only concerned with partisan politics. The truth hurts. Or it can set you free.

It’s hard not to think of the original Kevin McCarthy and the “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. He was that competent, upstanding guy who realized that the population in his community was being taken over one by one. Is this life imitating art? The film seemed artier as more time passed and the “McCarthy Era”, i.e. McCarthyism (Senator Joseph McCarthy), seemed like a historical relic. Alas, we see these same tactics of making accusations without proper regard for evidence in today’s Body Politic, from the Retropublicans. We’ve also seen the definition of McCarthyism “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.”
Representative Jason Chaffetz, exemplified these (Joseph) McCarthy techniques with his so-called hearing on the (doctored) Planned Parent videos. He is still running for Speaker of the House. I’m getting very queasy watching this version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.