How Bad of a Name Is Too Bad, Bitch?
So Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called U.S. President Bush "the devil." Some people seem to think this is a deserved epithet. I have no special love for Dubya, so don't think I'm one of those College Republican chickenhawk bloggers when I say that "the devil" might be a bit harsh.
Why? Well, if Bush has been wrong for using terms like "axis of evil" -- not to mention his other "with-us-or-against-us" rhetoric -- then Chavez must also be wrong for using the term "the devil", even to describe Bush.
A little detail. I'm sure you know that Bush himself received a lot of criticism when he used the phrase "axis of evil" to describe Iraq, North Korea, and Iran (Iran being a current ally of Chavez). I am not smart enough to decide whether "axis of evil" was a, shall we say, skillful epithet for Bush to use. However, my vague impression of Bush's rhetorical device is this:
On one hand, you want to be careful using a word like "evil", for reasons that should be obvious to those of us in the blogosphere who are leftist hippie weinies instead of rightist chickenhawk weinies. On the other hand, if you do end up deciding that you have no choice but to kill a person because that person is too stupid to realize he doesn't have to kill you -- such as, perhaps, bin Laden (not in the Axis) -- then you might as well call that person evil. The point is you generally avoid using such language when you're not yet sure whether you'll be forced to kill the person being described. [for those of you understandably upset that I might ever consider it necessary for Person A to kill Person B, please feel free to read my post on violence: http://jlhart7.blogspot.com/2006/09/gandhis-gonna-kick-my-ass-for-this.html ]
The same point, I believe, applies to putting the letter "D" in front of the word "evil".
The truth is, as a politician I don't think much of Bush either way. I guess I've gotten so sick of both the people who idolize him (or who did) as some kind of messenger of God as well as the people who, well, think he's the devil. So sick, in fact, that the only way I can think to avoid sounding like a brainwashed regurgitator of either major party's talking points is to steadfastly refuse to have much of an opinion on the beady-eyed chimp at all (physical observations not counted). Oh, and I know I've badmouthed Chavez before in this blog (http://jlhart7.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-hugo-chavez-sucks.html). But that's not the point I want to make here.
I'm taking the risk of assuming I'm probably just objective enough to say this would be the case even if I didn't have it in for Chavez. Well, at any rate, calling Bush a naughty name isn't the worst I believe Hugo has done or is capable of, and it certainly isn't why I distrust him.
Lastly, I realize (retroactively) that I've been using all sorts of non-flattering names, such as "chickenhawk", "hippie", "peacenik", "weinie", "brainwashed regurgitator." Before you think I'm a hypocrite (of course I am, but not for that), please let me explain that I never said all bad names were bad -- hell, I really don't think any of them are without use. I just figure that (a) politics often means dealing more diplomatically with people than does blogging, and (b) some names are just not smart to use in an international-incident-type setting. At the risk of sounding self-contradictory (of course I am, but not for that -- hee hee), I'd say the case could be made that using "evil" and "devil" to label political enemies isn't even necessarily wrong, just boneheaded. Or maybe it is wrong, but not as bad as, like, genocide or whatever. Got that, motherfucker?
----------------
----------------
Back to contents:
http://jlhart7.blogspot.com/2006/07/contents.html
A little detail. I'm sure you know that Bush himself received a lot of criticism when he used the phrase "axis of evil" to describe Iraq, North Korea, and Iran (Iran being a current ally of Chavez). I am not smart enough to decide whether "axis of evil" was a, shall we say, skillful epithet for Bush to use. However, my vague impression of Bush's rhetorical device is this:
On one hand, you want to be careful using a word like "evil", for reasons that should be obvious to those of us in the blogosphere who are leftist hippie weinies instead of rightist chickenhawk weinies. On the other hand, if you do end up deciding that you have no choice but to kill a person because that person is too stupid to realize he doesn't have to kill you -- such as, perhaps, bin Laden (not in the Axis) -- then you might as well call that person evil. The point is you generally avoid using such language when you're not yet sure whether you'll be forced to kill the person being described. [for those of you understandably upset that I might ever consider it necessary for Person A to kill Person B, please feel free to read my post on violence: http://jlhart7.blogspot.com/2006/09/gandhis-gonna-kick-my-ass-for-this.html ]
The same point, I believe, applies to putting the letter "D" in front of the word "evil".
The truth is, as a politician I don't think much of Bush either way. I guess I've gotten so sick of both the people who idolize him (or who did) as some kind of messenger of God as well as the people who, well, think he's the devil. So sick, in fact, that the only way I can think to avoid sounding like a brainwashed regurgitator of either major party's talking points is to steadfastly refuse to have much of an opinion on the beady-eyed chimp at all (physical observations not counted). Oh, and I know I've badmouthed Chavez before in this blog (http://jlhart7.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-hugo-chavez-sucks.html). But that's not the point I want to make here.
I'm taking the risk of assuming I'm probably just objective enough to say this would be the case even if I didn't have it in for Chavez. Well, at any rate, calling Bush a naughty name isn't the worst I believe Hugo has done or is capable of, and it certainly isn't why I distrust him.
Lastly, I realize (retroactively) that I've been using all sorts of non-flattering names, such as "chickenhawk", "hippie", "peacenik", "weinie", "brainwashed regurgitator." Before you think I'm a hypocrite (of course I am, but not for that), please let me explain that I never said all bad names were bad -- hell, I really don't think any of them are without use. I just figure that (a) politics often means dealing more diplomatically with people than does blogging, and (b) some names are just not smart to use in an international-incident-type setting. At the risk of sounding self-contradictory (of course I am, but not for that -- hee hee), I'd say the case could be made that using "evil" and "devil" to label political enemies isn't even necessarily wrong, just boneheaded. Or maybe it is wrong, but not as bad as, like, genocide or whatever. Got that, motherfucker?
----------------
----------------
Back to contents:
http://jlhart7.blogspot.com/2006/07/contents.html
posted by jlhart7 at 5:47 PM
2 Comments:
Calling people names like "evil" is simply a behaviour which means that we feel threatened by them.
I agree with you that Bush Junior's use of the word evil is unskillful, perhaps spectacularly so. He has misjudged the intelligence of his allies and the power of his enemies.
i don`t think that bush has misjudged anyone or anything at all. he just doesn`t give a shit. my hope is that whoever takes the riegns from his hands on `08 isn`t as stupid as some think he is..........or there will really be some real, actual trouble really happening really here in actual america.......
Post a Comment
<< Home