Nick Clegg recalled a press release issued by his office which described opponents of same-sex marriage as "bigots". He later replaced the word with "some people"

Robert McCrum Before we climb into the belly of this beast, I'm going to sound two cheers for Nick Clegg's speech writers who are, apparently, not afraid to use a good old word to make a robust defence of something they believe in. So: one cheer for true grit, and a second cheer for clarity. I'm withholding the third cheer because I think that, actually, "bigot" was not the mot juste in that particular debate.

Anyway, what this storm in an ecclesiastical teapot illustrates is the generally spineless, mealy-mouthed timbre of most political rhetoric today. Can you imagine Disraeli, or Gladstone, or Churchill or Lloyd George or virtually any old-time politician you care to think of, balking at the use of "bigot" in times past? The political class has become so habituated to measuring out its words and opinions in focus-group-friendly periods that virtually no one uses the English language to express what he or she feels in their marrow.

That, I suppose, is why Boris got such a big hand from the public for his valedictory speech at the Olympic parade. He was crisp; he was sharp; he was funny – and he had a dig at the French. For Boris, the language is a playground – as it should be. No self-censorship there. Refreshing.

To make a serious point, "bigot" is probably the least of it. Language is usually a lightning conductor for socio-political anxiety. "Bigot", anyway, cuts both ways. It can be freighted with connotations of mindless obscurantism – cf Gordon Brown's "bigoted woman" in the last election. But one person's bigot might be another's doughty fighter for truth.

AN Wilson Two things are going on here. One is that Clegg, like all politicians and most people in public life, is one of those flabby-minded people who, almost above all things, wants to be liked. He perceives that the majority of liberal opinion took one particular view of a matter and he followed slavishly, rather than stopping to consider whether the "bigot" of a differing view had any legitimacy. That's one thing. And few of us, except the Simon Heffers and Paul Johnsons of this world actually want to be thought of as bigots.

But there is a second point. We don't want to be thought of as "bigots", so most of us pretend to be much more "moderate" than we truly are. If I am honest I would admit that I was a bigot, but I always pretend to be a wishy-washy. I make this pretence to myself – as well as to others. Clegg has unintentionally highlighted what is wrong with liberalism. The people who disapprove of gay marriage could well be bigots. But an out and out dismissal of what they have to say, without really listening to their argument, is itself bigotry. "Bigotry" is really just a name for any opinion with which you happen to disagree. Maybe "bigots" are those who are unguarded or childish enough to air their views, while the rest of us cautiously hedge our bets, pretend we do not really have views, or underplay the strength with which our views are held?

RMcC The OED defines "bigot" as: "a hypocritical professor of religion, a hypocrite". Hmmm. Oxford also tells us, unhelpfully, that the origin is unknown. Which leaves us free, I think, to make it up as we go along. I agree that there are two things going on here. First, I think that part of the radioactive linguistic force of "bigot" – as I think you're suggesting – is that the word, and the charge, painfully reminds us that, however wishy-washy or laissez-faire we affect to be, in our secret hearts we retain an irreducible core of prejudice and opinion. So there's a kind of self-loathing in play, which makes the word doubly toxic. We never want to be thought of as bigots, but we know that we carry inside us an inheritance (from family, school, profession etc) which adds up to a disagreement with aspects of the world as it is. The moment a man like Clegg invokes "bigot" in a speech, our inner bigot kicks in painfully reminding us that we are not the liberal, civilised, tolerant, humane, touchy-feely, altogether lovely people we might aspire to be. No, we are the prisoners of Stone Age brains, and Stone Age sentiments.

AW Can I pick you up on the phrase "Stone Age"? You see, I don't think this debate goes back to Fred Flintstone, but to that more recent eccentric, Plato. The young Plato began by hero-worshipping an apparent anarchist, and lamenting the fact that the state put that hero to death for corrupting the youth by making them think. The old Plato who wrote The Laws wanted to introduce the death penalty for people who had the wrong theological opinions – for example, those who believed that prayer was answered by the Olympian Gods. Both Platos were what Clegg would call bigots. It is to Plato, more than to any other thinker, that we owe this notion of irreducible moral absolutes, and the sense of The Good – not as something we have invented but which we can perceive, by philosophy, by leading a good life, by contemplation. Ever since, relativists of one sort or another have been trying to wriggle out of the implications of Plato's conception.

Yet the power of Islam shows us that for many human beings, experience seems to teach that conscience is not irrational, and that there are certain things – dishonesty, greed, cruelty, withholding bread from the hungry – which are not merely imprudent, but wrong, and certain things which are self-evidently and self-definedly good. Having been a wishy-washy most of my life, I have become completely at one with Plato, the Prophet and Fred Flintstone in my advancing old age. It does not worry me in the least that relativists think this point of view "bigoted".

RMcC You describe a Plato who seems to follow the familiar trajectory of youthful anarchist growing into happily "bigoted" elderly eccentric fretting about the pre-requisites for a stable civil society. Oddly enough, as I get older, I find myself feeling less not more troubled by the instability of human society. Call me Dr Pangloss, but I've come to the view that the self-evidently good things in our society (unselfishness, friendship, honesty, trust, resilience, faith, hope, and love) usually trump the demons. So we scrape through, by the skin of our teeth.

AW By opening your dictionary, we have discovered that the question is ultimately a theological one. Some people believe that subjectivism is impossible in science, but necessary in ethics. Others of us believe that maths, music, ethics and science are not things we invent, they are areas of potential knowledge which can be carefully and patiently attended to, worked out. This would not lead many of us to join a church or a religious organisation, it would not necessarily make us say that The Good was personal or had a Name, but it would make us into "bigots". Unlike you, I am not an optimist about the state of society. It's all right for Observer readers, but there are now literally millions of our fellow citizens who have not been properly educated, and who have no chance of leading a morally rational life – thanks to people who "think" like Nick Clegg.