Confronting ‘Obscene’ Political Campaign Language

Stuart Varney

A television host is tired of unprofessional, demeaning communication in political conversations and was direct and pointed in speaking up about it.

Fox Business host Stuart Varney told Karoline Leavitt, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign press secretary, that Trump calling California Gov. Gavin Newsom, “New-scum,” was out of line.

“I object to that kind of language. How about you?” Varney challenged Leavitt. “Are you saying it’s OK to bring that kind of language to a presidential campaign?” Varney added. “New-scum? That’s OK?”

He wasn’t done.

“You think you’re going to win over (Nikki) Haley voters with language like that, do you?” Varney rhetorically asked. “Do you win over moderates and women with language like that? Really?”

Leavitt attempted to explain, saying the language is reasonable, because “tough rhetoric,” was required.

Varney wasn’t buying that explanation.

“Actually, it is not tough rhetoric,” Varney retorted. “It is obscene.”

Louis Perron

Varney could have decided to let viewers determine how they felt about Leavitt’s communication and moved on to his next question yet he decided to voice his discontent about what he sees as unethical political language.

“Stuart Varney was absolutely right to ask that question, insist on getting an answer and then crystallizing the answer himself after Karoline Leavitt avoided answering the question,” says Louis Perron, Ph.D., a political consultant who has helped orchestrate winning election campaigns around the world and is also the author of the new book “Beat the Incumbent: Proven Strategies and Tactics to Win Elections.”

He sees it as a concerted, strategic response.

“I see it as part of a trend for FOX News and FOX Business to push back, which has started since the Dominion lawsuit,” Perron says.

There is a reason such unethical communication is used.

“A word such as ‘scum’ is classic rhetoric that totalitarian leaders use and have used to demonize the opposition,” Perron says. “An election campaign is all about showing contrast and differences but we have to make sure we don’t lose basic civility in our discourse. Words matter.

“It just has become so common and widely accepted to bash and trash our political leaders and, frankly, social media has not made things better in that respect.

“All the while, we forget that we actually elect our leaders and they most often are quite typical representatives of their cities, states and countries.”

William S. Bike

“Varney is more of what is needed if we want politics and government to better our lives, but not if we want it to be entertainment,” says William S. Bike, a political historian and the author of, “Winning Political Campaigns.”

He’s not a proponent of any candidate who uses the most startling language and earning praise, votes, advantage and office or re-election.

“When political communication is mere name calling, as it so often is, nobody is informed about issues and ideas. If we’re voting for candidates based on who comes out with the cleverest or funniest insult, that’s a sad and dangerous way to pick leaders,” Bike laments.

If that’s the case, he says, finding the qualified candidate is simple.

“We might as well just go to a stand-up comedy club and pick the comedian we like best for elective office,” Bike sarcastically adds.

Language can be used in a much more effective, honorable manner.

“Everyone says our politics is broken and this is one of the reasons why,” Bike points out. “When politicians referred to their opponents as ‘my esteemed colleague’ or ‘my friend on the other side of the aisle,’ it signaled that the debate should be about ideas and not devolve into a middle school insult match.”

The results were more ideal and helpful to the public and government.

“Voters and even opponents learned something, and the two sides actually worked together to get things done,” Bike says.

History would have been far different if our status quo would have been happening decades ago.

“We never would have had the prosperity of the 1950s or the social programs of the 1960s if politicians had been insulting each other as they do now instead of working together,” Bike suggests.

Politics, online message boards and society could look much differently if name calling and insults were greatly reduced or eliminated.

“They would look like forums for reasonable debate and analysis, where people could learn about candidates’ ideas and positions and make their voting decisions based on those, instead of on who can insult people readers already tend not to like,” Bike says. “They would be fair and balanced in reality; it just wouldn’t be a Fox News slogan.”

He talks about where specifically he sees the problems being greatest.

“There are no old hands anymore either among politicians or their advisors and teams who remember when politics was played by gentlemen and ladies who might disagree during the day and then have a drink or a game of cards with people from the other side during the evening,” Bike says. “Now, whether it’s the politicians or their staffs, they look at politics as all-out war.”

He provides an example of years gone past.

“In the 1960s and 1970s, Democratic House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dan Rostenkowski and Republican Minority Leader Bob Michael used to ride in the same car together from Illinois to Washington DC, 14 hours together, in which they cordially worked out deals on legislation,” he recalls. “Now the two sides (political opponents) don’t even talk to each other.

“Could you imagine Donald Trump and Joe Biden riding in the same car for any reason?”

Reasonable steps for more ethical, morally responsible speech could be taken that would more likely inspire buy-in from political figures and their parties.

“The public has to pick reasonableness over hate speech,” Bike contends. “If the ratings went down for hate talk radio and hate TV — and went up for TV or radio shows with reasoned debate and discussion, the media, political figures and parties all would buy into it.”

Of course, the converse is true.

“But so long as politics as war gets the ratings, nobody is going to buy in.”

Objectively speaking, there remain impediments or blocks to more responsible, respected political discourse.

“Ratings and interest,” Bike plainly says. “Americans generally showed little interest in politics during the days of reasoned debate and bipartisanship, paying attention only as election day approached.”

That reality lead to unsavory change that has become the go-to behavior.

“Now, almost everyone and everything is politicized 24/7/365, including fighting over saying ‘Merry Christmas’ versus ‘Happy Holidays,’” Bike says. “Both media and politicians want people to pay attention to them all the time, so neither wants to go back to the old days.”

So that, he adds, is a clear and “huge impediment to more responsible, respected political discourse.”