by David D. Horowitz
Here in Seattle, a popular alternative weekly newspaper peppers its pages with four-letter expletives. Its editors and youthful writers flaunt their disaffection, crudity, and irreverence. They long to be credentialed by the ultra-hip as the ultimate anti-sweethearts. Defying convention to outrage the conventional is the stock in trade. We are not sweet! We say f*** and s***, and we get drunk, do drugs, have sex, and ignore disapproval! We’re rebellious—so there!
I think such ostensible rebelliousness is more public posturing than private passion—yet there remain some important truths buried in it. Sweet is not the same as good. Innocence might not be wise enough to survive. Sometimes we do need to risk disapproval to find ourselves and be willing to upset our security to find our balance. Sometimes we do need to express dissent to find our distinctive voice and to speak the uncomfortable truth that our leaders are often corrupt and inept and need to be challenged. Some irreverence is good, and cultivating it remains key to Americans remaining an independent citizenry.
Conventions can be good, too, though. Handshakes and hellos, tempering criticism with courtesy and tact, not screaming despite deep disagreement—these are not the saccharine customs of phony sweethearts fabricated to induce conservative idealists to vote for Candidate X or buy Product Z. These are bedrock mores that allow us all to resolve conflicts without war and deepen friendships despite ruptures. I do not need displays of calculating virginal purity to illustrate “moral values”—but I prefer independent thinkers who do not have to shout and cuss to defy authority. So there.