Posted on 11/13/2004 5:43:00 PM PST by CHARLITE
Why do liberals feel the need to use an expletive in virtually every sentence?
With the advent of the Internet, it has become rather commonplace for writers to include e-mail addresses at the end of their columns to welcome input from their readers. Invariably, a respectable percentage of the responses that come to a conservative writer will of course be from members of the opposite camp. Unfortunately, these are typically not PG-rated. For example, an article that I had written after the first presidential debate evoked hundreds of e-mail messages from around the country, with many of them referring to my mother in a not so flattering fashion.
Recently, somebody at the Democratic Underground website posted one of my articles--along with a CNSnews.com column--at the sute's message board. Of the 32 posts, fifteen had some form of vulgarity, with the most common beginning with the letter ''F''.
Now, to be fair, I don’t for a second believe that this is necessarily representative of the population that considers itself to be liberal. In fact, not only did this recent article in question elicit the most e-mail response of any that I have written, but also the vast majority of those emanating from Democratic readers were extremely thoughtful, coherent, and respectful.
However, is it conceivable that there is indeed something to this vulgarity element that is just as emblematic of the chasm between Democrats and Republicans as our disparate beliefs concerning the most critical issues of the day?
For example, there were differing opinions from liberal and conservative commentators around the country when Teresa Heinz-Kerry told Colin McNickle of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to ''shove it.'' The liberal media representatives found her behavior to be refreshing. In fact, CNN reported: ''Asked about the comment Monday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she believes that 'a lot of Americans will say, ''Good for you -- you go, girl.'' And certainly that's how I feel about it.' '' Thanks for sharing, Senator.
Not to be upstaged, Kerry campaign advisor Tad Devine said, ''And the fact that she speaks what's on her mind, I think it's enormously refreshing. It's something the American people want to hear more of. I'm sure the nation wants to hear from her because she can lend so much valuable insight as to who John Kerry is, where he comes from and what he believes.''
Yes, Tad. The American people want to hear vulgarity from the First Lady whenever possible.
Of course, he is quite correct with his assertions that this lends ''so much valuable insight as to who John Kerry is,'' for it appears that such expletives are similarly commonplace within the vocabulary of the junior senator. As Newsweek is reporting in its November 15 issue, Mr. Kerry has no problem hurling ''f-bombs'' over something as mundane as not being able to find his hairbrush. In the chapter entitled, ''Kerry Gets Cranky,'' Newsweek reports:
''The morning after the Feb. 3 primaries, which vaulted Kerry into a virtually insurmountable lead, the candidate was fuming over his missing hairbrush. He and his aides were riding in a van on the way to a Time magazine cover-photo shoot. Nicholson had left the hairbrush behind. 'Sir, I don't have it,' he said, after rummaging in the bags. 'Marvin, f---!' Kerry said. The press secretary, David Wade, offered his brush. 'I'm not using Wade's brush,' the long-faced senator pouted. 'Marvin, f---, it's my Time photo shoot.' ''
Just imagine how angry the senator would have been if he was actually meeting with somebody important--like Michael Moore or Barbra Streisand. However, we really shouldn't be that shocked by the vulgarity of elites like the Kerrys. As Julie Walters told us in the marvelous film, ''Educating Rita'': ''It's always, 'Pass the f-ing pheasant!' with [folks like] them!''
Now, I'm sure that my new friends at the Democratic Underground are going to be anxious to remind me of Vice President Cheney's little faux pas directed at Connecticut's Christopher Dodd in the hallowed chambers of Congress earlier this year. And I believe even President Bush was caught mumbling some unpleasantries about a New York Times reporter at a campaign stop some years ago. Though no defense, it is comical that, in both instances, the expletives were indeed directed at liberals. However, that is certainly no excuse, and I hope that Laura and Lynne required their husbands, who certainly represent higher standards than this, to promptly wash their mouths out with soap when they returned home from their toils.
Of course, the question is: when is enough enough? George Will on a recent edition of ABC's ''This Week'' suggested that one of the defining moments in the campaign might have occurred when Janet Jackson exposed herself on national television during the halftime festivities of this year's Super Bowl. Certainly, one could make a strong argument that America did indeed see this as being the last straw, and that whether conscious or subconscious, this was the catalyst for the electorate's outrage concerning decency issues and the media.
If this is indeed the precipitate, it might take the current debate in our country concerning the 22% of the electorate who felt that moral values was the most important issue of the campaign in a different direction. Is it possible that the lines are drawn more between married and single people, as well as parents versus those without children, than across religious ideologies?
For instance, most people's views concerning vulgarity and decency likely change when they have children, and when said offspring are present. Would America have been so offended if Janet Jackson had such a wardrobe malfunction while performing on ''Saturday Night Live''? Probably not. The outrage was a byproduct of the Super Bowl occurring early on a Sunday evening during what is also perceived to be a family event.
Let's understand that 63% of those who voted in this election are married. Of this segment, Bush received 57% of the votes versus Kerry’s 42%. Additionally, 28% of the electorate is married with children. Bush won this demographic 59% to 40%. By contrast, the 37% of voters who are single preferred Kerry by a margin of 58% to 40%. And the 72% of the electorate who are married without children also opted for Kerry, but by a smaller margin of 51% to 48%.
What might these numbers tell us? Well, it appears that single people are clearly more liberal than married people, and that if you throw children into the mix, this movement to the right gets even more pronounced. Now, certainly, this should not come as any great revelation. However, is it possible that this better explains the moral values divide than religion? Furthermore, might this also be why conservatives seem more concerned with decency issues such as vulgarity and nudity on television?
Of course, this begs the question as to why it might be important to divine the real causes for this seeming cultural chasm. Having read hundreds of op-eds and witnessed an equal number of interviews since Election Day, it seems to me that the postmortems are acting to further this divide than accurately explain and reconcile it, which doesn't appear to be healthy. Unfortunately, to some in our nation, the thought of the country dividing along religious lines--especially when we are seemingly at war with radical Islamists--is rather disquieting. As such, it might be advantageous for sociologists and political analysts to find a more palatable explanation for the disparate views in our society.
With that in mind, it does seem rather intuitive that much like what transpired in the 50's, America has been going through a bit of a Baby Boomlet, and as a result, the aging Baby Boomers who are now parents themselves are experiencing a little bit of the conservatism that their parents felt fifty years ago. Certainly, I know this to be the case with my siblings, my associates, and, without question, myself. If this is indeed a larger cultural phenomenon, we shouldn't be at all surprised by this recent change in apparent moralities and voting habits.
Of course, if my premise is accurate, this would explain my sudden aversion to vulgar e-mail messages, as well as my recent fascination with ''Leave It to Beaver'' reruns.
About the Writer: Noel Sheppard is a business owner, economist, and writer residing in Northern California. Noel receives e-mail at slep@danvillebc.com
Being liberal -- is being anti-ethics, anti-principles, anti-law, anti-Constitution, anti-values, anti-everything, just about, based on the substance and content of the Kerry campaign. Anti-everything and ZERO SUBSTANCE.
So 4-letter words, just another form of anti-class, anti-correctness, anti-establishment order of the day from the scumbags that are the far-left of today.
It was Pat Leahy not Chris Dodd.
They are just so reflexive and urgent in their rage, they forget how to talk. Or think.
Also, movie and media people are incredibly foul mouthed. I worked in that business for many years, and say that with some authority. The libs are so enthralled by the idiot celebs (it is a mutual bitch-out machine) they ape them.
I believe both Clintons were classic examples in this regard. Both of them lack in self-control. And, despite their educational level, they fall back upon intemperate language when under pressure, angered, or exposed in deceit.
Nice to know democrats find screaming profanities "refreshing." I hope Hillary and Devine continue to "share" their taste in communication with the American people.
From what I've seen, it's a pride they take in being a rebel.
As in, 'You can't make me conform to your norms".
Why? Because they have no morals other than what they feel like having at the moment.
Huh? 63% of the electorate is married, and 72% of the electorate is married without children? Maybe that should have read 27% not 72%?
If Cheney had cussed out Sen. Dodd, it would have been a faux pas. Since the target was Leahy, he was only giving voice to what many have wished they had the nerve to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.