A Plethora of Pejoratives, a Paucity of Perspicacity : Public discourse: Is Judge Ito a battologist or a mumpsimus? Enquiring minds covet elucidation.

The governor of California refers to the members of Congress as “whores.” One member of Congress obliquely calls another a “fag.” The Speaker of the House is quoted by his mother as calling the First Lady a “bitch.” The lawyers in the most publicized trial in history label one another “liars,” “frauds” and “snakes.”

Is the reduction of our discourse to the exchange of barnyard epithets another sign of our slide down the staircase of civilization--the ultimate “dumbing down”--or simply evidence of our new freedom to say what we think without the outmoded constraints of etiquette?

Probably a little of both. But it’s still cause for genuine alarm when our statesmen find their role models in the dialogue of Beavis and Butt-head rather than the oratory of Webster and Clay. As for the lawyers, there may yet be an opportunity for national redemption.

The power of television to set a standard for our social intercourse can be turned to our advantage. If the exchange of invective between the prosecution and the defense in the case of People vs. O.J. Simpson can be elevated to a new standard of civility, it might even offset the contrary impact of Rush Limbaugh’s monologues. A national audience could be exposed to demonstrations of wit and dexterity in the exchange of insults rather than tiresome whining more appropriate to a sandbox.

The transformation can be simple. Judge Lance Ito should announce that hereafter, any insults addressed to other lawyers, witnesses or himself must exceed two syllables. The lawyers will appear more erudite and the audience will be sent scurrying for dictionaries to the benefit of the nation’s vocabulary. What this case achieved for disingenuous can be replicated for malapert or misologist.

Think of the possibilities. Instead of Marcia Clark calling Johnnie Cochran Jr. “Mr. Corkhead” (and then asserting the Dick Armey defense) she could say “Mr. Cochran is apparently afflicted with Ganser’s Syndrome.” Instead of Robert Shapiro accusing Christopher Darden of fibbing, he could label him a pseudologist. And all of the attorneys analyzing the day’s rulings could describe Ito as a battologist, a mumpsimus, a sophister or an opsimath, as the occasion demands.

The lawyers can find role models among the great advocates of the past. Rufus Choate once excoriated a witness as a “vagabond villain.” Clarence Darrow labeled one infamous liar “the Ananias of the age,” an allusion that could send listeners scurrying for their Bibles as well.

Four centuries ago, the English language was enriched with a whole new catalogue of vituperation. It emanated from the theater stage and found its way to the floor of Parliament. We can thank Shakespeare for the words we need to describe the fat-witted clodpolls, the slugabeds and the loggerheads who still populate our courtrooms. More important, Shakespeare proved that our theaters can elevate our dialogue. No theater ever had a larger audience than Ito’s courtroom.

And just imagine Newt Gingrich calling Bill Clinton a latitudinarian instead of a liberal --and the President responding that Gingrich is an ultracrepedarian. Oh, rapture!