On switching to "eldritch" this election season
Two writers, Jessica Bennett of the New York Times and Scaachi Koul of Slate, express approval for Democrats finally going "low" and hurling insults at their opponents. They hope that the trend continues. And they especially enjoy the unrestrained use of “weird,” in the pejorative sense. For a few reasons, I don’t share their enjoyment.
The most obvious is that, in their enthusiasm, they use the word so much that I'm already sick of it. Here’s Bennett:
Weird and creepy. Simple, gut-punching words. Not a threat to democracy or a menace to the “soul of America,” not even “dangerous.” Nope, in the progressive vernacular of the moment, Mr. Trump and his party are just a bunch of weirdos, making weird policy proposals, weird comments about women, weird fashion choices and weirder shoe choices and promoting even weirder conspiracies. And of course, as any sixth grader who’s been called weird — or worse, “creepy” — by his peers knows, good luck trying to argue your way out.
I cringe at the thought of how many times we’ll hear it leading up to election day, with inordinate self-satisfaction despite the manifest unoriginality and schoolyard source. Unless it’s murdered by overuse before then. A sorry fate for a noble and versatile word.
Bennett recites all the crude insults rightwingers have been hurling for years ("snowflake," "cuck," etc.). I don’t recall my feelings ever having been hurt even slightly by them. Still, they mean to be insulting so it would only be fair to send insults right back at them. I endorse the use of insults, when appropriate. In such situations, though, one would prefer not to resort to: "I know you are but what am I?" That is, one should aim for a higher grade of insult: clever, cutting. "Weird" is not that insult. Nor is another word both writers approve of, "creepy." They're common and already brandished frequently by those who don't know more than 100. If you’re punched in the gut by words like these into adulthood, your short time on Earth will be miserable. Someone who, for instance, is quiet, not sociable enough for others can expect to hear whispers (or shouts) of "weird" and "creepy." (So I’ve heard.) Someone who dresses eccentrically can expect the same. Someone who deviates from the norm in any way, really, can expect the same. As insults, they're about as meaningful and carefully deployed as "asshole" or "retard," two other schoolyard classics for the unlettered. A limited vocabulary fosters inaccuracy. Koul, for instance, describes JD Vance, the perfect foolish Trump running mate, and his attacks on no-fault divorce as "weird." Can’t say that does justice to how revolting and wildly irresponsible it is to suggest that women should be forced to stay with a violent partner.
Koul and Bennett both subscribe to a binary I reject, at least as they frame it. To remain "high," one is required to endure insults with stoic silence or earnest pleas to keep it respectful. But who keeps it respectful in this hostile world? In my experience, insults can and will fly casually anywhere, anytime, unprovoked: grocery stores, bus rides, weddings, restaurants, classrooms, medical care facilities, on the road, in your neighborhood, in your driveway. Anyone who does a customer service job has a chance of getting verbally assaulted while assisting someone. Then there's the internet: when the insults aren't direct, indirect insults will come barely concealed in the form of innuendos, trolling, gaslighting. In such circumstances, what the writers and others consider "low," responding with harsh or derisive language (or, I’d add, considered nonverbal acts of rudeness), is a legitimate form of self-defense. I’m not going to subtract points or assign a technical foul simply for going there, especially when we’re so often there already. When I think of times I’ve chosen the disputable “high” option, it was either because I was caught off guard or because sometimes it feels dirty and wasteful to respond to every single fool who comes along. (Although it may be too much to hope that they’ll even vaguely sense the truth: that they’re beneath response.) I’m also cool with insults when the ideas proposed are abhorrent and sure to cause unnecessary pain to others. Which means, in some instances, one has no right to complain when the insults are returned. The real low, then, is throwing around witless, unjust, and/or ill-timed insults. (As long as I’m defining the boundaries, using chicanery, intimidation, or literal bloodshed to settle the argument is so low as to be disqualifying.)
Koul goes so far as to insist that Trump is “funny.” The first words I think of to describe Trump are: Rapist (or, if the right would prefer, “sexual assaulter”). Traitor. Twice-impeached felon. Business genius with multiple bankruptcies who didn’t get anywhere without daddy’s money and influence. Fan of dictators who, with help from the rightwing Supreme Court, threatens to be a dictator. And, as a recent appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists convention proved once more, a racist and a moron. There’s a lifetime’s worth of insults in this brief summary. But, as Trump admitted to those journalists, all it takes to offend him are the facts.
