The necessity of invective

Recently, The Brown Daily Herald published a letter (“Attack on Chafee unmerited,” Mar. 3), penned by Matthew Lieber GS, which took issue with several criticisms that I made of former Senator Lincoln Chafee ‘75, in an editorial (“There are Yankee Republicans, and then there is Lincoln Chafee,” Feb. 27). The letter deserves a pointed response – but alas, the Herald has a policy prohibiting columnists from responding to letters. Therefore, this article is intended as a response to Lieber’s claims, principles, and overall demeanor. I pray that the arguments contained herein can assist in the effort to discredit my adversary’s unprincipled politeness mantra.

Matthew Lieber’s response to my criticisms of former Senator Chafee compensated in unwarranted moral indignation for what it lacked in substance or valid criticism. With a tear in my eye, I read that he “[found] it unfortunate to read this sort of random musing-cum-attack on Watson Institute visiting fellow Lincoln Chafee ’75.”

Too bad, I say, because former Senator Chafee has been one of the most unprincipled politicians in recent memory to hail from the state of Rhode Island (and Providence Plantations). A resident of the state since I was a toddler, I first became acquainted with the politics of Chafee and of his father, Senator John Chafee, long before matriculating to Brown. Lieber seems to imply that I overstated my case in order to attempt to trick readers into thinking that I possess substantial knowledge of Chafee’s political outlook; on the contrary, I am quite knowledgeable in this regard, and only briefly addressed my many disagreements with his politics.

I write all of this with the hope that those who are reading recognize that I hold no strong feelings about Chafee the man. By all accounts he seems to be a nice person with a good family life. But his lack of first principles should not be confused with independence, and his so-called moderation should not be cast as harmonious with the political outlook long associated with Northeasterners, and especially New Englanders.

Lieber’s letter also includes the claim that I should have more “respect for elders.” That charge is a glaring non-starter, with no substance but plenty of unwarranted moral indignation. What is this nebulous “respect for elders” of which he writes? I was criticizing Chafee in the capacity of a citizen who was disappointed with his Senator – not as a university student who was sniping about a local figure. Perhaps Lieber, if he desires to avoid the well-deserved countercharge that he is being utterly disingenuous, would advise the many modern liberals in Brown’s community to have more respect for President Bush? Or does he only reserve his bad-faith politeness mantra for that unsavory group: conservatives? Being consistent, I welcome criticism – even vitriolic criticism – of our President, so long as it is deserved.

Now, to Lieber’s credit, he is not the only person to assert a willingness to hear conservative ideas, with the condition that they are expressed “positively.” Accordingly, the rest of this column is not addressed merely to Lieber, but also to everyone bereft of the ability to distinguish between criticisms of a political figure qua his political values and criticisms of a political figure qua his person.

With that disclaimer written, let me be blunt to all persons who think like Lieber: get it through your prissy heads that invective is not bad. Invective (ironically?) is good. Invective clarifies. Invective distinguishes. Invective presents the true feelings of the one mouthing the invective. Invective, an inseparable part of the long English political tradition which has facilitated the perpetual progress of mankind (a little Whiggish, I know), was lauded by our Founders, and utilized mercilessly.

Now, coming back from the abstract and going to the concrete – Chafee notoriously basked in the claim that he was a polite, in addition to an independent, politician. This was clearly evinced in his recent interview in the February issue of the Providence Monthly (as such, my “musing-cum-attack” was hardly “random”). But I call foul. I would regard Chafee as a submissive politician, who occupied that soggy ground between virtue and greed. On the one hand, he was no Cincinnatus; on the other, he was no William Tweed. He was neither a pursuer of justice and liberty, nor a corrupt and selfish man. He was simply a man who would not valiantly put his career on the line so as to defend key Anglo-American principles of life, liberty, and property.

There is nothing honorable about Chafee’s political principles. There is likewise nothing particularly odious, as I have tried to make clear. Historical precedent, however, confirms the idea that one need not have particularly odious principles in order to merit attack. King George III, most historians would argue, was not as bad as certain colonial pamphleteers made him out to be – but his disregard for the customary liberty of the American colonists necessitated a war for independence. Julius Caesar was also not a horrible person – but his assault on the Roman tacit constitution necessitated his assassination. Of course, I am not calling for an armed rebellion against Chafee, or for him to be assassinated; but I am calling for a concerted effort to discredit politically such persons as he.

Have I gone insane? I think not, although writing in these elevated terms may attract that question. My assertion is merely that politeness should not come at the expense of truth, and that vague notions of “respect for elders” should not preclude invective, even if the “elder” in question cannot honestly be considered a heinous individual. Liberty, as it is exercised in life and evidenced in property, is the defining feature of mankind; and it requires constant vigilance. Invective, I contend, is perhaps the most effective tool – of elites and of the populace at large – for maintaining liberty, and for securing the proper political virtue of those who might otherwise subvert that very liberty.

Manners, too, require constant attention, and I would never assert to the contrary. But, political invective should not be construed as a breach of manners. There is indeed such a thing as a definable line between criticisms of a public official as a public official, and criticisms of a public official as a private person. Senator Chafee is accountable to me, as a citizen of Rhode Island. Lincoln Chafee is accountable to no one, save God. Lieber and likeminded individuals should realize that I was criticizing the former, and not the latter.