Cal Thomas: Lowering the temperature

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown. The fight over immigration enforcement in Minnesota has produced far more heat than light—and most of what’s been said has only made matters worse.

REICHARD: WORLD commentator Cal Thomas says that before anyone can fix public policy, the way we use words to describe it—and one another—needs fixing first.

CAL THOMAS: Ancient proverbs last because they work.

Here’s one: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” 

Try it sometime in an argument. Say, “I see how you feel. May I share how I see it?” 

The words we choose can heal. Or wound.

That lesson has been playing out again in Minnesota, in the clash over immigration enforcement and the rhetoric surrounding it.

From President Donald Trump’s assessment of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz:

TRUMP: Look, I think the man is a grossly incompetent man.

To Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey’s “message” to federal immigration officers:

FREY: To ICE, get the _____ out of Minneapolis.

To the governor making Holocaust comparisons:

WALZ: Many of us grew up reading that story of Anne Frank. Somebody’s going to write that children’s story about Minnesota.

Administration officials accused Walz and Frey of “inciting insurrection.” Some compared ICE agents to the Gestapo. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem labeled protesters “domestic terrorists.”

None of that helped. 

But then came a shift.

AUDIO: President Trump looks to ease tensions between the state and the White House.

Video evidence contradicted early official claims about a fatal ICE shooting. Public anger grew.

Allies warned the White House the rhetoric was backfiring.

According to The New York Times, the administration has adjusted course. A senior field commander was removed. Two agents were placed on leave. Officials who had spoken with certainty began acknowledging that protocol may not have been followed.

The president softened his tone, slightly. He distanced himself from earlier remarks, and after days of insults, he picked up the phone and called Governor Walz.

TRUMP: They met with the governor, the mayor, everybody else, and we'll, we're going to de-escalate a little bit …

That was not a reversal of immigration policy, nor should it be. But it was an admission: escalation was making things worse.

Of course, harsh language has its uses, otherwise it wouldn’t be used so much.

I once heard a Florida pastor describe sending out a positive fundraising letter. The result? “No one sent any money.”

A veteran conservative fundraiser once put it this way: “You can’t raise money on a positive.”

Some may call it profitable cynicism—but it’s cynicism all the same.

You can denounce. You can demean. You can use foul language and energize supporters. But the cost is a deeper divide and a growing contempt for fellow Americans.

Let’s consider another model: President Ronald Reagan. I mentioned him last week. But President Reagan was famous for lowering the temperature. He spoke of “our friends on the other side.” He criticized ideas without attacking people. He wanted to win arguments—not humiliate opponents.

And because of that, he often persuaded Democrats to work with him.

As federal officials now talk about “de-escalation” in Minneapolis, some on the left have already declared victory. But the real issues remain: immigration enforcement, public safety, and unresolved fraud involving taxpayer money.

But if there is any hope of addressing those problems, the ancient proverb still applies: A gentle answer does not guarantee agreement, but a harsh one almost guarantees failure.

Better language would still be a very good place to start.

For WORLD, I’m Cal Thomas.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.