Reading an article on the front page of the New York Times, I was struck once again by the language we use to describe criminals, terrorists and the enemies of society. Clinton, certainly not a childish speaker, used the term "bad guys" - a term I last used when describing the sides in a capture the flag game I played when I was 8 - to describe the people responsible for 7200 deaths of Mexican citizens last year alone. When speaking about ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, Obama and military leaders will talk about the need to "kill bad guys." Bush and his military people did this also, though they used childish language to describe just about everything they spoke of. Why then is one of the most articulate presidents we've had in a few decades (paired with a Secretary of State that is no slouch herself) use appallingly inadequate euphemisms to describe utter scum?
I have two ideas below the fold:
1.) George Bush's ad nauseam usage of the word evil has turned the concept of truly immoral agents into something that is laughable and scorn worthy to most Americans.
You only need to think back in your mind to the state of the union addresses you weren't playing a drinking game to in order to remember how many times Bush casually invoked the word evil to describe everything he didn't like. Moral absolutes are a messy thing, and the word evil - filled as it is with evocations of the darkest acts humankind can sink to - shouldn't just be tossed about carelessly to describe the hated group of the day, but surely there is a middle ground between the word "evil" and the title "bad guys." Criminals seems like not much of a stretch, how about "thugs?" (Though I admit that can sound childish as well, overused) Words like "reprobates" seems to pretentious, but surely something like "murderers" or "cold hearted butchers" or "organized gangsters" would serve as acceptable synonyms for "bad guys" when discussing an organized criminal ring that makes the local drug gangs in major cities look like the bullies in middle school
I think because the last eight years involved every moral judgement being cast as either in keeping with America's highest values or utterly despicable and worthy of only dogs, we've lost our willingness to use the sort of broad, declarative language needed when dealing with truly horrific acts. Calling the drug cartels on the Mexican border "bad guys" then could just been seen as a way of giving the rhetoric of "evil" a break.
That's the solution I hope is true, I have another one I'm not as fond of:
2.) Politicians think Americans don't have the capacity to talk about the real horrors and evils in the world, and so give us nice, idiot proof categories of "good guys" and "bad guys."
This one wouldn't surprise me, but I hope it isn't true. It does make a certain amount of sense though, consider for a moment, how we talk about something like military strategy in Afghanistan. I can't recount how many times I've heard the phrase "killing bad guys" used to describe going after Taleban or other terrorist (they're not ALL former Taleban after all) groups and killing them. There's a lot of ways you can describe offensive military operations, why we need to stick with the idea of "killing bad guys" as our defacto way of discussing what is actually a bit more complex than a game of cops and robbers? The practice really makes me feel like my intelligence is being insulted. However, it could very well be that the PR people who write speeches about such issues really think that Americans aren't ready for anything more complex than "We need to kill bad guys and help train and reach out to the good guys."
We have a president who seems largely supportive of the idea of a bit more nuance and sophistication in our discussion of policy and political realities. It would be nice to see that attitude translate into discussing matters of life and death in more adult terms. Calling the Mexican drug cartels, or Taleban sympathizers in Afghanistan "bad guys" is like calling a man who beats his wife "a disagreeable fellow" yeah, it describes the person to a point, but it sorta undersells the special breed of evil (for lack of a thesaurus) you're dealing with in such situations.
I also could be just irritated over nothing, but in the aftermath of a press conference with a lot of childish and silly questions, its worth asking why it is some of the most dire and serious issues of the day are talked about in language I last made regular use of in grade school.