|
Words After the Brawl Is OverBy Rick Horowitz
A "stomping" -- that's the word I was using a week or two ago. The only chance of grabbing this president's attention, I was saying, was for voters to deliver a good, solid, no-doubt-about-it Election Day "stomping." A "thumping" -- that's the word the president was using on Wednesday to describe Tuesday's results. Stomping. Thumping. Close enough. "The Democrat Party had a good night last night," the president said at his first post-debacle news conference. And a few minutes later: "I told Congresswoman Pelosi that I look forward to working with her to find common ground in the next two years." Well, for starters, he could stop referring to them as the "Democrat Party." It's the "Democratic Party," as the president and his friends know perfectly well. Its individual members are "Democrats," but it's the "Democratic Party." That's what they call themselves; that's what everybody else calls them. Everybody else, that is, except certain Republicans trying to drive Democrats crazy.
Calling them the "Democrat Party" is the chalk squeaking on the blackboard, the sharp fork screeching across the glass plate. A minor thing? Maybe. But as a certain sitting president was saying just a few days ago, "Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words." If you're serious about establishing a new tone, you can start by using the right ones. Speaking of which... Does the president actually think it's as simple as flipping a switch? You could certainly get that impression listening to him explaining away example after example of pre-election rhetorical overkill. "What's changed today," the president told the reporters, "is the election is over, and the Democrats won. And now we're going to work together." "I understand when campaigns end," he said at another point, dismissing any danger of lasting effects from the overheated things he and others had said before November 7. "And I know when governing begins." But does everybody truly know? Is the bright line between campaigning and governing all that bright? Those senators and congressmen from across the aisle -- are they willing to have their positions distorted, their honesty and integrity and their love of country questioned, and then, once the votes are in and the president's side -- or even their own side -- has prevailed, simply toss it all down the memory hole and let bygones be bygones? It can't be that easy, can it? Even professional politicians are human beings. (Some of them, anyway.) And it has to be harder still for us amateurs. When the campaigner-in-chief's rhetoric races past the boiling point, how much harder is it for ordinary citizens of different stripes to pull together once the polls are closed and the real work has to start? "By any means necessary" -- who'd have thunk it? George W. and Malcolm X with the same philosophy! Or call it a family habit. The newly sainted Bush 41, now so prized as the voice of sweet reason on matters diplomatic, wasn't above hitting below the belt when it came to winning elections. And as soon as victory was assured, you'll recall, he'd be the perfect gentleman again, and announce -- while his aides hosed the blood off the streets -- that it was time to put the past behind us, time to look ahead. So we know where Sonny gets it. The bigger question is: Can Sonny change it? These days, when practically anything anybody says is instantly and infinitely retrievable and replayable, when last week's insult is this week's YouTube hit, is there any way to put the past behind us and keep it there? Is there any way to keep the language of campaigning and the language of governing in separate boxes? Like the man said, words have consequences. Thump on that, Mr. President. Posted 11/9/06. For
words that inform and intrigue (and entertain), click to "Rick's"!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
