John Kerry - Proof Of My Point

How many times have I ranted here about the coarsening of language and how it is leading to a general decline? Well, at least three times (and I know more, I just don't have the ambition to go find them all): here, here, and here. And now, John Kerry is proving my point, to an extent, by reaching out to younger voters by swearing - dropping the F bomb. It didn't work too well. The College Republican National Committee is blasting Kerry in a recent press release about the statement (I couldn't find a link to the original release on the CRNC website so here is a link to a reproduction of it at Stars 'n Stripes.)

Kerry dropped the bomb because he felt that it was needed in order for him to "connect" with younger voters (as was his admission of pot use). It never occurred to him that as a person in running for the ultimate role model position in America (and a large chunk of the world also) that he might want to present a more educated, more refined persona.

What purpose did his curse serve? Did it really add anything? Did it enrich his statement? "Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did?" Does that communicate his idea more effectively than say "Did I think that President Bush would act in a manner so contrary to what I believe?"

Read his statement with both phrases in place.

First the original:

"When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country...Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did."

OK. He sounds like he's pretty upset. He sounds like he is mad at George Bush. But does it really express why? Does it really tell us anything about what John Kerry would do if he were in that position?

No. It merely expresses his anger at what he perceives as a failure on the part of President Bush (a feeling not shared by many Americans). It tells us virtually nothing about John Kerry the man, except that he has a temper and has a lack of intellectual and linguistic self-control.

Now read his statement with my suggestion substituted for the F-bomb:

"When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country...Did I think that President Bush would act in a manner so contrary to what I believe? I don't think anybody did."

So what about it? Does it express a similar train of thought? I think that it still captures Kerry's anger at what he perceives as a betrayal. But, I think that it also would have told us something about the man.

Had Kerry made this statement we could have deduced that he had an alternative plan for Iraq. We could have deduced that he maybe had a viable policy alternative to President Bush's foreign policy. We could have deduced that he felt anger at what he perceived as betrayal (which is not a bad trait in American politics - or in American foreign policy), but that he had the self-control to figure out the best course of action, rather than simply lashing out in a vulgar attempt to score a few cheap political points.

In short, we would have learned something about Kerry or at least been able to identify some reasonable lines of questioning to help in learning more about him. His actual statement teaches us nothing and shuts down any reasonable question about his statement beyond "So I can take it that you're mad, huh?"

What good does it really do us as voters to know that John Kerry is just hopping mad about something, mad enough to swear, if we can't be made to understand, or he's unable effectively communicate, the reasoning behind his anger? Are we to simply take his word when he says "Assad of Syria has f---ing pissed me off and we're going to take care of this once and for all!" or do we have a right to know why he feels this way, what his intentions are, and so forth. If Kerry were to be elected, would we still be a of the people, by the people, and for the people or would John Kerry use language (or a lack of language skills) to effectively shut down public debate and discussion of his policies and positions?

The fact that the interview was in Rolling Stone magazine and that he probably swore less than any other interviewee in that issue is irrelevant. If Kerry wants to be President, he needs to recognize that there is a dignity and responsibility that goes along with the office. Dropping the F-bomb in a magazine interview is not in line with that.

Kerry is trying to stifle debate or questioning of his position by swearing, stonewalling, and posturing. If this is allowed to be successful, it will become more commonplace as politicians trying to use cursing as way of debasing our language to the point that we simply accept their expressions of emotion as grounded in reality, regardless of what reality might be.