Comment by Ivaylo Noyzi Tsvetkov:
Rough political language in our country is indeed a topic, but I hasten to remind you as an anthropologist that we are far from inventing it.
It is true that recently our political environment has been spreading itself all over the field - from "fat pig" to "drug addict" and various things with a peignoir, as well as the undoubtedly cynical - "Whether you get raped once or several times - you are still raped", but the question is to what extent this is a real political problem. I even miss the anarcho-Putinists from "Vazrazhdane", who with almost Shakespearean pleasure, as if in "The Tempest", shout and rattle nonsense in the Bulgarian parliament as if it were some new "Globus", in which the common people can do and throw whatever they want.
Are we really outraged?
And why is foul language actually becoming a problem? One of the reasons is the hypocrisy of the audience. Especially on the notorious Facebook, where some politician is just waiting to blurt out something to start another "nuclear" war social networks.
Politicians have been using offensive language since the Roman Republic, perhaps even in pre-Pericolic times in ancient Greece, where we have no specific evidence of the swearing of Anidocidus, Aristides, Meletus, etc., but later Plutarch in "Parallel Lives" alludes to this.
Suetonius later recounts the following insults in the Roman Senate, according to a new study:
- calling an opponent "a male prostitute" (sound familiar?);
- calling an opponent "passive in a homosexual relationship" (which until the 21st century is practically considered one of the most offensive things ever);
- to threaten a political opponent with verbal rape (even Cicero mentions it in De Legibus - "On the Laws");
- to talk about the length or shortness of a political opponent's penis (we have seen this, slightly childishly, including from the "urban opposition");
Actually, enough with the examples from history, because in this respect we really live in crushing hypocrisy. Officially, here and there, we are outraged by the harsh political language, but in fact, "the people" via Facebook and partly via TikTok, he seems to be gloating that some politicians give him a reason for insult and indignation
Further simplification does not help anything
And what does cynical political language actually do? Nothing constructive on either side. Comparing one politician to a cousin of a cucumber, and another to something from the order of ungulates, does not lead to any more votes for the supposedly right-wing urban opposition. On the other hand, it should not be OK to throw around unrestrained nonsense like "drug addict", "gay", etc.
But the bad quasi-anthropomorphic idea of the supposedly right-wing did not do any political work. And vice versa: Borisov's silence on this cultural occasion, as well as the demons as a kickback, do not contribute anything to the big match, in which there must still be rules.
The big match, by the way, is no longer very big - PP-DB is losing it at all levels, and one of the serious questions is whether Kostadin from Varna could occupy some larger space as Proputino's "geveze" (to put it in pure Varna dialect) and to what extent he is determined by Radev for future joint actions.
And regarding the "clear urban opposition" - I have warned of the danger of "situational" leaders and their advisors - they don't have a drop of charisma, let alone expertise.
Why do I remind you of this: because insults actually further simplify the domestic political discourse and only provoke the other side to become ruder in turn, and it is not known as necessarily polite. One day someone will realize that going to bed and getting up with the word "Peevski" rather leads to absolute overload or exaggeration, even in the eyes of the possible periphery of voters.
How Trump introduced swear words into the presidential vocabulary
Otherwise, hypocrisy is wonderful and goes thin - everyone officially swears that it shouldn't be like that, but they know very well that these words work wonderfully in the media.
Dr. Joseph Phillips, a famous American political scientist - but not as well paid as ours, focuses on polarization, disinformation and attitudes towards political violence. He examines the use of obscene language in politics and tells us that this way of expression can imperceptibly provoke the more labile among the masses to even refuse to vote. One of his examples is excellent - Trump's public use of the word "f*ck" in relation to the conflict between Iran and Israel in July is not an isolated case, but an ongoing trend towards the increasingly frequent use of obscene language in American politics. And he proves that harsh language always inflames or further inflames a conflict, be it internal or external. But I emphasize - without resolving it.
In the United States before Trump, it was a real rarity for presidents, even as candidates, to use obscene language. Woodrow Wilson - our favorite president and Vazov's - broke with tradition in 1919, calling his opponent Warren Harding a "scoundrel" - something like "scoundrel", "scoundrel". But today, 78% of all uses of insults in history (538) according to Dr. Phillips have been by two politicians: Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Notably, both Trump and Biden have increased their use during their terms, and Trump's use in his second term has surpassed that of his first. While Biden relied heavily on "damn", Trump's use of profanity has been more diverse, introducing "bastard", "b*tch", "bullsh*t" and "f*ck" in the presidential dictionary.
Can't we behave in a polite way?
Beyond that, in the pub in Samokov or Elhovo, and even in the largest Bulgarian "pub" - Facebook - everything seems clear. People, I don't know how to put it mildly, are tempted not only to swear, but also to greedily absorb the political insults that the media serves them with gargantuan-Pantagruelian pleasure.
And here comes the saddest thing: in our country you can insult quite rudely and for PR purposes, stepping from the political to the very media.
It is a question of the maturation of the political and cultural environment, but this maturation will not come just like that. In a certain sense, it is truly educated through public language. Yesterday I spoke about this with a wonderful and well-informed young man - from the "Future of Bulgaria" group - and he said that in his opinion political insults simply don't work, at least for the Gen Z generation. So - quod erat demonstrandum, if you will.
Finally, to summarize this: I still hope that younger voters realize that reducing the Bulgarian political debate to "pigs", "pumpkins", "drug addicts", etc. does not lead to anything constructive at all. In other words, insulting in political discourse (especially on a physical basis) is, um, just plain pig-ish.
If we understand each other. Can't we behave politely? It's not that difficult.