The April 29 editorial “Dems are doubling down on vulgar language. To what end?” frames itself as strategic advice for Democrats, but it reads more like a veiled defense of the party’s status quo — one that is increasingly out of step with its base and polling at historic lows.
Critiquing new candidates such as Kat Abughazaleh for their tone, while ignoring the substance of their platforms, doesn’t elevate the conversation — it sidesteps it. Reducing these candidates to their occasional vulgarity is an ad hominem fallacy. It avoids engaging with their actual policy ideas — on climate, health care, labor and campaign finance — and instead critiques how they speak rather than what they stand for.
The Tribune Editorial Board also suggests that Abughazaleh is challenging U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky without noting that multiple reports indicate Schakowsky does not plan to seek reelection. While there’s been no formal announcement, the board’s omission misleads readers about the context of the race and inflames a narrative of party division where there may be none.
The editorial also claims that the country “craves political figures who can model respect, restraint and reasoned debate.” But that’s hard to square with reality. The country just reelected Donald Trump — hardly a model of civility.
If anything, the public is responding to authenticity and urgency, not polish.
The truth is, the editorial isn’t really about helping Democrats win. It’s about policing the boundaries of what’s considered acceptable within the party, even as those boundaries are being questioned by voters who want more than recycled talking points.
If a candidate is shaking things up, maybe the problem isn’t their language — it’s what that language is responding to.
— Brett Barnes, Chicago
Puritanical critique
It is both exhausting and infuriating to witness political commentators pearl-clutching as the world burns. Would whoever wrote this editorial have qualms about U.S. taxpayer-funded bombs killing scores of innocent people on the other side of the world? But dropping f-bombs is somehow beyond the pale.
The assertion regarding Kat Abughazaleh that “she offers little in the way of policy substance” is patently false. Since research seems to have gone out of fashion for editorials, let me invite the Tribune Editorial Board to peruse the “Issues” page on her campaign website where it will find a large number of policy proposals on over a dozen of the most pressing issues our country is currently facing.
As a Chicago resident who cares deeply about the political corruption at the center of virtually all of our problems, I would gladly replace every single corporate donor-funded politician with people like Kat who refuse to take their money in exchange for subverting our democracy. Whether they speak like sailors or a Boy Scout is wholly irrelevant.
If the best line of attack defenders of the old, corrupt establishment can muster is on puritanical semantic grounds, then it seems it’s only a matter of time before those of us who are ready for change have our way.
— John Scuderi, Chicago
Call fair balls, strikes
C’mon, Tribune Editorial Board! If the board wants to seriously advocate our politicians “model respect, restraint and reasoned debate,” then it has to do better itself. With an overtly provocative headline of “Dems are doubling down on vulgar language,” it is hardly holding itself to the same standard.
Reasonable people, on all sides of the political aisle, can and should aspire to speech that avoids vulgarities. But to call out one party, particularly in the current political climate where needless vulgarities are being flung from all sides, is not helpful in the least.
We’re depending on the editorial board as part of the Fourth Estate to call fair balls and strikes. That headline and that editorial needlessly failed that basic requirement of your profession.
— Mary Friedlieb, Chicago
Duckworth gets a pass
I’ll give U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, on her choice of language in her comment about the secretary of defense, a pass. She’s an awarded, battle-injured veteran. Given Pete Hegseth’s actions, I have a difficult time disagreeing with her.
— Michael Schaik, Fontana, Wisconsin
Trump’s word choice
Let’s not forget that while Democrats may be using the F-word for emphasis, our current president is on tape saying he can grab women by the P-word. Far more egregious — and illegal to do so as well. Despicable.
— Patty Wolfe, Mount Prospect
I survived Joe Biden
I can truly relate to and have great empathy with the numerous letters published in the Tribune from people who fear the fall of democracy under President Donald Trump. My advice is to just have faith that the United States will survive a second Trump presidency.
How do I know? I feared the same thing while surviving eight years of Barack Obama and four years of Joe Biden.
I trust that all the anguish and pearl-clutching are nothing more than typical political rhetoric. Our republic survived Obama and Biden and will survive Trump.
— Charles VanDercamp, Chicago
Pritzker’s use of ‘fight’
It definitely looks and sounds like Gov. JB Pritzker is going to run for president in 2028, as he made his big speech in New Hampshire about Democrats needing to protest and march.
He is correct that the Democratic Party has sat on the sidelines too long. I’m sorry that he used the word “fight” in his speech, as the Republican Party can and will use that against him if violence occurs at demonstrations. The word “fight” brings thoughts of pugilism, violence and mayhem. They will turn that word against him.
Pritzker could have made his speech and convey the same peaceful thoughts without using the word “fight.”
— Cary Riske, Grayslake
The governor of all?
Gov. JB Pritzker is the governor for all people in Illinois. Why say “no peace” for Republicans? Why not govern us all?
I am not a Republican. I am sincerely asking, “Pretty please, Governor, stop the violent rhetoric and be a force of peace and govern everyone.”
Let all people have a place at the table.
— Cheyenne Mendel, Cherry Valley
Put focus on Illinois
I read the April 29 article about Gov. JB Pritzker dismissing the idea he urged violence during a fiery speech in New Hampshire (“Gov. Pritzker dismisses as ‘ridiculous’ GOP accusations he urged violence”).
Is he a Democratic candidate for president or the governor of Illinois? The article states the woes facing the state of Illinois, and Pritzker is auditioning for president. His lieutenant governor, Juliana Stratton, is now running for the U.S. Senate to replace do-nothing Sen. Dick Durbin.
Meanwhile, who’s looking out for Illinois? Sort of reminds me of Emperor Nero. Pritzker is fiddling while Illinois is burning.
— Larry Geraghty, Tinley Park
Silent lawmakers
Thanks for your article (“Pritzker wants voices heard,” May 1). Good for Gov. JB Pritzker, but it would have been very good if he had been joined by our silent legislators in Washington.
— Richard Prince, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.