Is McCain like Imus? If not, what's the difference?

We all know from my post two posts ago that I respect John McCain.

However I can't help but being reminded of the whole Imus thing when I read about McCain's recent comments that have been in the news lately.

Speaking to veterans in South Carolina, McCain was asked "whether he believes the U.S. should send Iran "'an airmail message to Tehran.'"

McCain responded:

"That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, 'Bomb Iran,'" McCain joked and then added: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb ... anyway, ah ..." The audience responded with laughter.

Okay, I realize this is a joke, or if not, it was at least intended as a joke. But Imus and Kramer both intended to make jokes before they made the comments that offended the nation. Plus, those guys are comedians. This guy wants to be President. The leader of all Americans. The leader of the free world, so the saying goes. Seems like at the time he was only interested in being the leader of some South Carolina veterans. Here was McCain's response to people who questioned whether his comments were inappropriate:

"Please, I was talking to some of my old veterans friends," he told reporters. "My response is, Lighten up and get a life."

Talking to some of your old veterans friends? Please yourself. You don't have to be the presidential candidate to know that everything they say to an audience (and some things you say in private) can and will be repeated to the whole country. What does it matter who he was talking to? Would he say the same thing to a bunch of Americans in the northeastern US? To a bunch of Americans of middle-eastern descent? They can vote too, of course, but maybe he's not interested in their votes.

Then comes the icing on the offensive cake:

When reporters asked if the joke was insensitive, McCain said: "Insensitive to what? The Iranians?"

Now this is probably taken out of context, but I am quoting from the Washington Post, so blame them if you want, or blame the Drudge Report and then have Matt Drudge blame the Post. Regardless of the context, the words imply that there is no reason to care about Iranians. They're not people like Americans are people. So we know from Imus that it's wrong to insult African Americans in a joke broadcast throughout the nation, but it's okay to insult/joke about killing Iranians? This "America and Americans are the only thing that matters" -- and not just in terms of our policies, but in terms of who deserves our respect when we talk about them -- attitude is nothing new, as it has characterized Bush's entire presidency. But now we are seeing it from someone else, who I originally thought was much better than Bush, and now I am taking a lot less comfort in the fact that Bush's term is coming to a close.

Regardless of our policy views, when are we going to learn to respect each other?

I’d Like To Have Another Word With You,

to amplify the capetowndissentator's point. Him being a literary fellow, I’m sure the capetowndissentator would agree that the language we use to describe the world is crucially important. The edict from AP English teachers the world over still stands: Diction Matters. So, for example, when the feminists claim that misogynistic language perpetuates an inequitable social hierarchy (a deeply Foucauldian point), I think they are absolutely correct. Power can be exerted in very subtle ways, and most definitely through language, so we should be very careful to understand the effect our words have.

But there is another side to the issue. Speech and language are (possibly) the deepest and most fundamental forms of self-expression that we have, and to limit self-expression for the sake of linguistic management is problematic. Speech can help us blow off steam. Speech can help us work through issues. Speech can be therapeutic; and honest speech can bring potentially dangerous ideas out into the light of day where they can be dealt with appropriately. Excessive policing of language can block these invaluable properties of speech and wound public interest in the long-run.


I do not know how to mediate these two points. On one hand, you want to recognize that language has real effects and you want to legislate (used loosely- I do not mean write actual laws in all cases) to protect those whom discursive formats may hurt. On the other hand, you do not want to infringe on individuals’ rights, most importantly because it may be in everyone’s long-run interest for people to air their grievances in the public forum. Negotiating this trade-off is at the heart of democracy, and not just as it applies to issues of free speech, but as it applies in almost all facets of our society. This is nothing John Rawls didn’t know half a century ago, or Plato and Aristotle too, going back a little further. I suppose in practice, this stuff gets sorted out in legal disputes; but I offer that law does not operate in a vacuum and our philosophic thinking on these matters may very well inform our particular legal opinions.

My point here is just that political correctness, like most campaigns, has good points in favor of it, but there are good points on the other side as well. And finding the middle ground between the two sides of the debate is not just of pragmatic concern, it is the struggle that characterizes a democratic society.