Harry Reid and Offenses

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has received lots of criticism as of late due to his words about President Barrack Obama which have been published in a book entitled "Game Change" written by two journalists, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. The Senator is quoted as saying that he believed America was ready to have a "light-skinned" black man "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." These remarks were not well taken by many, especially conservatives such as Michael Steele and John Cornyn. CNN, Fox News, New York Times, and many other news agencies have been covering the story heavily since the weekend. Some writers seem to suggest that his words were offensive.

As a politician myself, (I may have a small constituency but I am an elected official) I know that what I say is almost always taken in by many and can at times, offend people. This is something that all politicians deal with simply because politics occurs when people disagree. When politicians speak, their constituents are listening as well as their opponents.

That being said, within the past year I have given a few public addresses in my constituency and have spoken many words in a public manner. Not all of these words have sat well with those who heard them. I have even been said to have offended people with my words. As a politician, I must ask, 'What was said that was offensive?' Still, as a philosopher I must ask the question, 'What is an offense?'

So then, what is an offense? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, an offense (in the sense that we are talking about with Harry Reid and myself) is felt or perceived by someone. It is a wounding of someone's feelings. In many cases it is resentment caused, be it voluntary or involuntary, by someone, usually with words. An offense can sometimes come from a perceived insult, even if there was no insult. This is crucial to our understanding and assessment of offenses. It seems that when someone is offended by my words (or in other cases, Harry Reid's), they have perceived something, namely an insult. This then, implies that an offense can be very subjective. I could be offended by someone simply because I perceive their words as insulting, without them even being insulting. This would allow for a crude misinterpretation of a person's words to be labeled as an offense. Which means that the heart of the matter would not be in a person's words but in the perception of the words, leaving all the weight on, not the offender, but the offended. Well, that just seems backwards doesn't it? If an offense comes from a perceived intention, does the actual intention even matter? If Harry Reid intended to praise Barrack Obama, but many perceived his words as insulting, have we done Mr. Reid any justice? It may be hard to imagine, but what if Harry Reid had publicly said that 'America is ready for a black president' and someone perceived that as an insult. Do we then suggest that Mr. Reid has offended someone and should feel guilty? The answer seems obviously no.

I submit that a true offense is rooted in a true insult, be it voluntary or involuntary, and is demeaning to a human being. The root then is not the perception of the insult, but the insult itself. The perception is merely a guiding path to the insult, if one occurs. What I, Harry Reid, and anyone who is accused of an offense in this manner of thought should be concerned with is determining whether a true insult was given.