Today’s “Trump is a terrible person and you have to vote against him even though there is literally no rational reason to vote for Kamala Harris” article is “At a Pennsylvania Rally, Trump Descends to New Levels of Vulgarity.” Of course he did. Public discourse and civility, all a part of the crucial ethics value of respect, have plummeted precipitously as Ethics Alarms predicted here and chronicled since, most recently yesterday. Trump has unquestionably been a catalyst for the coarsening of American speech and culture, but as this tag will show you, so many prominent individuals and institutions followed his lead and escalated the rot that blaming Trump alone would be, well, the kind of thing the Trump Deranged do every day.
Naturally, as Vulgarian-in-Chief, Trump couldn’t let himself be reduced to relative civility by Congresswomen saying things like “Let’s impeach the motherfucker!,” iconic actor Robert De Niro getting cheers at events by screaming “Fuck Trump!,” or a coded phrase meaning “Fuck Joe Biden!” being plastered on T-shirts, banners and mugs. Sooooo, as the Times gleefully informs us…
Mr. Trump opened his speech at the airport in Latrobe, Pa., with 12 minutes of reminiscing about the golfer Arnold Palmer, who grew up in the Western Pennsylvania town and for whom the airport was named. His monologue culminated in lewd remarks about the size of Mr. Palmer’s penis. Moments later, Mr. Trump gave the crowd an opportunity to call out a profanity. He went on to use that four-letter word to describe Ms. Harris. “Such a horrible four years,” Mr. Trump said, referring to the Biden-Harris administration, as he surveyed the crowd of hundreds of people in front of him. “We had a horrible — think of the — everything they touch turns to —.” Many in his audience — which was mostly made up of adults but included some children, infants and teenagers — eagerly filled in the blank, shouting, “Shit!” Minutes later, Mr. Trump urged his supporters to vote, telling them that they had to send a crude message to Ms. Harris: “We can’t stand you, you’re a shit vice president.”
Oh, nice. That’s the way to make America great again.
Ann Althouse, who almost never uses a vulgar word, nonetheless has a tag called “civility bullshit,” which she wields to indicate hypocrisy when calls for civility beacome a tool of censorship or to feign outrage by those who have no problem with vulgarity when it is used by those they approve of or for a purpose they support. Oddly, she did not tag her post about Trump’s potty mouth in Pennsylvania with “civility bullshit,” though she wrote this about the Times’ typical and flagrant pro-Harris bias…
Meanwhile, there’s only one article about Kamala Harris on the front page of the NYT at the moment, and it’s not about her speaking issues. It’s not that she said “It’s real,” when someone asserted that Israel is committing genocide. It’s not that she taunted “You guys are at the wrong rally” when somebody yelled “Christ is Lord.” No, readers are left to assume Harris is speaking in the normal, presidential manner, while Trump is in worrisome decline.
Indeed, I’d argue that Trump was more vulgar in relation to the cultural norms of the times in 2016, when he used the GOP candidates’ debates to impugn Marco Rubio’s manhood. He’s not in decline regarding incivility, he’s just keeping up, though that is hard to do in a crude environment where TV commercials for a hot sauce proclaim, “I Put That $#!T On Everything”.
Never mind, it’s still no excuse. The President of the United States is supposed to represent the best of us, not the dregs. It is true, as Althouse points out, that Trump’s incivility isn’t substantive, it just gives the Axis and Trump-haters one more weapon to advance their mission. Nonetheless, the habit loses him respect, trust and votes, and that reaction is not just emotional but reasonable. America is far better served by a leader who says, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” than one who says, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this shitty wall!”
…..Even if both are preferable to, “The thing about walls—right?—is that they are walls, and as walls they wall off what walls wall off, when what those who know what walls are don’t wall off those things, but instead want the walls down.” But that’s another topic.
Ethics Alarms 
Here is the question: Do Americans want someone who is the epitome of refinement and civility to represent their interests or do they want someone who appears as their equal in society who will advance their interests successfully. I suggest it is the latter.
Americans tend to discount negative traits in a preferred candidate because the benefits exceed the costs. In Trump’s case society has made certain terms part of the everyday lexicon so he uses those terms to connect with everyday people. The question during a campaign is is the use effective at garnering support and another vote.’
Is it really better to have a candidate portray themselves as a paragon of virtue and civility while running but behind closed doors the elected leader berates staff, drops F bombs routinely or otherwise behaves in a manner of a vulgarian or street hood? We have a record of Harris being exactly that way. There is scant evidence that Trump abuses his staff in such a manner. As President, I don’t recall any public display of vulgar behavior. That is where we should begin assessing behaviors.
Civility must be practiced at all times and not just when the public can bear witness.
I don’t agree that Americans tend to discount negative traits in a preferred candidate because the benefits exceed the costs. If that were the case, Trump would be ahead by 50 pts. Almost all of the violent opposition to Trump is based on character and style, and if I had advised him in 2016, I would have explained that it was crucial that he manage to be himself and genuine, but the most Presidential version of himself. The President is half King and half Prime Minister. The public wants both roles to be played well. Reagan, Obama, JFK and other played the King role to perfection. It’s a big plus. Not making an effort to play the role is self-defeating and, frankly, stupid. Would the public fully support a President who was a brilliant master of domestic and foreign policy who appeared in public unshaven, unkempt, belching and wearing filthy clothes? Maybe, but not nearly with as much trust and enthusiasm as it would a lesser leader who looked and acted like John F. Kennedy.
We are long passed the days of voting for some superior candidate. It seems that we have been divided into camps; big government versus less government. Big government candidates promise things paid for by others and future generations while less government people choose candidates who propose lower taxes and fewer regulations and restriction. The camps we have in this election are the ones pushing for unregulated pregnancy terminations (which is a thing paid for by others – the fetus pays the price) and those who want our borders secured so they do not have more government programs that cost them more money. Depending upon your side or priority in this election the choice of candidate is predicated on a cost/benefit analysis. If a voter makes his or her choice based on character and style that suggests to me that they value form over substance. If that is the case, they cannot complain when the lesser candidate whose demeanor is polished on the outside but out of their depth on policy matters creates global chaos.
Keep in mind we are continually reminded of Trump’s cretinism but we do not seem to care about Harris’s tyrannical managerial style that resulted in a turnover rate of 95 % as VP. Nor are we discussing the fact that she demanded people stand and address her as General when she was AG in California or told interns never to look her in the eye. I don’t think the Times is rushing to report that she mocked Christianity at her rally when a protester yelled Jesus is Lord but when a person yelled Israel is committing Genocide she agreed with them and said we will discuss this later. In the former case the young men were escorted out through a gauntlet of jeers with her supporters calling them MAGA fascists. No such ejection in the latter case. This is what I am talking about. None of her supporters give a whit about her tyrannical managerial style or condescending attitude toward Christians nor do Trumps’s supporters get rattled with his potty mouth at times. The voters are focused on what the candidate gives them either materially or more broadly in terms of policy.
Independents will fall somewhere on either side depending on what they place a higher value on. As much as I would like to agree with you that people want the president to be half king and half prime minister, they make their decisions based on what affects them now. I don’t disagree that being telegenic helps but I don’t think Gavin Newsom could capture any more of the electorate than either of our current candidates. It might be different if one had Newsom’s telegenic appearance coupled with the grace and style of Reagan but we have rejected high quality candidates in favor of puppets who will do the bidding of a behind the scenes elites who will dictate policy or street brawlers who are viewed as the last line of defense against an increasingly hostile party toward the Constitution who are also perceived to ready to usher in a new world order in which they have complete control.
Being telegenic won’t be enough if you’re incompetent, a phony or an idiot. See John Edwards and Beto O’Roarke—or Kristi Noem.
Well, I’m sure that the 100 Labor Party employees being sent from England to campaign for Harris are going to point all this out. The British government has sent them to tell us commoners how to vote and I’m sure they are going to give us lessons on civility and how to imprison people for thought-crimes.
https://x.com/stillgray/status/1846875197267394585
I was told foreign interference was a bad thing.