Let me start by saying, I am no prude. I’ve been known to curse up a blue streak at times—less, I hope now, than when I was younger. But, I do believe that our public discourse should be conducted in a restrained, civilized manner, and I think it’s especially important when we’re discussing sensitive, contentious issues.
That said, I am dismayed at the crudity of language I’m seeing these days, on social media, on TV, and in public spaces, even from senior political leaders. Sometimes, watching news conferences and the like, it reminds me of the boys’ locker room after some of my high school basketball games in the 1950s, only nowadays people use language publicly that only the crudest people used back then.
Over the past eight years, the public use of profanity and crude language by politicians and other high-profile leaders has become commonplace in the American landscape. Where once using a four-letter word by an elected official might have been cause for scandal, today it’s frequently brushed off as a sign of authenticity, relatability, or even strength. This shift in norms hasn’t occurred in a vacuum; it reflects broader cultural changes, the rise of social media, and a climate in which shock value often gets more attention than decorum.
The 2016 US presidential campaign marked a watershed moment in the public’s exposure to coarse language from those in positions of power. Political rallies and debates were peppered with language that would have once been unthinkable on the national stage. Insults, name-calling, and vulgar epithets became regular features of campaign rhetoric, not only from candidates but from surrogates and supporters. Media outlets played and replayed these moments, amplifying them, and perhaps inadvertently, helping to normalize such behavior.
Social media platforms, which give politicians and celebrities unfiltered access to large audiences, have played a profound role in this transformation. The very nature of social media encourages brevity and bluntness. In the heat of the moment, inflammatory language can spread rapidly, with little time for reflection or retraction. When a sitting president calls someone a ‘loser’ or ‘dog’ in a social media post, or a member of Congress uses expletives in a livestream, millions are watching in real time, and the bar for civility is lowered with each viral post.
This normalization of profanity at the highest levels of leadership has a ripple effect throughout society. It tells the public that such language is not only acceptable but also desirable in the pursuit of honesty or passion. Defenders of such crudity argue that ‘telling it like it is’ resonates with voters who are tired of political doublespeak and sanitized soundbites. On the other hand, I believe that the erosion of respectful language undermines the dignity of public office and corrodes the norm of civil discourse upon which democracy depends.
This debasement of language is not limited to the executive branch or to one political party. Members of Congress, governors, and mayors across the political spectrum have all been caught on hot mics or in public statements using language that would once have been confined to locker rooms or the routines of risqué stand-up comedians. Late-night talk shows and news panels have occasionally debated the appropriateness of these moments, sometimes with a tone of resigned amusement, at other times with genuine concern for the state of public life.
The impact extends beyond politics into other areas of public life. Everyone feels increasingly free to use coarse language in interviews, speeches, online communications, and even public conversation The line between private and public is blurred, and expressions once reserved for moments of frustration or intimacy are now broadcast for millions. Some praise the transparency, but I worry that it’s leading to a coarsening of culture and a loss of shared standards.
The public use of profanity that I’ve observed over the past eight years is both a reflection and a driver of changing societal values, raising important questions about the role of language in leadership, the nature of authenticity, and the responsibilities of those in positions of influence. One thing is clear: the language of those we see as leaders shapes not only our discourse but also our collective sense of what is possible and permissible in public life. | NWI
