Name-Calling

Several kinds of all-purpose attack words can be used in many contexts. Some are simply the derogatory names, slurs, and insults applied to other groups, ethnic, national, or religious. All cultures have such pejorative terms for the various sub-groups within, but the United States is uniquely rich in such a vocabulary (niggers, wops, kikes, chinks, spics, japs, krauts, hunkies, dagos, dot heads, towel heads, etc.) because of the complex immigrant experience with so many groups so quickly thrown together.

Another large body of generic attack language relates to sexuality and bodily functions; "dirty words" considered vulgar or taboo, forbidden in polite society, are commonly used as all-purpose insults and invectives.

A third major category of generic name-calling relates to words which suggest that the other is non-human (monster, brute, savage, beast, animal, dog, rat) or less-than-fully human (stupid, ignorant, dumb, jerk).

If spoken with great vehemence, the most common word linked with all of these generic insults is the all-purpose adjective, "dirty."

Thus, during election campaigns, most name-calling exchanged by candidates for office will seek to discredit a person's image of being competent, trustworthy, and benevolent. Opponents will expose the ignorance, catch the errors, and bring up the scandals of the past. Opponents are likely to focus on a vulnerability, a weak spot, and exaggerate it, by caricature, by satire, by rumors, and by constant repetition of charges in order to destroy credibility, to "poison the well."

If these charges are true and verifiable, they are legitimate criticisms and logically valid. For example, if someone is incompetent for the job, it is reasonable for opponents to attack that fault. But, usually the charge of incompetence is simply a general assertion of the opponents' opinions and feelings, not a verifiable fact. In most cases, such attacks against the person are invalid, illogical and irrelevant to the issue.

But there are some cases in which criticism is valid, logical, and relevant: when the person is the direct, efficient cause of the undesired effect. To provide evidence demonstrating that an opponent is incompetent is a legitimate issue in a campaign; to criticize an opponent for physical appearance or some irrelevant factor is an ad hominem, attack, a logical fallacy, usually defined as "an attack against the person rather than on the issue." In the heat of a campaign or a crisis, it's not easy to separate legitimate criticism from invalid ad hominem attacks.

Large audiences seldom make fine and careful distinctions, especially in emotional situations. Past experience warns us that much of the "name-calling" is likely to be logically invalid, but often rhetorically effective.

In American politics, although much of the name-calling and ad hominem attacks are spontaneous expressions by zealous advocates, there are certain semi-official roles related to the sending and receiving of personal attacks. Usually the candidate or the leader has "clean hands" and does not get involved in such mudslinging and smear campaigns. Often the "hatchet-man"(or "attack dog") is a subordinate, or a surrogate, who does the dirty work of the personal attacks against the opposition. In President Nixon's administration, for example, Vice-President Agnew was the notorious "hatchet-man. " In contrast, a "lightning rod" is a subordinate who attracts much of the opponents' criticism, diverting it away from the boss; for example, in Reagan's administration, Interior Secretary Watt took much of the criticism for Reagan's policies.

Abstract issues are hard to grasp. Propagandists often focus attention on, and specify some visible, identifiable person or group, as the "scapegoat" to blame. Hitler, for example, systematically scapegoated the Jews and orchestrated verbal attacks against them. Some Americans scapegoat other ethnic groups (the blacks, the whites, the Mexicans, the Cubans) which can be easily identified and verbally abused. Very commonly the threat is personified in the leader of the opposition. Hatred is directed against the specific person as being the symbolic embodiment of all evils. Fist-shaking mobs, chanting the name of the opponents' leader, or burning the effigies, are common sights on television now.

Name-calling usually exists in a full context of verbal and nonverbal abuse of the opposition. One of the most ways of making abstract issues vivid and concrete is to focus on one example and tell a "horror story" or show an "atrocity picture."