In my experience, people who resort to profanity are basically cretins with limited vocabularies and nothing of value to say

Ever work a summer construction job, or load houses with movers crews? Boring: “Where’s my fucking hammer, so I can fucking finish this fucking job and hit the fucking bar for some fucking beer?” “It’s probably up your ass, you fucking asshole” is a more commonly heard conversation than meditative reflections on Heidegger’s” Being and Time”. (Not that the old Nazi is worthy of much more thought than your basic carpenter would give him, but still ….)

So I’m not impressed by the Democrats new tactic for appealing to the blue collar voters by abandoning decorum and inserting earthy Anglo-Saxon expletives into their public utterances:

Schumer gives profanity-laced response to whether Dems will help extend DC police takeover

Schumer made the comment during an appearance on "The Parnas Perspective" with host Aaron Parnas. The top Democrat made it very clear that his party would do everything in its power to prevent Trump's move from going beyond the current 30-day period.

"No f‑‑‑ing way," Schumer told Parnas when asked about the extension.

"We’ll fight him tooth and nail.… He needs to get Congress to approve it, and not only are we not going to approve it, but there are some Republicans who don’t like it either."

And then, as is the case with all the disloyal opposition, he seizes on their latest, current phoney “issue”:

"This is, again, just a distraction. He’s afraid of Epstein," Schumer continued. "He’s afraid of all that, and we are not going to give up on Epstein."

This pseudo-tough guy talk was noticed and commented on by The Hill last March: Democrats embrace the f-bomb

In recent weeks, a number of newly launched Democratic hopefuls for key House and Senate seats have pledged to “unf‑‑‑ our country” or have urged their party to “drop the excuses and grow a f‑‑‑ing spine.” 

The ads are indicative of the rising temperature in American politics generally, but they also underscore the ways politicians are trying to resonate with base voters, many of whom have expressed frustration with Democratic leaders.

“I think that in the case of the Democratic candidates … the swearing reflects their sense of crisis,” said Michael Adams, a lexicography expert and author of the book “In Praise of Profanity.” 

“There’s just a point at which the usual vocabulary will not be sufficiently expressive in the moment,” Adams said. “I suspect that this is a ‘no, I really mean it,’ type of emphasis … All of the niceties, all of the conventions, all that stuff — we have to put that aside because the situation in which we find ourselves is so dire politically, culturally and historically, that we just need to act.”

Democrat Nathan Sage last week launched his campaign by decrying that farmers have been “f‑‑‑ed over” and vowing to “kick corporate Republican [Sen.] Joni Ernsts’s a‑‑” in the midterms. ” 

…. Challenging longtime Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) last month, progressive influencer Kat Abughazaleh told Democrats to “drop the excuses and grow a f‑‑‑ing spine.” 

…. Profanity, once seen as taboo in politics, has been increasingly common to hear from lawmakers and candidates on both sides of the aisle over the last few years, in line with a broader societal uptick in the acceptance of profanity across the last few decades. 

…. But especially when it comes to carefully planned campaign launches or ads, experts say the use of such language likely has a considered political purpose as candidates work to connect with voters vexed by politics — and as some Democrats fret internally that the party has fallen out of touch with the majority. 

“The linguistic choices that professional politicians make are extremely tightly crafted,” said Ben Bergen, a professor of cognitive science at University of California San Diego and the author of a book about swearing. 

“It would surprise me if, for many of them, they were sort of stumbling into accidentally using profanity. The use is probably, in most cases, something that’s strategic.”

…. “There are known consequences to how people judge you when you swear, and some of those might not be desirable for a politician: like, you’re judged to be more out of control, possibly less intelligent, possibly less well educated,” Bergen said. 

“But then there are things that might be useful, judgments that folks might have about you that you might want: like, people who swear are judged to be more truthful, more genuine, more accessible, funnier, more passionate.” 

But Demcorats [sic] will also want to avoid retooling their language in a way that comes across as performative or an obvious strategic move, especially when trying to reach young people. ‘[They] can’t just go out there and throw f-bombs and hope it’s gonna land. It’s gotta be authentic,’ [Democratic strategist Fred Hicks] said. 

“Authentic”, but “carefully crafted” authenticity — Uh huh. About as authentic as Elizabeth Warren chugging firewater straight from the can.

It’s also not just congressional hopefuls that are tapping into the language. 

Ken Martin, newly elected chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), took heat online for telling tech billionaire Elon Musk last month to “go to hell.” He then doubled down in a post on social platform X, responding, “I said what I said.” The DNC itself also proudly touted Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s (D-Ill.) labeling of Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last month as “a f‑‑‑ing liar.”

During a rally for federal workers in February, first-term Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) exemplified how some in her party are using the language to convey the urgency of the moment, saying: “I don’t swear in public very well, but we have to f‑‑‑ Trump.” She told The Oregonian afterward that “my only wish, frankly, is that I had said the line with more conviction.”

“I think particularly younger Democrats have realized that the majority of voters, including their own voters, have regarded them as being asleep at the wheel and engaging in sort of somnolent, uninspiring messaging,” Democratic strategist Jon Reinish said.

“This reads to me as a quick attempt to show that there is some energy and a pulse, to maybe capture some younger voters who are so incredibly disappointed and disaffected,” Reinish said. “A quick way to show that there’s a spark of life.”

How empty is the Democrats’ cupboard of alternatives? Consider this:

Jeffries teases ‘blueprint for a better America’ that ‘isn’t about Donald Trump’

On April 30th, a 101 days into the Trump administration and 101 days of Democrats screaming their opposition to everything he was doing, yet proposing no alternative plan except bringing Maryland Man back to the US to continue his life of crime and wringing their hands with mediat-attention-grabbing but ephemeral “issues” like “Signalgate”, the price of eggs, or Qatar’s royal family’s donation of a 747 to serve as a temporary replacement for Air Force One, Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised something new and different:

“Over these next 100 days, House Democrats are going to lay out a blueprint for a better America. And you will see a vision for this country’s future that isn’t about Donald Trump. It’s all about you,” Jeffries said. “How can we make your life better? How can we put more money in your pocket? How can we lower your costs?”

One hundred and one days have elapsed since that promise; no blueprint, no alternative initiatives put forward, just more wailing and hair-tearing and now, as Schumer promises, an all-out push to revive the Epstein story, this time recast with Republican players instead of the Democrats who were involved. That’s a goddamned shame.