One of my favorite newspaper columnists, Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal, is deathly tired of election season.  “By its end,” he writes, “the 2024 campaign has become a wholly negative event, devoid of substance, descending into nonstop ad-hominem attacks, or garbage.”

His examples (and he didn’t have to look far for them):  “Donald Trump is a fascist, a Hitler admirer, a dictator from day one.  Kamala Harris, by Mr. Trump’s description in North Carolina last week, is a ‘stupid person.’  He added: ‘Does she drink?  Is she on drugs?’”

We can pretend otherwise, but insults are nothing new in American politics.  When Grover Cleveland made integrity a keynote of his campaign, a woman with whom he had sexually consorted announced that he had fathered her illegitimate child, prompting the Republican chant, “Maw, maw, where’s my paw?”  The Democrats rolled with it, chanting back “Gone to the White House, haw haw haw.”

I agree that it’s all tiresome, and I agree that it’s getting worse.  Even so, let me push back a little.  Not all political insults are morally equivalent.  Taking Mr. Henninger’s list and adding to it, let’s go through a few items.

She’s stupid.  No, he shouldn’t have said that, but the reason isn’t what you think.  A candidate’s wisdom or lack thereof is an important consideration.  But instead of calling names, he should have pointed to evidences of her stupidity and let the voters draw their own conclusions.

He’s a Nazi.  No, she shouldn’t have said that either, but calling her stupid isn’t even in the same league as her calling him a Nazi.  The Nazi slur implies not just that he is a bad candidate, but that his candidacy is illegitimate, that his election would be inadmissible, and that he must be stopped by any means – which, as we now know, include not just stealing votes but shooting him.  She ought to be asked what reporters and supporters always ask him:  “If your opponent wins the election, will you accept the validity of the outcome?”

His supporters are garbage.  Presumably, if he is a very bad candidate, then his supporters are exercising very bad judgment.  One would hope that their judgment can be corrected.  But calling them garbage, as the President did recently, goes much further.  It amounts to saying that in a well-regulated republic, people like them wouldn’t be allowed to vote.  If one side holds ordinary people in such contempt, then it’s helpful to find out -- but what a thing to think.

Does she drink?  Is she on drugs?  Tell me that you haven’t wondered yourself.  It’s not wrong for voters and commentators to wonder what causes the candidate’s famous word salad.  We all know that too much alcohol can have that effect.  But without hard evidence, for the opposing candidate himself to give voice to such speculations demeans the debate.

If he wins, he will lock up all his opponents just for being against him.  If this were true, then of course it would have to be said.  What makes it an insult is that it isn’t.  In fact, it seems to be an attempt to distract voters from the fact that her own party is the one which is trying to lock up its opponents – including him.

None of the insults are pleasant to consider, but are they equally deplorable?  Not even close.