Still Winning : Our Last Hope to Be Great Again (9781546085287)

by Hurt, Charles

  So, on this nice June day, I had just filed my column for Wednesday’s edition of the Washington Times. It was then that my attention was summoned to the spectacle unfolding on my television. There was Donald Trump—descending behind Melania, who was wearing a brilliant white dress—announcing that he was running for president. Ordinarily, this would not have been particularly remarkable. Donald Trump had talked about running for president in the past, but he had never fully committed to it.

  This time was entirely different. The timing was different, of course, but so was everything else. The mood in America was different. And this Trump campaign was going to be different from anything we had ever seen.

  The man was a loud, brash-talking brawler from New York City known for his success in the tawdry world of reality television—not normally the resume of a politician who hopes to appeal to conservative, religious Republicans. And in the past, it had not. Flanked by perfectly coifed American flags, Trump wore a red tie, white shirt, and blue suit. Red, white, and blue. Simple. Clear. Bold. No Al Gore “earth tones” here. Nor would you see Trump campaigning in shirt sleeves like George W. Bush.

  Trump looked a million miles from John Kerry’s ridiculous barn jacket and Mitt Romney’s silly ironed blue jeans. And Melania would never be seen in anything as gauche as Hillary Clinton’s mauve pantsuits. And never—never, never, never—would you see Donald Trump sweating through a white dress shirt like Barack Obama.

  Trump’s bold and solid shirt, suit, and tie were to become his uniform as he courted the American people—as if he were a reality star candidate running a reality star campaign for a reality star presidency. But no costume alone would get Donald Trump into the White House. For the long run ahead, he had to be decisively different. He had to go truly bold. And in many ways, that meant that he simply had to be himself.

  The single biggest difference about Donald Trump’s announcement speech that day in June 2015 was not the staging. Nor was it his shirt-tie-suit combo. It was the language he used—his very own language and his very own demeanor. Donald Trump understood from day one that he could never win the presidency talking the way politicians talk. And he could never win by “acting presidential.”

  People came to love his hilarious campaign trail shtick where he stands upright behind the podium and woodenly pretends to “act presidential” as he struts around the stage like a toy soldier, muttering meaningless politically correct bromides. It is a still-hilarious shtick that drives crowds wild. But more important, it demonstrates just how utterly useless it would have been for Donald Trump to run as some kind of normal political candidate.

  No, this was a man who was out to crash the gates of Washington. And in order to do that, he had to radically upend the way the game of politics is played. He had to start by changing the language.

  Such a change would not be easy. And it certainly would not be popular among politicians firmly ensconced in Washington. The royalty of the American political scene—known variously as “the Establishment” or “the elites” or “swamp creatures”—closely guard the language that is spoken in politics. It is a powerful tool in maintaining their grip on power. And the political press slavishly enforces these rules of language. (If you don’t speak the language, you don’t play the game.)

  These people have spent decades establishing this vocabulary and hounding from politics anyone who veers outside the proscribed lines. They are forever culling the herd of politicians for saying things that are stupid, thoughtless, strange, or outside the acceptable range of political orthodoxy.

  The result of this ever-vigilant speech police is a stilted, meaningless political vocabulary that’s poll tested and riddled with preposterous euphemisms that provide for an infinite number of acceptable phrases that Democrats and Republicans yell back and forth—never actually winning any arguments and not accomplishing anything tangible for the voters they claim to represent.

  Speech codes are nothing new. They have been popular among tyrants, despots, and demagogues since the beginning of human politics. Such a speech code was made famous, of course, by George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949.

  In Orwell’s fictional country of Oceana, the establishment “Inner Party” uses the official language of “Newspeak” to control the lower population of workers. The Inner Party uses all manner of media—two-way telescreens to microphones to spies—to enforce the Newspeak speech codes and report back any “thoughtcrimes” committed by the working proles. Another tool used by the Inner Party that is vital for controlling the masses is a regime of never-ending, continuous war. Also used are so-called false flag operations perpetuated by the Inner Party but made to appear as being carried out by some purported enemy of the state who may or may not even exist. The whole notion was popularized and updated by the Hunger Games books and movies.

  Does any of this sound familiar?

  Despite my considerable skepticism of governments in general and the United States government in particular, I have never been a serious believer in extravagant conspiracy theories. Not to disappoint any dear friends, but I believe Elvis Presley is dead and the moon landing was real. But I sure don’t blame anyone for being skeptical about any official government explanations for anything. The heaping lies inside the Warren Report’s explanation for the assassination of President Kennedy have probably done as much as anything in the past century to corrode the credibility of the federal government.

  Or take the mind-blowingly dishonest and conniving conspiracy by former attorney general Eric Holder’s Justice Department to run guns into Mexico and drugs back into America. It is further evidence that conspiracy theories are not always just “theories.” Also, it proves that there is no limit to what people in power will do to abuse that power for their selfish purposes.

  Yes, indeed, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  THE LEXICON OF LUNACY

  It is chilling to read 1984 today, seven decades after George Orwell published it. His ability to predict how established government authorities would use such “Orwellian” tactics to hold on to power is rivaled only by the ability of America’s Founders to ward off the very same abuses in some of their wisest elements of our Constitution.

  In America, obviously, political leaders don’t enforce a “Newspeak” speech code and they certainly do not codify it. They don’t have a name for it at all, because to have a name for it would confirm its very existence. But others—outside the established “Inner Party”—do have terms for it. “Political correctness” is probably the most common description.

  I call it the Lexicon of Lunacy.

  The list of words, terms, and phrases in the Lexicon of Lunacy runs from the ridiculous to the deadly serious. Take the word “cisgender,” for example. I don’t actually know what it means but I know that we are supposed to use it when we are all tiptoeing around somebody’s severe midlife mental breakdown in which they decide to go under the knife to rearrange the sex organs God gave them.

  Come to think of it, this is not at all funny. I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who finds himself, herself, or itself that thoroughly confused and lost in life. The only thing that could be worse would be if politicians decided to take that devastatingly depressing sorrow and weaponize it for political use.

  Oh yeah, that has already happened.

  So, how about this for an actually funny term from the Lexicon of Lunacy. “Overweight” has become a bad word because we don’t want to “fat shame” or “body shame” anyone. Instead we call the person “under tall.” Or, maybe “height-challenged.” Or “girth-oppressed.”

  Those are funny. My children use them against me all the time.

  Others are not funny at all.

  The fuzzy term “pro-choice,” for instance, is the accepted euphemism for a political stance that favors killing a healthy, live human fetus that is living and developing in its mother’s body. In some cases, the term “pro-choice” can even mean the extermination and dismemb
erment of a healthy, growing fetus that might even be viable outside the womb. Who on earth hears of such a grisly procedure and thinks of the word “choice”? And, of course, the prefix “pro-”?

  Less graphic but devastating in other ways are terms such as “free trade.” “Free trade” has become a mantra for hyperglobalization of the economy in ways that punish American workers, wildly enrich Wall Street and the captains of industry, and obliterate the ideals that have always separated America from the rest of the world.

  Some of the best euphemisms, lies, and distortions in the Lexicon of Lunacy deal with illegal immigration. To be crystal clear, “illegal immigration” is when illegal aliens illegally enter our country without permission and illegally attempt to illegally reside and illegally work here.

  Now, in the Lexicon of Lunacy, this activity is termed “undocumented.” And it is the only acceptable word to describe illegal aliens who are living illegally in the United States. Some of these illegal aliens illegally overstayed their visas to be living here illegally. Others illegally crossed the border to be living here illegally. Many of these illegal aliens also work in the United States illegally.

  But, in our crazy political world, mentioning the word “illegal” in reference to “undocumented” people is considered hateful and even racist.

  The problem with using the word “undocumented” is that not only does the term give the wrong impression, but it is a flat-out lie. “Undocumented” suggests illegal aliens have documentation that proves they are somehow here legally, but they just don’t have those documents on them at the moment.

  No! If you are an illegal alien, documents proving you are legal do not exist! And if said illegal alien manufactures papers or documents to illegally and dishonestly suggest that he is somehow, in fact, here in the country legally, then he has committed additional crimes.

  By browbeating people into using terms like “undocumented” to describe people who are actually “illegal aliens,” lawless leftists successfully push their dishonest agenda to erase what it means to be a citizen of the United States of America. It is their way of obliterating the sacred notion of “equal justice under law.”

  Perhaps my favorite euphemism in the Lexicon of Lunacy deployed by American political establishment royalty is a term that is astonishingly dishonest and mercilessly subversive: “identity politics.”

  The term, of course, describes a certain political strategy that is highly favored nowadays by Democrat politicians and the hacks they hire to do some of their nastiest dirty work. Republicans also use “identity politics” sometimes, but far less.

  What is remarkable about “identity politics” is what an entirely accepted political strategy it has become today, sixty-six years after the Supreme Court declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Even the great media titans talk about “identity politics” as if it were just some innocuous strategy for reaching voters.

  In fact, it is not just another obnoxious example of political correctness. It is the most insidious betrayal of the civil rights movement in America, in which a color-blind equality was so valiantly fought for. “Identity politics” represents everything that noble leaders like Martin Luther King devoted their lives to fighting against.

  “Identity politics” is a strategy that separates black people and white people and Asian people and Hispanic people into different groups, based on their ethnicity and racial “identity.” Democrats go even further by dividing men and women and gays and Muslims and Jews and Christians and assigning them all to different camps.

  Then Democrats tailor specific messages for each of the groups, often playing one group off another. It is a vicious mockery of Martin Luther King’s plea for all Americans to be judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. Yet it goes on openly and unapologetically in American politics today.

  If public schools were doing it, it would be called “segregation.” If a town were doing it, it would be called a throwback to “Jim Crow” laws. If a storekeeper were doing it, it would be called “racial profiling.” If a regular person walking down the street were doing it, it would be called exactly what it is: racism. Yet, in the world of Democrat politics, it is considered mainstream political strategy.

  Standing on the sidelines, observing all of this dishonest language concealing such deep corruption, listening to all the meaningless pablum from the Potomac swamp basin, was Donald J. Trump. And, like the brilliant salesman and master marketer that he has always been, Trump saw an opportunity to inject a little Hudson River honest, brash talk into the conversation. His amazing instincts clearly told him that voters all over would love it.

  When Trump jumped into the presidential race in 2015, he was a well-known figure. He had been in the hot glare of the New York tabloid media for decades. Everything from the unveiling of golden buildings that bore his name to raunchy details about his various divorces made headlines. His business accomplishments in the real estate world and his success as a reality television star put him on par with a tiny handful of stars known around the world by one name.

  But when Trump descended the escalator in Trump Tower that day, he had made political headlines more recently for something entirely different.

  Four years earlier, Trump shocked the political world by launching a campaign questioning whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States. For the entire political-media establishment inside Washington, D.C., this merely proved that Donald Trump was some kind of crazy conspiracy loon. For these establishment people, it also proved Trump was a racist.

  At the time, any kind of criticism of Obama could draw accusations of racism. Criticism with even a faint hint that Obama was from somewhere else or had loyalties elsewhere would be roundly denounced as racist. And anyone questioning Obama’s loyalty would be evicted from the political arena.

  I know this personally because back in 2008, Obama campaign officials kicked me off the Obama campaign plane for a column I had written. At the time, I was D.C. bureau chief for the New York Post. During the Democrat primary, I had maintained a fairly good relationship with the Obama campaign. Obama was new to the political scene and was, therefore, kind of interesting. We gave him a fair shake.

  It also helped that he was running against the New York Post’s hometown senator (via Arkansas), Hillary Clinton. Man, we gave her hell in that primary! By the time Obama had dispatched Clinton and the general election had rolled around, nobody in Clinton world was talking to me anymore. But I was still in fairly good standing with the Obama campaign. Until, that is, I wrote a column comparing his position on the Iraq War to that of Republican rival John McCain.

  It was a perfectly obvious observation that while McCain was willing to do anything to win the war in Iraq, Obama was willing to walk away from that war, even if it meant defeat for America. I doubt there was a single person supporting Obama who did not believe that to be true. But by spelling it out in a column, I had by their lights raised a question about Obama’s loyalty. This got me into big trouble with the Obama campaign. Anything that raised any negative hint about Obama’s allegiance was verboten.

  As I was standing at the luggage carousel inside the old terminal at Reagan National Airport waiting for bags, my phone rang. It was Bill Burton from the Obama campaign. That whole day, I had been getting earfuls from various Obama campaign operatives who were angry about my column. But Burton is one of the best when it comes to abusive campaign hacks. He did not disappoint.

  When I answered, Burton was midstream in a lengthy, expletive-filled tirade about what a despicable reporter I was and what a dishonest rag I worked for. I don’t remember everything he said but I remember standing there happily listening as I watched the bags go round and round the luggage carousel.

  After explaining that I was kicked off the campaign plane for good, Burton slowed down and told me how Obama had endured some of the most outrageous, disgusting, and racist things written about him in the course of the primary
and general election campaign. “But you know, man, that column you wrote is the single most insulting thing that has ever been written about him!” (Quote cleaned up to remove profanity.)

  I didn’t know what to say except, “Thanks. That’s a real compliment.”

  At that, he hung up on me as my bags finally arrived.

  Now, obviously, the notion that there was something racist about observing Obama’s position on the Iraq War is patently absurd. But it highlights just how sensitive and dictatorial the campaign was.

  After Obama’s historic election, the Washington Post reported on the campaign’s decision to boot me off the plane in a profile of incoming press secretary Robert Gibbs: “In September, Charles Hurt, the New York Post’s Washington bureau chief, was barred from the campaign plane after writing in a column that Obama ‘simply doesn’t care if we win or lose the war in Iraq.’”

  Gibbs, according to the profile by Howard Kurtz, called the charge in my column “as irresponsible a line as I’ve read in this country in years.”

  It should be said that any reporter covering the Obama campaign certainly witnessed disgusting, clearly racist verbal attacks on Obama. I happen to come from the school of thought that giving such people a megaphone to spew their hateful talk is not the right answer. That small minority of people have already been marginalized by society.

  But by lumping all criticism of Obama into—or at least uncomfortably close to—the dirty pile of racist garbage does more than just minimize the seriousness of racism. It becomes a tool to silence all good people who have a fair criticism about the guy.

  This dynamic is felt far beyond the Obama campaign plane.

  Anywhere in America, well-meaning people who are absolutely not racist have felt the sting of that accusation for merely leveling a fair criticism of President Obama. No matter what your politics are, that is not a healthy political environment. In a free country, no one is beyond criticism, especially if that person is the most powerful person on the planet.