- The Washington Times
Monday, March 4, 2019

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Every mildly or wildly enthusiastic supporter of President Trump has friends who are also supporters but are outraged over his “bull——” comment.

Mr. Trump uttered the word on Saturday in his Conservative Political Action Conference speech to several thousand admirers and activists at the Gaylord Hotel’s huge ballroom and to millions more watching on TV here and abroad.


I’m talking here about those people who were deeply offended by his uttering the curse word but who nonetheless support his agenda and/or him personally.

They can’t help regarding his use of profanity in public speeches as contributing to the further coarsening of our culture.

Every generation (and I mean EVERY generation) has said American culture is going to hell in a hand basket — a charmingly quaint expression used to make a perfectly understandable point.

Hand-basket complainers abound in every culture in the world, now and throughout history. Think of the frowns on slow body-touching dancing or jitterbugging, beep-bop, jazz, rock n roll, miniskirts, facial makeup, tight pants, kissing in public, unchaperoned dates, and on and on.

Each complainer had and has a point.

Every complainer also had and perhaps has difficulty adjusting to what Heraclitus (born in what today is Turkey) penned 500 years before Christ: You can’t dip your toe in the same stream twice.You never can because every molecule of H2O occupies a different place every millisecond, so it’s not the same stream from one microsecond to the next.

A stream’s flowing waters, like every human’s life and all life on earth, is in constant flux.

To some, that’s disconcerting. But then it’s not exactly breaking news that otherwise perfectly intelligent people treat mobile phones, social media and computers as bubonic-plague carriers.

Older colleagues in the 1970s quit journalism in terror of changing from manual to electric typewriters, sure that their writing ability would perish if they had to compose stories on special copy paper and type in a variety of codes in the process.

They were doing this in preparation for what turned out to be the glacially-paced change from hot to cold type, tumbling into the … gulp … digital age.

Change is hard for some always, and for everyone at least some of the time.

Donald J. Trump is “change” — in all upper case, with an exclamation point, and as “The Ride Of The Valkyries” thunders in the background.

Yet — or because of that — myriad Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn commenters defend Mr. Trump’s saying at CPAC that his opponents are “trying to take me out with bull——.”

His fans say that’s why they voted for him. He’s stubbornly resistant to being scripted. Says what he means and means what he says. Political correctness and the convenient curtain of polite public standards in politics be damned.

They say he talks just like they do at their kitchen tables.

The CPAC live audience of several thousand had maybe a thousand or so evangelical Protestants, devout Catholics and Orthodox Jews, in many cases accompanied by their young daughters and sons.

Orthodox Jewish dads and young sons, yarmulke capped, leaped to their feet to clap and yell approval for the “bull——” remark.

For anyone who grew up in a predominately Jewish community and has Orthodox and conservative Jewish friends, it was a bit startling to hear this Orthodox dad and son’s cheers of approval and then to hear their explanation.

They said the word reaffirmed for them that “Trump is real” — that he’s not, well … not a load of b.s.

As they see it, his all-in-the-family language again showed them he continues to say “no” to those who expect him to utter only those words fed to him by public-relations-aware advisers.

His defenders say the reality he displays is well worth the language he sometimes uses.

So does that mean he’s perfectly consistent on policy — on, say, non-interventionism? No.

On slashing spending? No.

On muscling Republican leaders to push for — rather than do an end run around — his policies and agenda? No.

On finding ways to get the wall built in his first term? No.

In avoiding excessive exaggeration? No.

In leading an exemplary personal life? No.

His admirers and those who tolerate his foibles generally agree that despite those imperfections, he’s the best thing to happen to the U.S. presidency.

They generally agree there’s really no one else who can begin to take his place for conservatives loyal to the cause of the freedom of the individual and dedicated to putting America’s welfare and interests first.

Opponents in both parties claim that any Democratic nominee can and will replace Mr. Trump because of the long list of his shortcomings.

What one word comes to mind as THE appropriate rejoinder to that claim?


Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC.