« November 05, 2006 - November 11, 2006 | Main | November 19, 2006 - November 25, 2006 »

November 15, 2006

The Triumph of Euphemism

By Carl Goldstein

Trent Lott is back. The senator from Mississippi's triumphal return to Senate Republican leadership ranks today -- he was elected Minority Whip, the No. 2 position -- marks his rehabilitation from the semi-disgrace that followed the public release of his remarks at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party praising the former arch-segregationist for his past stands.

“I want to say this about my state,” Mr. Lott began in tribute. “When Strom Thurmond ran for president [in 1948], we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

Lott never specified precisely which problems he had in mind, but it seems obvious from the context that he meant integration and related changes in our society flowing from the civil rights movement.

But what interests me at the moment are the delicate euphemisms being employed in the press to describe his past transgressions. As in the NYT (reg req'd):

Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, who was driven from the Republican leadership four years ago after he made a racially insensitive comment at a birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond, returned to the Senate’s top ranks today, winning election as minority whip in the next session by a single vote.

Or in the WaPo, which used an even more distancing locution:

....who was ousted as Senate majority leader four years ago because of what some interpreted as racially insensitive remarks about America's segregationist past.....

Why can't we ever call a bigot a bigot? Or a racist remark a racist remark?

So Sen. George Allen points out the young man of Indian descent and says "let's give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." Allen's candidacy is destroyed over his "racially insensitve remarks." Despite his well-documented history of using the word "nigger," of hanging a noose in his law office, of his fondness for the Confederate flag. Despite all that, the most an "objective" journalist can call his language is "insensitive."

Why on earth can't we call a spade a spade? Of course it's not only with regard to racial matters that we speak in euphemism. Think of the "debate," if you will, over torture. Press stories on the subject -- the bill that legalized certain still unspecified forms of torture is called the Detention Act -- talk about aggressive or alternative interrogation techniques.

Polite journalism shrinks from calling things by their right name, lest objectivity be breached.

Posted by Carl at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)