Every time I write a column that even remotely mentions
homosexuality and history’s disinclination to regard it as a
commendable lifestyle, I am inundated with email accusing me of
hateful gay-bashing and labeled a homophobe. While I do not hate
homosexuals or anyone else for that matter, I do have a problem
with folks who use etymologically confused words like
“homophobe.”
When used as a noun, even the word “homosexual” is now
considered objectionable because, as a usage note at
dictionary.com’s entry puts it, “of the emphasis this term places
on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress
cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better
choices.” Oh for the days when this kind of “logic” was found
anywhere but in a reference guide!
Prior to the Bill Clinton era, words had definite meanings and
many times, also consequences. After the 42nd president treated us
to his tortuous twisting of the meanings of the words “sexual
relations” and “is,” he and his war-room personnel coined the
phrase, “politics of personal destruction” to deal with anyone who
dared give actual credence to the aforementioned words he had
spoken under oath.
As a result, the whole Lewinsky affair — which gave untold
numbers of young people the happy notion that oral sex was no
longer considered sex — was an event typical of the ongoing
debasement of our modern culture which has claimed many victims;
two of which are language and civility.
Turn on your TV at almost any hour of the day or night and you
will see the evidence. From grammatically-challenged hosts (“We’re
back after this commercial break”), to loutish teenagers,
presumably still under the blush of a public-school education, who
can barely complete a sentence without using profanity. Or open a
newspaper where you will read of a municipal employee in hot water
for using the word “niggardly” in reference to budgetary
matters.
And so now have we come to the point that nearly all forms of
speech, and especially those formerly deemed crude, have now made
their way into the political arena. This is not to say that America
hasn’t seen its share of electoral mud-slinging, it’s just that the
mud has become dirtier and more pervasive, rearing its ugly head in
unexpected places.
Last week’s flap over Ann Coulter’s unfortunate use of a
vulgarism regarding John Edwards is a prime example. Miss Coulter
is a brilliant writer whose High Crimes and Misdemeanors
was a tour-de-force during the aforementioned Clinton era and an
indispensable argument against his “it’s all about sex” defenders.
She is a stalwart conservative whose rapier wit often wounds
Politically Correct — a nauseating euphemism for a perverted sort
of civility — sensibilities.
But any way you look at it, the word she used to describe
Edwards was uncalled for and unwarranted. The organizers, sponsors
and attendees at CPAC generally represent the conservative mindset,
which for decades has maintained that it is the movement of ideas,
of those who think with their heads; in direct opposition to the
liberal left which tends to attract those whose feelings dictate
their policy.
Also implicit is the notion that conservatism, by its
definition, embodies the desire for the preservation of the
cultural status quo, or a return to one of earlier times. In either
case, the use of words such as those used by Miss Coulter last week
and at CPAC 2006 when she dismayed many present with the term
“raghead,” cannot reflect well on those aims. Our leading lights,
especially those who proudly call themselves Christians, need not
descend into the pit of what sadly passes for modern discourse.
There are many who think that the time for such civility is long
past, given the control liberal media and education have on the
minds of our fellow citizens, and while this is a factor, it
doesn’t necessarily make it a determinative one. On the contrary,
when a conservative does push the boundaries of good taste, he is
quickly called on the progressive carpet for crimes of hypocrisy,
making the incident all the more useful to the other side.
This of course is not to say that conservatives should be
pacifists in the war of words fought in the modern political arena
— indeed, one withering paragraph from the pen of William F.
Buckley is worth a thousand words from Maureen Dowd — it’s just
that the use of vulgarities must be viewed as an unwelcome
weapon.
Conservatives love to bemoan the fact that there’s not another
Ronald Reagan out there. If his followers would unite in preserving
the example of his kindly and gentlemanly ways, maybe the next one
won’t be far off.
