in 2004, can a politician say...

(note to mods: if this must be locked, deleted, then it must. but it IS meant to be a serious discussion on the limits of language in political discourse. my record on DU speaks for itself (I hope) as I have never been warned, deleted, etc. OK, let me see if I can do this in an appropriate way.)

bullshit?

it's a word that, from my experience, is widely used and more blunt than vulgar.

it is not an ethnic slur.
it is not a sexist slur.

it is a blunt, accurate word in many instances.

is it, in 2004, impossible to use?

background:

I am considering entering the "Kerry Speechwriter Tournament" discussed in an earlier thread. (hey, it keeps me from hustling oxy in the Duane Reade parking lot)

as I worked on my entry, I wrote a phrase and then noted in the margin: Too strong?

and that got me thinking... what is 'too strong' given the stakes in derailing the neocon/corporatist juggernaut?

it is NOT an opinion to say: this administration LIES.

and, if one is to speak frankly, then...

we've had enough of their bullshit

is exactly the right phrase.

from my notes:

The President will tell you that the economy is a field of clover.

I may be from Boston but I know what bullshit smells like.

The upper 10 and certainly the upper 1 percent of America may be smelling clover.

But the rest of America is working longer and harder for less money and with less benefits--if they are working at all.

This President's economic policy is bullshit.

comments?

No, a politician can't say that word.
Why?
Even though widely used, it is not part of the specialized language the dominant class uses in politics.

Dean's yell in Iowa was outside of that specialized language also as a recent example.

i will not limit myself to the 'language of the dominant class'

i will speak the language of the people.

???

I accept that I may be WAY wrong. but I would just love to see a politician talk the talk without apology.

:shrug:

I'm just talking about the kind of flak I think it's likely to create.

My personal opinion is that there's nothing wrong with it all, but my "professional" opinion is that it's not a good idea.

was at alll inappropriate or un-presidential like. So a guy gets a sense of humor and is passionate about his cause and he's not presidential anymore.



That's some real bullshit for ya!

But obviously someone didn't. look what happened.
they thought it was inappropriate.
I didn't, but I'm not in charge

do could be deemed inappropriately but I also feel that they're entitled to say and act how they feel. Who are these "people" who deem this wrong. In this case (Dean speech) I really think the media had a lot to do with giving Dean a bad image. I know this is old news so I won't say too much more about it but if Kerry used the F-word in that Rolling Stone article which someone posted below, I did not read the article, then why isn't that being all blown out of proportion. I don't have a problem with anyone using the F-word but it's amazing how the public and the meida have selective habits in regards to what is right or wrong.

Kerry is the one who 'dropped the F-bomb' in the Rolling Stone interview. It depends on whether he thinks that drew too much flak, I guess. There was a big hue and cry, but it was the beginning of the beginning of his second campaign, really. Obviously, plain speech didn't hurt him then. Just something to consider, I guess -- would he do it again if it seemed like the right time, or does he consider himself 'once burned, twice shy' after the whole fluff over the RS interview?

I think it is a very appropriate and powerful word in the context in which you have used it.

As a writer, I would recommend that you don't overuse it though. A few well-placed expletives in any narrative are more effective than repetition (which can be an effective device at times).

Good luck! I like the sound of it so far.

and (as a writer) I do understand overuse--and the power of repetition.

using it at all has a significant WEIGHT that would (I think) STUN the bushies much more than the 'crooked liars' line.

What??? They're actually calling us on our BULLSHIT??? Who told them they could do THAT??????

I would avoid using the word. The word itself would wind up being the message and would overshadow all of the other meaningful points. The risk/reward ratio isn't in our favor on that one.

bush policy as the bullshit that it is?

I am NOT suggesting that it be used outside of the context of a detailed and factual analysis and presentation of those bullshit policies.

I am not suggesting it be used merely for it's shock value.

I suggesting that it is the RIGHT word.

respect your feedback! but, not 100% convinced yet. (and, the piece(s) I'm working on are not dependant on using it anyway.

I just wanted some other perspectives....

and, of course, part it tied to the 'decency' bullshit that the repukes are pushing

You inject the word "bullshit", everyone focuses on the word itself, not the message of the speech. You've said something so shocking that no one remembers the purpose of the speech, no one remembers what came before or after that word, only that word. It's too risky to waste an entire speech. It could possibly be effective, sure, but the potential effectiveness is not as great as the potential backlash. And the "Dean Scream" is relevant here, because the scream itself wasn't bad - the media overblew it completely. And now, especially with the ultra-backlash against indecency thanks to Ms. Janet Jackson, the backlash is more likely than the success.

There are better ways to say "bullshit" without actually using the word, and finding that is what makes a speechwriter great.

certainly the media couldn't just play the WORD.

they would have to play the context of the word.

outraged repubs would say: how can you call * policy that?

opening up the opportunity to repeat the context at length (which, would be factual, not invective)

* would have to defend the context, not merely react to the WORD.

hey, I'm probably still wrong on this.... the WORD probably can't be sufficiently defused.

but... it's an interesting discussion. as I said before, it's a tiny element of what I'm working on. one WORD in fact. not the core message.

They sure as hell can just play "the word", and they probably would. How much of the Dean Scream do you hear on TV?? Not a lot!

are highly offended by words like "bullshit." They grew up in a different era when only the crudest people of the crude used words like that.

I personally know seniors who have stopped going to movies unless someone else can assure them that there are no four-letter words in them. A couple of years ago, an older couple of my acquaintance, avid theater goers, told me about an Alan Ayckbourn comedy that was playing in Portland. "Best of all," they said, "it has no bad language in it."

By the way, these feelings cut across political lines. The theater goers were stalwarts of the Democratic party in the small Oregon town where I lived, and one of the couples who avoided movies were active in progressive and charitable causes.

I have to admit that I feel somewhat the same as the older people, since I grew up with parents who were that way. When I worked with street kids, I got used to really hairy language, but after a while it seemed pathetic, as if they were saying "fuck" and "shit" all the time because they really didn't have much of a vocabulary.

Flipping through the channels the other night, I happened upon a movie--I don't even know which one it was--in which two young guys were talking about a girl that one of them had a crush on. The other guy was saying, "That's fuckin' bullshit, man. Why don't you fuckin' admit that you want to fuck the fuckin' bitch." That's not "free and liberated" speech--that's lazy, braindead script writing.

Besides, if a person (such as Kerry) with a reputation for being dignified were to purposely use that kind of expletive in a speech, it would a) sound contrived and b) offend more older people than it would win over young people. What's wrong with something specific, like "brazen lies" instead of the vague, overused "bullshit"?

Now as a spontaneous expletive from someone who rarely swears in public it might be effective.

and the time you spent writing them...

and I do agree that *some* elders would be offended. it is certainly part of the equation.

but, others would appreciate the honesty too.

"brazen lies" instead of the vague, overused "bullshit"?

imho, "brazen lies" is vague rhetoric to most. while "bullshit" is frank and honest....

and, I would never, ever suggest that 'fuck' is appropriate in a political context. wish carry hadn't used it, glad that the insipid chimp and KKKarl are on record using it. they cancel each other.

My father constantly railed against the use of the word "fuck".
He thought it was lazy.
I rarely heard him curse.
& yet he voted for Henry Wallace & one of his best friends was a major activist in the I.W.W.

This stuff cuts across party lines.

When someone objected to Truman's frequent use of the word, "manure," Bess Truman replied, "it took us a long time to get him to say 'manure.'" :)

Private political language has always been coarser than public speech.

The important consideration is that while the sentiment expressed coarsely may be honest and direct, one runs the risk of alienating people who might otherwise be in agreement with that sentiment.

It also lays someone open to the charge that they have not thought sufficiently about a particular issue to formulate a cogent response. Simply saying something is bullshit goes no distance to explaining why.

please see my post #11

the CONTEXT would be crucial, of course.

maybe I could write it like this:

I may from Boston but I know what--and I wish I could use the word that Truman preferred--I know what manure smells like

;-)

would be better...

like I said... it was 'notes' (and that's not BS!)

When I was a junior in High School (in prehistoric 1958 and many teachers were essentially forcing students to recite Xian prayers),
I arrived at my English class one day to see the words "piss" and "shit" writ large on the black (green) board. Amid much tittering, roundabout glances from everyone speculating on whom the "guilty party" might be, Mr. Guinn, our teacher entered. He glanced at the board and spoke thus:

"You are probably wondering who wrote those words. I did."

This revelation, shocking as it initially appeared (but not so much as we quickly revisited our short history with this marvelous gentleman), soon gave way to a frank and rational instruction and discussion on how those two particular words had morphed (morphed wasn't a word we would've known back then) from "acceptable" to "profane" via the machinations of certain Puritanical PCers (there were no PCers, per se, back then either.)

One of my life's greatest regrets is that there were no battery-operated tape recorders in those days - I would dearly love to have a verbatim record of the discussion.

Of course it got mentioned that the toilet was invented by an English gentleman named John Crapper.

;-)

I'VE BEEN TOLD MY INCOME IS IN THE TOP 5%. THERES NOT THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND AVERAGE INCOME. THE BIG DIFFERENCE COMES AT THE TOP 2%. .I'M JUST A UNION CONSTRUCTION WORKER. I ONLY GOT $300. IN MY REBATE.

All caps is considered shouting and rude.

Did you make more than $150,002 in 2002 (I don't have 2003 figures)? If not, you were not in the top 5%.