Dems are doubling down on vulgar language. To what end?

We get it — Democrats got walloped, hate what is happening now and are engaged in a lot of soul-searching.

We admire self-reflection. But banking on f-bombs is the political equivalent of getting curtain bangs after a breakup or a red sports car when you turn 50. Such are desperate decisions made in an effort to reinvent oneself that almost always end in despair.

Kat Abughazaleh, a 26-year-old Texas native who is challenging longtime Illinois U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, 80, despite being a Chicagoan for less than a year and not living in the 9th District, is hoping her message that members of her party need to "grow a f —ing spine" will help her overcome the fact that she offers little in the way of policy substance or experience. Abughazaleh's main claim to political fame is posting progressive videos on TikTok critiquing Fox News and Republicans. She'll need more than that.

Fellow on-camera personality Mike Sacks is also riding the profanity wave as he hopes to unseat Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York's 17th District, which covers the Hudson Valley. Sacks, a former TV journalist, is vowing to "un-f — our country."

It's ironic that people railing against a president who rose to prominence in part due to his television persona are deploying the same strategy in retaliation. This descent into the profane comes across as a "stooping to their level" approach, given President Donald Trump's talent for obscenities. But most people aren't down with crude tactics that debase American politics even further.

And it's not just brash newcomers: Seasoned Democratic leaders are indulging too. Sen. Tammy Duckworth issued a statement calling Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth a "f —ing liar" in March.

At a time when politics demands clarity, civility and leadership, it's a misstep to embrace vulgar language as a tool to signal authenticity or passion. Instead of elevating the conversation, it lowers the bar, reinforcing the corrosive idea that rage and vulgarity are substitutes for thoughtful persuasion.

Sure, younger generations are tolerant of colorful language. But it's still a mistake to confuse shock value with leadership — and risky for a country that craves political figures who can model respect, restraint and reasoned debate.

We have enough influencers in Washington, D.C., and remain in desperate need of statesmen and stateswomen.

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Chicago Tribune
(TNS)
Previously:
• 02/25/25: Antisemitic fears in Windy City coalesce around a controversial puppet
• 02/05/25: Want a low-stress job with lots of time off? This state says it wants to recruit you
• 01/28/25: We are in a mental health crisis. A 'moonshot' is needed
• 11/07/24: Trump's win was a stunning repudiation of the chattering classes
• 03/21/24: Crypto's improbable comeback is cause for cheer --- and prudence
• 02/20/24: Don't write off fake meat just yet
• 11/23/23: Critical thinking is losing out to TikTok. A Thanksgiving intervention might help
• 11/23/23: Did the maker of Oreos surreptitiously cut the creme-to-cookie ratio?
• 11/15/23: David Cameron, a former British PM, makes a surprise return as Suella Braverman gets the chop. Is there a lesson here for the US?
• 10/23/23: Turns out it's bad business to jack prices just because you can
• 09/28/23: Here's why President Joe Biden should not have joined the UAW picket line
• 07/28/23: Surprise! Some good news from the IRS
• 06/07/23: Supreme Court just fired a shot at delinquent property taxes
• 05/05/23: Can't force an unprofitable grocery store to remain open
• 03/06/23: A powerful paper comes clean about its 'China virus' coverage
• 02/08/22: Facebook flops and The New York Times buys a puzzle. What's going on?