Why Sharp Tongues Lose the War of Words

Yonason Goldson
Thu, 23 Apr 2026 23:00:00 -0700
Lifestyle

"Am I qualified to express opinions about theology? Maybe, maybe not. But I do less damage speaking about religion than some clergy do when they speak about politics."

That remark has stuck in my head for 30 years since I heard it from David Luchins, political science professor and one-time advisor to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. More's the pity that President Donald Trump didn't respond with it, or something like it, when he launched his verbal salvo against Pope Leo XVI.

Alternatively, the president might have politely refuted the pope's assertion that "G-d does not bless any conflict" by invoking Deuteronomy 20:3: "Your G-d is the One who goes with you, to fight with your enemies, to save you."
Updated: Fri Apr 24, 2026

"Am I qualified to express opinions about theology? Maybe, maybe not. But I do less damage speaking about religion than some clergy do when they speak about politics."

That remark has stuck in my head for 30 years since I heard it from David Luchins, political science professor and one-time advisor to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. More's the pity that President Donald Trump didn't respond with it, or something like it, when he launched his verbal salvo against Pope Leo XVI.

Alternatively, the president might have politely refuted the pope's assertion that "G-d does not bless any conflict" by invoking Deuteronomy 20:3: "Your G-d is the One who goes with you, to fight with your enemies, to save you."

Instead, Mr. Trump retaliated as he typically does, with insults, calling the pope "WEAK on Crime" and "terrible for Foreign Policy," while accusing him of catering to the "Radical Left."

Eventually, the president found solid footing when he posted, "Will someone please tell Pope Leo that Iran has killed at least 42,000 innocent, completely unarmed, protesters in the last two months?" But by then it was too late. No one heard him preaching except the choir.

President Trump's many critics responded with their own chorus, condemning — justifiably — his incendiary rhetoric. Inwardly, I'm sure they were grateful. Far easier to decry Mr. Trump's congenital lack of civility than to defend the repeatedly failed policy of negotiation and appeasement pursued by his predecessors.

To quote the president, it's sad. If he stuck to facts and logic, he could make a convincing case to support most of his positions. By shooting first and thinking later, he renders irrelevant the coherence of his arguments. It makes no difference what you say once you've given others just cause to stop listening.

When it comes to public relations, Mr. Trump invariably proves his own worst enemy. For reasons best left to the musings of psychologists, he seems incapable of reining in his penchant for comments best described by this week's addition to the Ethical Lexicon:

Scurrilous (scur*ril*ous/ SKUR-uh-luhs) adjective

Making or spreading scandalous claims about someone with the intention of damaging their reputation; humorously insulting.

Anthropologists observe that exchanging concepts and shared values through speech is what enables individuals to coalesce into cooperative communities. Indeed, the sages of ancient Judea identified speech as the defining faculty that distinguishes humans from animals. Although dolphins and chimpanzees have rudimentary language for communicating information and even feelings, only human beings can share thoughts and ideas.

Those same sages also warned against poisonous speech, which they counted among the most corrosive of all human behaviors. Words intended to inflict harm tear us apart rather than bond us together. And that applies even when the words we speak are true.

Falsehoods can be exposed, refuted, and even prosecuted. That explains why, as bad as slander may be, demeaning language and malicious gossip can be even worse. The most insidious phrase in social discourse may well be: "But it's true!" Injurious truth is the last refuge of the unethical.

Of course, we have a whole industry devoted to scurrilous speech in the form of late-night comedy. There's no doubt that sarcastic wit provides easy laughs and scores rhetorical points, but it makes meaningful dialogue impossible. By resorting to ridicule, insult, or verbal bullying, we forfeit any chance of bringing others around to our way of thinking.

The normalization of caustic language should concern all of us. Weaponized speech throws fuel on the fire of an increasingly toxic culture. President Trump's persona as Bomb-Thrower-in-Chief has ravaged our cultural environment more than California wildfires have devastated the Pacific Coast.

Personally, I applaud many policies of our current president. Which only makes the words of Yale Law Professor Stephen L. Carter more poignant: "I may agree with So-and-so on most of the issues, but I could never vote for somebody who could say this or do that in order to win."

Enduring victory comes not from beating adversaries into submission. It comes from opening hearts, winning minds, and finding common ground. Scurrilous speech ensures that we will fail spectacularly in all of the above.

See more by Yonason Goldson and features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists; visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2026

CREATORS.COM