The principle of “gratuitous-yet-just insultitude”

▼ Years ago, in the print version of Dissent, I called a certain administrator a “liar.”

.I was immediately accused of “name calling.”

.But wait! What if there are lots of demonstrable facts indicating that the guy is a liar—I mean, a persistent or extreme one—and I call him a “liar”? Is that name-calling?

.Sure, technically. But calling a plumber a plumber is name-calling too, in that sense. When we accuse somebody of name-calling, we mean, not just that they've applied a "name" to something, but that, in this case, they’ve done something that they should not do.

.Why shouldn’t I call this liar a “liar,” especially since I've cited the overwhelming evidence that, in fact, he lies often and boldly—and to people to whom he has an obligation to be honest?

.When reporters describe Saddam’s former situation in terms of “tyranny,” are they engaging in name-calling? If I describe O.J. Simpson as “unsavory” or George Bush as “inarticulate,” am I guilty of something?

.Imagine someone who refuses to call an apartment fire that kills a dozen children a “disaster” or a “tragedy.” Anyone who doesn’t think that that event was a tragedy—that, really, the fire is more properly described as an "event" or "occurrence"—doesn’t understand the event. Sometimes, by refusing to suggest a judgment or a moral response in our account of a person or thing or event, we distort the truth. We make it harder, not easier, for people to understand what needs to be understood.

▼ CONGRESSMAN FLIMFLAM. In this morning’s LA Times, there's more bad press for Dissent the Blog’s Congressman, Republican Gary Miller. The Times article describes Miller’s latest apparent flimflammery. Check it out. Or not.

.It bugs me no end that this guy represents me (and the Reb, and Red Emma, and even Limber Lou).

.I looked up Miller’s name in my Devil’s Thesaurus and I got: “total asshole.” I bet he gets reelected, though.

.Do you know any person—one that you are comfortable calling decent—who would examine the consistent conduct of Mr. Miller (see earlier blogs) and not agree that it is dishonest and repellent? Is there anyone who doesn’t think that people like Miller are scamming, sometimes individuals, sometimes the public?

.All right, then. FLAMFLAM. Among other things, this man engages in flimflammery most foul. Shout it out! Let there be moral clarity!

.We'll return to the word "asshole" in a second.

▼ GOVERNOR POTATO HEAD. Governor Arnold broke a leg skiing yesterday, but he didn’t even have the decency to break the damn thing here in California. He was in dang Idaho. Henceforth, I shall refer to the fellow as "Governor Potato Head."

.Now this is an instance of name-calling. Of a kind. Observe that it is made less offensive by the fact that Arnold’s head looks nothing like a spud. (I would never call a guy whose head looks like a potato a "potato head"; I might, however, call a vain scoundrel who is not very attractive "plug-ugly." There are rules!)

.Observe also that anyone who has paid attention to Mr. Schwarzennegger’s political career knows that he started it with a pledge specifically to eschew the “special interests,” and yet, from day 1, he has been up to his biceps in “special interest” money and connections. Observe, finally, that, though Arnold’s hypocrisy is manifest, journalists never call him a “hypocrite.” Occasionally, they come close. But they almost never just say what everyone (that minority who reads the paper and who attempts to retain pertinent facts) knows to be true. They seem to follow some kind of "Emperor's wardrobe" rule.

.In my view, it is in such cases as this that one may invoke the special “name-calling” exception, namely, the principle of “gratuitous-yet-just insultitude”:

When the person is indecent and decent people are not being heard, just to even things out a bit, engage in name-calling, but take care that the meaning of the “name” clearly does not apply to the person described.

.It is in this sense, then, that one may justly and happily call George W. Bush a “stupid asshole.” Nobody really thinks that he’s stupid. They think, rather, that he's surprisingly ill-informed, brutish, insensitive, and inarticulate.

.And yet, in calling the man a “stupid asshole,” we make the world a better place. We see good people smiling. We are ever-so-slightly more justified in viewing our world as just and good.