"Democrats will never be pulled down so low that we hate folk. We can’t hate Republicans. We need each other as Americans."

"We’ve got to lead with love. You can’t lead the people if you don’t love the people – all the people."

Said Cory Booker, quoted in "Booker: 'We are not defined by a president who does not believe women'" (The Hill). I clicked through to that because the quote in the headline disturbed me a bit. As a woman, I felt otherized! It's weird to speak of "believing women." We're a huge group — the majority. How can you even think of the idea of "believing women" unless you first imagine us to be a different sort of animal from you, the men? We can't possibly all have the authority to command belief, so which ones of us are really getting the must-be-believed privilege? The ones with doctorates? The Democrats with doctorates? I really don't know, but I suspect that "does not believe women" is an insult and the real question is when do you use it?

I ended up selecting a different quote to feature in this post, though. The one I picked sounds nice. It's an aspiration. It's certainly not true that "Democrats will never be pulled down so low that we hate folk," but swap "will" for "should" and you've got something. "We can’t hate Republicans" is also literally false. You certainly can hate Republicans. You can and do. But to say that you shouldn't is a good idea.

I understand the rhetoric of making a simple declarative statement to express advice or desire. Maybe that's a notable feature of Cory Booker rhetoric. I associate it with adults training children how to act: We don't put our elbows on the table. If the child sees the potential to quip, Maybe you don't, but I do,  he shouldn't say it, but if he does, the old-fashioned mother can respond, Children don't talk to their mothers like that, and he will get the message that a second quip in the same format is not a good idea.