When Chavez said that "bellicose metaphors have been a staple of politics from the beginning," the word 'bellicose' primarily is used to give additional meaning to the metaphors used even in political history. By definition, bellicose refers to a noun that is demonstrating aggression and ready to fight. Therefore, it can be reasoned that Chavez's purpose behind using the term 'bellicose' is to confirm that these rhetorical metaphors are, and have always been, words used to express the tension between political parties. The context in which the word was used proves that these metaphors have always been "fighting words."
Linda Chavez is attempting to persuade the reader that this concept of always being politically correct and censoring everything is only damaging us as a society. As the liberal standards in America lead to the continuing censorship, we, as the American people, are becoming more unable to express our true emotions, because the most expressive words are now politically incorrect. In proving this point, Linda Chavez uses the example of former Washington Mayor Anthony Williams, who used the word 'niggardly' in describing something. Despite the fact that this word has no relation to the derogatory "n-word," he was still forced to step down from his position. This example, in my opinion, is her best, because it not only shows how censorship is stifling the diction of Americans, but also the ignorance of those who make these attempts at political correctness. This proves that censorship will only lead to the ignorance made evident in the aforementioned example.
I agree with Chavez in that censorship only hinders creativity and ultimately results in ignorance, leading to a future with less knowledge.
