Perhaps I am becoming my own grandfather, a gentle architect born in the 19th century who prided himself on being a proper and decorous man. Recently, I wrote a column decrying the bitter partisanship that divides Washington, D.C., and which sadly is exemplified by the rancorous way that U.S. senators contend over presidential nominees for the position of U.S. Supreme Court justice. Now, I’m finding myself shaking my head again over the deterioration of language and thought, especially in many books that have been written in this current millennium.
Northern California correspondent Oliver Pollak in a companion article from Point Reyes Station, California, has described some of the selections recently featured at Point Reyes Books. Several of the books feature in their titles the cuss word that I once was taught was an abbreviation for the police definition of rape: Forceful, Unlawful, Carnal Knowledge. I’m not certain what the expanded meanings of that word are today; the word seems nothing more than an expletive for showing contempt. Yet, by its use in so many book titles, the word is becoming normalized. Soon, to hear this word pronounced in public orations will raise nary an eyebrow.
Recently, author Sarah Weinstein sent to me The Silver Thimble, a Los Angeles-based book published in 2005. I am always interested in reading the books of Jewish authors, especially if the subject matter pertains to our common Jewish peoplehood. Although some of the characters in this book are Jewish—including unfortunately a bar mitzvah boy who later commits suicide—the actual theme of the book, very simply, is repeated variations on sexual intercourse, often described in adolescent terms that one might hear during a middle school recess. I can’t imagine what the need for such a book was, or, frankly, why author Weinstein sent it to me. I found it utterly without social merit. To my way of thinking, it was porn without the pictures.
I find myself wondering what the lack of civility in our national politics, in our reading matter, and in a growing segment of movies and television shows say about our country. Does this mean that we are liberated, as some would suggest? Or, is it a sign that the people of our country are disillusioned by the gap between the high ideals expressed in our nation’s patriotic documents and the actual ways which our nation’s political and economic business are conducted? Is the deterioration of our language a symptom of our national despair?
Does anyone else out there wish that politicians who differ with each other over issues could nevertheless respect and even befriend each other the way that President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill reportedly did? O’Neill, a liberal Democrat, and Reagan, a conservative Republican, disagreed agreeably—that is, they pursued different policies without attempting to vilify each other. There are many stories of O’Neill and Reagan, after the day was done, sitting down together, perhaps sharing a beverage or two, and amiably swapping humorous tales remembered from their Irish-American childhoods. Can anyone imagine President Donald Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer doing this today? Or House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell having an amicable conversation?
Nastiness among politicians doesn’t occur in a vacuum. We invite more of the same when we vote for the candidate whose commercials smear the other candidate. Oh, how I wish there were no “attack ads” on television, or on postal flyers. In my “utopian” vision of the world, candidates would offer their ideas about issues, and then courteously debate with their opponents whether those ideas—or those of their opponents – would have a greater beneficial effect on our society. If only voters would insist upon civility in our political debates, what changes would be wrought?
Republished from San Diego Jewish World