Back in the day, my friends and I perfected the art of the diss. Except we didn’t call it that in the ’80s.
The term we used was roasting.
In the cafeteria of Forest Park Middle School, we would take turns making jokes at each other’s expense. No one took it too seriously, and there were strict rules of engagement. If you didn’t want to be roasted, then you didn’t roast anyone. And under no circumstances was it cool to talk about someone’s mother − those were fighting words. It was also a sign of intellectual failure if your best comeback was, “Your mama.” A cheap shot is just that − cheap.
Why take you on this trip down middle school memory lane? To this day, when someone resorts to a below-the-belt, personal attack in a debate or disagreement, I chuckle to myself and think, “That’s all you’ve got? A ‘your mama’ response?” Back then, with no formal debate training, my young friends and I instinctively understood that lobbing insults is the lowest form of argumentation. Only later did I learn there’s an academic term for it − the ad hominem attack.
Latin for “against the man,” ad hominem arguments are embraced by politicians on both sides of the aisle. It’s a time-tested tactic to shift the debate away from the issues by discrediting your opponent.
I don’t think I’m being unfair or provocative when I say that Donald Trump can be credited (or blamed) for making ad hominem attacks the standard today. Classic disses like “Little Marco” Rubio, “Sleepy Joe” Biden and Hillary “Rotten” Clinton immediately come to mind.
I will confess, I find it mildly entertaining. That’s the eighth-grader in me.
But slowly and methodically, attack-style politics are eroding trust in the political process and its vital counterbalance, the Fourth Estate.
Trump’s attacks on the news media are legendary. I was covering the Iowa Caucuses in 2016 for USA TODAY when then-candidate Trump pointed at journalists in the press pen and called them “the enemy of the people,” resulting in expletive-laden taunts against my colleagues from rally attendees. Today, reporters who ask tough questions during White House press briefings run the risk of being expelled or mocked – or both. “You’re a terrible person and a terrible reporter,” Trump said to Mary Bruce of ABC News last November.
Lest you think this is a challenge faced only by the national press corps, consider this Enquirer story last week about Sen. Bernie Moreno’s letter to Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval that questioned the city’s Department of Economic Inclusion and Procurement. Moreno’s position is that the city is ignoring executive orders against the use of federal funding for DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) programs.
Enquirer reporter Dan Horn reached out to Moreno’s office in hopes of getting some clarification; specifically, he wanted to know if the senator would actively try to pull back funding. If you read the story, you know Moreno’s communication director, Reagan McCarthy, felt she needed more time to put together a response than Dan’s deadline allowed. That’s fine. Our deadline is not her deadline. But then McCarthy ripped a page out of the Trump-era political playbook and issued this reply:
“Cincinnati Enquirer is a liberal rag that can’t even practice basic journalism,” McCarthy said. So we printed that.
In other words, “your mama.”
And we still don’t know if Moreno’s letter was a sternly written warning or if it portends a concerted effort to revoke federal funding.
I emailed McCarthy after the story ran to let her know I was writing this column and to ask her if she shared my belief that ad hominem attacks contribute to the political polarization that plagues our country today. I also asked if there was a specific story with balance issues that justified her assessment of The Enquirer. Rather than address those questions, she said Moreno’s office stood by her statement.
I share this episode to make two points. First, both Dan and I found it amusing. We’ve been at this game long enough to know that angering a communications director comes with the territory. For some reporters, it’s a badge of honor, therefore making Dan Horn one of the most decorated journalists I know. But his question wasn’t confrontational or surprising. It was routine, which points to the larger problem.
Ad hominem attacks are commonplace now, passively accepted by some and celebrated by others who seek to tear down political opponents rather than find common ground.
We need to be better. Our political discourse needs to be elevated. We need to remind ourselves that ad hominem attacks convey desperation and a loathsome lack of class.
Even eighth-graders know a low blow when they see it.
Enquirer Executive Editor Beryl Love writes a biweekly column that takes you behind the scenes at The Enquirer. Occasionally, he shares his thoughts on local issues, particularly as they pertain to a free press and open government. Email him at blove@enquirer.com. He can’t respond personally to every email, but he reads them all.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Modern politics and the art of the ad hominem attack | From the editor
Reporting by Beryl Love, Cincinnati Enquirer / Cincinnati Enquirer
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Beryl Love, Cincinnati Enquirer | USA TODAY Network
