Letters: Scolding Democrats over f-bombs ignores how moderation has failed

Chicago Tribune

02-05-2025

As a lifelong Chicagoan and Democrat, I was frustrated and disappointed by the editorial on political civility ('Dems are doubling down on vulgar language. To what end?' April 29). I believe the Tribune Editorial Board is taking entirely the wrong lesson from the results of the 2024 election. The polling is clear: Americans want Democrats to fight back more, not less. Examine Kamala Harris' polling numbers, and you will see a clear decline in support as her campaign pivoted from its wildly successful and energizing 'MAGA Republicans are weird and creepy' messaging in a failed attempt to court moderate swing voters. To deny the efficacy of that messaging is to deny the very real and righteous anger, fear and frustration felt by a vast majority of Americans, emotions that Donald Trump has masterfully tapped again and again to achieve his political victories.
The Democratic Party has spent the last decade chasing the dragon of moderation, with precious little to show for it. When will we finally wake up and accept this new political reality?
Our own governor JB Pritzker has. He's not afraid to call a spade a spade. He validates our frustrations, our anger and our fear. He fights for us with the occasional 'coarse word,' and he is more popular than ever. So do U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders as they barnstorm to record crowds all across the country. I am overjoyed that other Democrats like Kat Abughazaleh are joining them.
I agree that Democrats who fail to learn the lesson of 2024 will lose in 2026 and 2028, but I do not believe that lesson is 'more of the same.' To paraphrase Bruno Gianelli on 'The West Wing,' we are tired of candidates who would rather curl up into a fetal position and scream, 'Please don't hurt me!' than to stand up and fight back.
We are tired of a president who mocks our empathy and destroys our sacred institutions while unleashing intentional economic chaos on the world. But more than that, we are angry at Democrats who refuse to rise to the occasion and fight back.
The Trump administration gleefully flouts Supreme Court orders, deports American citizens and cheers as our economy nose-dives toward calamity. Handwringing about civility is not going to stop their vulgarity.
We need strong actions and stronger words, and yes, that includes the occasional f-bomb.
— Kara Rosser, Chicago
Weak epithets useless
I'm a senior citizen and try to keep up with current events. After reading the editorial 'Dems are doubling down on vulgar language,' I have to question why the Tribune Editorial Board thinks it ironic that 'people railing against (Trump) … are deploying the same strategy.' Vulgarity, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. The f-word was once frowned upon because, when used as a verb, it implied an act of sexual immorality. But every example the editorial cites used it as an adjective.
If U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth called Pete Hegseth a 'liar,' the impact would have been lost. If Kat Abughazaleh had asked her party to 'grow a spine,' no one would have paid attention. An entire generation has heard far more explicit language from rap musicians and reveres people such as Taylor Swift and Olivia Rodrigo, including my 10-year-old granddaughter.
From the Fugs, the first rock band to record the troublesome f-bomb in the 1960s, to George Carlin's mantra on 'seven dirty words you can never say on television,' there has been an enlightenment that language in all its forms can elicit a reaction. Following Newton's third law that for every action there is an equal reaction, why would anyone be surprised or shocked that the Democrats might take advantage of such language?
If Donald Trump can resort to the juvenile schoolyard behavior of calling his opponents 'Sleepy Joe,' 'Crooked Hillary,' 'Ron DeSanctimonious,' 'Little Marco' and far worse, it might be assumed that playing nice isn't a formula for winning votes in today's world. I find Trump's name-calling more vulgar than honest expressions of disgust.
The younger generation's tolerance for colorful language is different than that of Michelle Obama who argued, 'When they go low, we go high.' Weak epithets are of little use when fighting back against bullies.
Who knows? It might even work in favor of the Democrats. That's the real irony.
— Mel Theobald, Chicago
Crack open a thesaurus
Bravo for the editorial bashing Democratic candidates who liberally employ profanity in comments regarding the state of the union or the state of the Democratic Party today.
Do they really believe that dropping f-bombs will enhance their perspectives? Are they not aware that some voters today, me included, find this practice to be disgusting and puerile?
Please let me offer this suggestion to the elected officials and candidates who plan to incorporate profanity in future communications: Visit a thesaurus. There are plenty of other, more impactful adjectives to employ.
— Edward M. Bury, Chicago
The byproduct of one
As has happened on many, many occasions — e.g., the Tribune Editorial Board's repeated railing against Illinois Democrats for not unilaterally trying to change the (unfortunate) political reality of gerrymandering, which is most often used by the GOP — the editorial against vile language by Illinois Democrats utterly misses the point. This debasement of our national discourse is the byproduct of one man, and he is not a Democrat.
From the beginning, Donald Trump has made it part of his brand to insult, belittle and rant against his perceived enemies, and he has not been averse to using vulgarities to do so.
He called Kamala Harris 'a s–t vice president.' His vulgar story about the size of Arnold Palmer's penis went viral. The New York Times counted up some of his incidents of public swearing, finding numerous vulgarities in his third campaign alone, as well as all sorts of clear sexual innuendo regarding Democrats, especially Harris.
If the editorial board wants to blame anyone for lowering the quality of political speech in America, look no further than the Oval Office. To zero in on Illinois Democrats in this environment is unfair and disingenuous.
— Karen Topham, Chicago
Finger-wagging, really?
Seriously? The Tribune Editorial Board devotes an entire editorial to attacking Democrats for using vulgar language? Decrying Democrats confusing 'shock value with leadership'? We have no time for this mincing finger-wagging. Not when we have a felon in the White House. Not when the president pardons the Jan. 6 criminals whom he incited to insurrection at our nation's Capitol. Not when he is gutting the institutions of our country, cutting ties with our allies and greasing corruption at top levels.
The board's appeal for clarity is exactly what is needed. Do that.
— Sandra Sarsha Petroshius, Lake Forest
Editorial board is meek
The Tribune Editorial Board must be joking. President Donald Trump's administration has, in no particular order, sought to intentionally destroy the American and world economies, flipped the bird at the U.S. Supreme Court, hurt countless innocent individuals through its purported 'cost-cutting' Department of Government Efficiency rampage, deported American citizens, treated powerless individuals and groups with unprecedented cruelty, and buddied up with the murderous Vladimir Putin regime, yet the board is concerned that a handful of Democratic politicians have dropped a few f-bombs?
F-bombs seem to me to be an entirely rational response to the Trump administration's actions. Of far more importance, however, is the editorial board's misplaced priorities. When will the board take a firm and unequivocal stance against the cruelties, the destruction and the lawlessness of Trump and his minions? The board embarrasses itself in its meekness.
Our country is in the most serious trouble it has been in since the Civil War. Stop with the scolding about uncouth language and grow a spine.