By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

The Republican primary elections are giving us a preview of the hateful name-calling that will characterize the general election. Name-calling is as old as civilization. But over the last quarter century, political “leaders” have made it the most potent weapon in what has become electoral warfare.

We are not strangers to name-calling in Somerville. You hear insults screamed by frustrated drivers. In so many casual conversations, anyone who does not agree with the speaker is a moron. You read hateful epithets in too many Somerville News blog posts. And the Journal’s Speak Out section seems to be dedicated to promoting vitriol.

The incidence of name-calling in Somerville has declined somewhat since people who make their living as processionals have become a larger share of the population. Overt name-calling is counter-cultural to them. And because of their limited involvement in Somerville life, they encounter few conflicts. But I do hear name-calling in the debate over the proposed Somerville Progressive Charter School.

We seem to have more things to be angry about these days, but fewer apparent opportunities to do something about them. Name-calling only worsens this situation.  It is a symptom of felt powerlessness, and it recreates the conditions of powerlessness by undermining our ability to work together.

Learning to focus anger in a way that actually makes things better is an essential element in becoming a mature human being. Aristotle wrote, “Anyone can become angry—that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way—that is not so easy.”

“In the right way” is the most important element. It focuses on conditions and behavior rather than assaulting the person. It assumes that the person is a human being whose personal experience is as authentic as yours is.

Name-calling provides two fleeting satisfactions. It gives us the opportunity to discharge some small fraction of our anger. And it gives us an illusory sense of power. It is the power to hurt and define those who we believe have hurt us. These delusions are as old as language.

Now, name-calling seems to be the primary bludgeon used in a war to achieve political dominance. And it is dividing the nation beyond the possibility of reconciliation.

More than any other single person, Newt Gingrich is responsible for this state. When he first entered politics, he studied the military strategies articulated by the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu, the Prussian war scholar Karl von Clausewitz, and the Nazi general Heinz Guderian.

The Republican political action committee, GOPAC, was the army that Newt found to be general of. His greatest weapon was what his troops affectionately called “Newtspeak.”

A 1990 GOPAC memo instructed its recipients to memorize a list of “Optimistic Positive Governing Words” such as “common sense,” “freedom” and “principled” to describe the Republicans, and a list of “Contrasting Words,” such as “excuses,” “pathetic” and “stagnation” to disparage their opponents.

Every week, GOPAC mailed cassette tapes to over 400 Republican office holders and candidates, from local to national levels. They contained new words to use and directions on how to use them. This phalanx of local- and mass-media messaging had a devastating effect on Democrats. It was an essential element in Republicans gaining control of Congress in the 1994 election.  Democrats’ responses were, and remain, feeble.

Now Newt is employing the same strategy. He calls Mitt Romney a “vulture capitalist.” and worse. Responding in kind, Mitt calls Newt “Goldilocks,” and worse.

Ron Paul, a man of integrity who seeks to persuade through reason, has the tiniest chance of becoming the nominee, even though he is the truest to historically conservative principles.

Don’t imagine that the Obama campaign will remain above the slime fest. Its consultants and opposition researchers are busily deciding how to best attack its most likely opponents.

Analysts predict that electoral campaigns will spend $3 billion on television advertising this year. I predict that most of it will be devoted to name-calling. The great majority of it, donated anonymously, will come from the super-Pacs that were made possible by a 2010 Supreme Court decision. The 5-to-4 decision overturned a century of established law.

Few things are as effective at making someone stop listening as insulting them. Doing so in a public forum hurts more than the victim’s feelings. It undermines mutual trust, discourages participation, keeps us separated, and deepens a sense of collective futility.

There is a lot to be justly angry about. Expressing it can be the first step toward making things better. But as Aristotle suggested, some expressions are more effective than others.

Offering verifiable evidence that supports your complaint calls attention to real conditions. Even simply stating why you are angry, in terms of your own personal experience, leaves the possibility of interaction. It allows others to see your humanity and maybe even take your complaint seriously.

Could we have more of that and less name-calling? To quote Rodney King and paraphrase Martin Luther King, “Can’t we all just get along?”