Richard Durbin may just have wanted to draw listeners' attention to behavior that seemed bizarre, even dreadful. He could have said "we Americans believe devoutly in human dignity so it stunned me to read a report suggesting that an American might have treated someone in an insulting way . . . so we need to find out what happened". Instead, he made ridiculous comparisons and then persisted in saying he didn't understand the furor his remarks raised. Eventually even people on his side of the political divide began to voice dismay - aloud - and he issued a (grudging) apology. The remarks
were offensive, that's all there is to it, because of their excess and lack of awareness. (See my previous comments
here and
here.) Well, maybe now we can find out what really happened and how bad (or, hopefully!, not) it was.
Here's the point. If you actually want people to
listen to you, not just to mouth off, then no matter how deeply impassioned you feel about what you're saying, you ought not be inflammatory, wrong or stupid. It seems obvious, doesn't it? And if you need to yell and scream, it would be best to do so where no one hears you. If you're a member of the government, what you say in public is going to be heard and taken seriously - so you have to be even more careful not to be - what was that? - oh yes, not to be inflammatory, wrong or stupid. Duh.
We can defend and protect ourselves
and behave well and think clearly. Can't we?
Labels: politics, writing
< home >