OPINION:
Ancient proverbs can be helpful in adjusting our language and behavior in ways that can benefit every generation.
They have become ancient because they work. One example: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). It means calm, patient and kind words can de-escalate conflict, while harsh, angry responses provoke further rage.
Try it sometime when you’re in an argument with someone. Display humility or say, “I can see how you feel that way, but may I share my view?”
The language we use to communicate with one another can heal or wound, producing either positive or negative results.
The latest of many examples is language used by President Trump, members of his administration, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over their differing views on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents seeking to arrest violent criminals.
Mr. Trump has called Mr. Walz “whacked out” and “grossly incompetent.” Asked this summer whether he would call the governor, Mr. Trump said, “Why would I call him? … The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess.”
He took the governor’s call Monday.
Mr. Trump has also said Messrs. Walz and Frey have been “inciting insurrection,” “spreading misinformation” and using “dangerous rhetoric,” such as comparing ICE agents to the Gestapo and Mr. Walz comparing children he claimed are afraid to leave their homes to Anne Frank. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called protesters “domestic terrorists.”
Mr. Frey said ICE should “get the f—-” out of Minneapolis.
Mr. Trump’s use of language, even foul language, to demean and diminish his political opponents is nothing new, but such language diminishes him and the office of the presidency.
None of this latest exchange of nuclear rhetoric has been helpful in producing a resolution of the tensions or resolving the problem of undocumented immigrants in Minneapolis or Minnesota in general. In fact, escalating and using vile rhetoric is guaranteed to make things worse.
Yet it can also fire up one’s political base and raise money.
On this latter point, I have two stories. One involves a pastor of a large Florida church who had decided to dabble in politics. He told me about the criticism he had received for sending negative letters about how he saw the condition of the country. He then tried a positive letter and described the response: “No one sent any money.”
The second story is a corollary to the first. I once asked a top fundraiser for conservative causes why he never sent any positive letters to donors. He replied: “You can’t raise money on a positive.” How cynical is that?
You might make money and shore up your base by denouncing others and using foul language, but the result is a deeper and wider divide and a hatred of fellow Americans.
President Reagan may be the best example of how to lower the rhetorical temperature without making more enemies than one might expect from members of the opposition. Reagan said things like “Our friends on the other side” and “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Reagan rarely engaged in personal attacks. It wasn’t in his nature. He also preferred to win the issue rather than demean an opponent. The result? He often got Democrats to work with him on issues important to the country.
As some of the ICE agents begin to withdraw from Minneapolis, the left will likely claim victory, but at what cost? The original issue of undocumented immigrants — some of whom may be criminals and remain in Minneapolis — and the fraud involving some Somali immigrants and misspent taxpayer money have yet to be resolved. Using better language would be a good place to start.
• Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book, “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (Humanix Books).
Please read our comment policy before commenting.