Name calling

It is remarkable how much progressive policy discourse consists of name-calling. Rather than refine and hone the principles and substance of a particular position, energy is diverted into discovering new ways of implying malignant character on the other side. The contemporary political vocabulary contains a dearth of rights, obligations, duties, compromise and political philosophy, and an excess of racist, sexist, homophobe, climate denier, rape apologist, hater,Iislamophobe, white supremacist, bitter clinger, etc. The governor of California described those who disagreed with his views on immigration enforcement as “troglodyte.” In addition, there are more subtle forms of name calling, less directly offensive but equally content-free such as denouncing another’s “privilege,” insinuating that another is aggressive or violent by claiming they make one feel “unsafe,” and by implying that the only possible basis for disagreement is “hate.” There is also the cynical and rather deluded gibe that one;s political opponents are “on the wrong side of history.”

It is interesting to contemplate the details of this phenomenon. When did we decide that the argument methods of second graders is preferable to reason and common courtesy? When did we decide that logic is subordinate to emotional satisfaction? I would suggest that name-calling is simply a cheap way of exploiting a socializing instinct, a boorish way of implying that if ones opponent does not agree or at least silence his own argument, that he is “the other.” It attacks the emotional security one finds in a good reputation and explicitly declares that a person;s beliefs either conform with those of the name-caller, or are the result of bad character. This approach to discourse lacks room for complexity or the notion of “however.” Thus, when it moves people to action (usually poorly thought out and silly action) it is prone to excess and obsession, such as pulling the Dukes of Hazard from TVLand, disinviting commencement speakers, sanctioning fraternities, for the conduct of other fraternities (or conduct that turns out to have been imaginary) and banishing those who are insufficiently outraged by the "right" things.

I suspect that our age invented none of these things; that there have always been principled thinkers of all political orientations as well as mountebanks and populists, bullies, sophists, con artists, and demagogues. But our age seems to have been overcome lately with a discourse of name-calling and political opportunism that not only obscures thoughtful and innovative dialogue, but hinders real progress. We seem to be more interested at the moment in emotional indulgence rather than thinking through many of the complex problems in our civic life.