Joe E. Brown:
You Said a Mouthful, [Front cover, Pamplet] 1944

Talk out of both sides of your mouth: idiom
[US disapproving (also speak out of both sides of your mouth)]

To say something that is the opposite of what you have said before or to express different opinions about something in different situations in a way that may deceive people.
—Cambridge Dictionary

" … speak out of every side of every mouth …"

I never aspired to be recognized as the pinnacle of consistency. I try to appear reasonably coherent, but I'm apt to contradict myself anytime. I was not born with a mind that remembers what's come out of my mouth in the past, so I might innocently insist upon the opposite of what I formerly absolutely insisted upon. I explain to myself that the context shifted, but I doubt my more scrupulous listeners buy that excuse, even though it probably represents the whole truth. The truth is, I might appear to be lying. This isn't a strategic choice but almost always an accident, an honest representation of what's happening inside me. I hold some convictions very loosely.

I'm the kind of witness easily badgered on the stand.  Anyone dedicated to finding holes in my philosophy quickly discovers Swiss cheese. I will not precisely remember after confidently volunteering to help. I do not appear to hold strong feelings about many things. I'm notoriously give or take, apparently indifferent when offered a choice, undecided when asked to take a stand. I fancy myself an intelligent man capable of holding contradictory perspectives in my head, evidence, I tell myself, of superior perception. I prefer not to take sides. I hem and haw. I want to be left alone. I consider any questionnaire invalid if it doesn't allow 'no response' as a valid response to every question. If you want me to provide my honest opinion, ask your question then w-a-i-t for an answer, perhaps forever, for I strive to respond honestly. Still, mostly, I'm given insufficient time to definitively decide. Insisting upon a quick response insists upon me lying.

I assume fuzzy stances because I do not often know for sure. I'm still working out my response to that provocative question. Often, mute's the best response I have. I despise the tyranny of democracy when I'm required to vote between candidates toward whom I feel utterly indifferent. I do not always want to be an active participant. The presumption that I must actively participate even in the more arcane forms of sausage-making encourages me to feel increasingly ambivalent to the point of passively aggressively engaging. "Ok, dammit," I'll say to myself before I start speaking out of both sides of my mouth. Obligating another to choose utterly undermines their freedom of choice. Insisting upon paradox invites me to speak out of BothSides of my ass. It offers no other choice.

MAGA Repuglicans speak with a single voice. They represent the furthest extreme of consistency. Democrats and progressives seem all over the spectrum in comparison. They find divisions within even the most heart-felt agreements. This creates a stronger union than mere uniformity of opinion ever could, for progressives better tolerate real-world ambiguity and learn how to make more complicated choices. They can more fully acknowledge the inherent contradictions and still support candidates who disappoint their aspirations. The MAGA candidates dare not stray very far from some theoretical straight and narrow, lest they attract slings and arrows, always looking for contradiction to squelch it. Repuglican opinion polls produce more definitive results. They rarely show a caucus divided, yet they tend to break and run with the slightest provocation. They also most often prove consistently wrong.

I want you to question my insistence. I'd much rather that you feel the need to tolerate my presence rather than feel as though you need to admire or praise me. I secretly aspire to represent my authentic self, complete with deep ambivalences and a butt-load of still figuring shit out. I draw my conclusions painstakingly with a pencil and plenty of erasures. My internal dialogues, my iAlogues, confuse even me. It should be no wonder to anybody that they sometimes confuse everybody, even my staunchest defenders. I find Roger Williams's tolerance attractive. We don't have to agree for me to tolerate your presence. I can even treasure our acquaintance without seeing the same world before us. We each perceive this world from the perspective of our front porches, and nobody else has any natural right to claim another's front porch view as their own. The strongest unions ignore positions to focus on tolerance. They speak out of every side of every mouth represented, out of every orifice. Otherwise, they promote tyranny for the masses.

©2024 by David A. Schmaltz - all rights reserved

Tags: #iAlogue , #PureSchmaltz