Slap in the Face!: Why Insults Are So Prevalent in Politics

In a new book, a philosophy professor recounts the human history that led up to "It's the economy, stupid!"

  • Share
  • Read Later
Time & Life Pictures

Attorney G. William Horsley (L) as Abraham Lincoln in re-enactment of Lincoln-Douglas debates with S. Phil Hutchinson (R) impersonating Stephen A. Douglas on Aug, 1, 1958.

It takes all of eight pages for politicians to make in appearance in William B. Irvine’s new book about insults, wherein he recounts Abraham Lincoln saying that an argument made by Stephen A. Douglas “is as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had been starved to death.” In an interview about Slap in the Face, out this month, TIME asked the Wright State University philosophy professor about the role invectives have played in politics:

You name politicians as one of the most prolific sources of insults. Why is that so?

It’s because people don’t like to think about politics. People want easy answers to complicated questions, and people want it to be a struggle between forces of good and forces of evil. You’re talking to an old man who has seen many elections, and I am now appalled by the low level to which political discussion has fallen in the country.

What is the secret to an effective political insult? 

[H.L.] Mencken said one horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. That’s true. And if you can get a crowd to laugh at someone, that’s more important than any kind of carefully thought out speech that you could give. Because people want to have that visceral reaction that doesn’t require any thought.

You also name writers as a prolific source of insults. How are writers and politicians different when it comes to invectives?

Writers have fragile egos and as a result, [insults are] personal. Whereas politicians had better not have fragile egos. If they did, they wouldn’t make it. For them, it isn’t that someone else has said something that hurts their feelings. It’s typically that these are just the weapons in the war to win approval.

What are the common themes in political insults?

A lot of them I list in the book are just clever ways to say that the opponent is stupid. And again, that taps right into how people don’t want to think. If they can believe that the person making the contrary political argument is simply stupid, then they don’t have to believe that argument. They’re absolved of having to think any more about the argument. It’s a pity. Because in all of these political discussions, there are smart people on both sides, and it is possible to think about politics. People seem not to realize that. But politics matters, it makes a difference.

For the rest of the interview with Irvine about his book on insults, including why he thinks humans would be better off without them, click here.

12 comments
PaulDirks
PaulDirks

There are two separate forces at work in politics, policy preferences and tribal identity. Admit it or not, for most people tribal identity comes first. On the right we can see it by how quickly Immigration reform becomes an 'acceptable' Right Wing notion and if you doubt that the same thing takes place on the left, witness the Free Pass that Obama gets from most supporters when it comes to the drone program or whistleblower prosecutions.



jmac
jmac

"People want easy answers to complicated questions . . "

If that's true why did Time have a huge selling magazine with his 36-page report on health care this month?   

deconstructiva
deconstructiva

Go to Katy's full post at Newsfeed (her link at end of post) and you'll find a couple of famous insults from history, including Churchill. Now THAT'S high art. Good food for thought from her, as always. Feel free to leave comments, she needs the site traffic (though trolls who flood threads or post personal ID about other commenters without permission are NOT welcome).

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

"If they can believe that the person making the contrary political argument is simply stupid, then they don’t have to believe that argument. They’re absolved of having to think any more about the argument. It’s a pity."

This is backward thinking. Insults aside, the question is (or should be) whether or not the political argument is stupid and, perhaps, what that says about the person making the argument. Since the age of St. Reagan, the political arguments from the right, "government is the problem," "life begins at conception," American Exceptionalism, Trickle-down Economics, etc., have become ever-more stupid (and immoral to boot). These arguments and the people who make them should be dismissed out of hand.

As you put it, it makes a difference when stupid political arguments are elevated to the status of something people should think about. It debases the entire political (and policy) discussion and makes the public more confused. There was a time, not long ago, when the "cranks" (as Charles Pierce calls them) were called-out for what they were. That was no pity, it was a service to intelligent and useful debate. 

Your industry's decision to abandon empirical truth and give all political arguments, no matter how stupid, equal weight has been an absolute disaster for the country and the world. No insult necessary.

MrBenGhazi
MrBenGhazi

It takes all of eight pages for politicians to make in (sic) appearance...

Editors?

reallife
reallife

@jmac"Time" and "huge selling magazine" in the same sentence?  hmmm i dont think so

sacredh
sacredh

I should have been a politician.

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

@shepherdwong ...Actually, I didn't even mention how rational, time-tested liberal political argument has been embargoed from public debate but thanks for reminding me. Good point.

outsider
outsider

@shepherdwong

you know he didn't even realize you insulted him there, right?