A True Little Story
As a young lawyer – therefore, a long time ago – I was the first associate for an established lawyer with a general practice. One day, he sent me to my first settlement conference in a civil case. Handing me the file, my boss gave me an idea what to expect – including the welcome news that the assigned judge tended to be favorable to the side we were on in this case.
Most of the details don’t matter, which is a good thing, since I don’t remember who the judge or the other three lawyers in the case were. I do recall that the other lawyers were well-known veterans and that two of the three were on the same side I was. That is, our clients had been in the same car, now plaintiffs suing the defendant, the driver of the other car in the accident.
The judge had each of us give our theory of the case before grilling us about our positions’ strengths and weaknesses. As predicted, he was noticeably tougher on the defense lawyer, with parting words urging him to have his insurance company find some real money to settle the case. After the session, I was pleased to accept an invitation from the veteran plaintiffs’ lawyers to join them for lunch.
Talk at lunch turned to what had just occurred, and I got a lesson on reading between the lines toward settling cases. At a pause, one experienced lawyer turned to the other, lowered his voice and referring to the judge said, “I’m glad he’s tough on the defense, of course, but you know, he is kind of an [expletive].” To which the other replied, “Yeah, but he’s OUR [expletive].”
Although I don’t remember who said it, I’ll never forget the line. That’s because it is (far too often, unfortunately) the only way to make sense of the otherwise inexplicable. Embracing our [expletives], no matter what they do, is an outgrowth of our seeming need for “Us vs. Them” conflict (see post of 2/19/19). It comes up in many settings, two of the most obvious being sports and partisan politics.
Sports
An obvious example from sports is the player on a rival team you love to hate. Ask sports fans to give an example, and be prepared for lengthy, passionate responses. Yet, those same fans usually have a player on their team they love all the more because rival teams’ fans hate him or her. That player is “our [expletive]”.
When our [expletive] does it, it’s daring, ingenious one-upmanship; when their [expletive] does it, it’s an OUTRAGE! Yours plays dirty; ours plays hard.
Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner
A famous story from baseball’s early days involves a time two of its greatest players met in a World Series. Shortstop Honus Wagner led his Pirates against outfielder Ty Cobb’s Tigers in 1909. Both are on almost everybody’s list of the best ten players ever, indeed on most top-five lists. While Wagner (he of the most valuable baseball card) was well respected and liked, Cobb was infamous on a number of fronts. One of the on-the-field reasons was his practice of sharpening his spikes in plain view before games and then sliding into bases with spikes high.
In the fifth inning of the Series’ first game, Cobb got on first base and yelled at Wagner. He was stealing second and coming for him. Wagner took the catcher’s throw, eluded Cobb’s flashing spikes, and tagged him in the mouth. It had to be especially satisfying for Pirates fans, and correspondingly bitter for Tigers fans: Not only was Cobb’s attempted intimidation reversed, but Wagner outplayed him as the Pirates won the Series 4-3.
Yours Becomes Ours
The transience of such perceptions is clear when [expletives] change teams. Len Dykstra was an irritant, a wacko, and an excellent player for the Mets before becoming a Phillie. He was all that and more for the Phils. “More” is meant literally, by the way. When I pointed out to fellow fans that Len seemed about twice the size he had been for the Mets (this being the steroid era, after all), the general reaction was “Shhhh!” He was our [expletive] now.
Partisan Politics
The phenomenon is not limited to fun and games, of course.
Gerrymandering is clever if it benefits your party, disgusting when the other guys do it. Lines designating voting districts have to be drawn somewhere; sometimes, where they should go is a legitimately close call. I’d like to think that gerrymandering started with officials figuring they might as well benefit their party in making the choice between two sensible boundaries.
In any event, there’s no defending the grotesque voting districts that have been created by both parties over the years to provide safe havens for candidates based not on performance but demographics. The maps for such districts can resemble spaghetti on a plate or the splotches of Rorschach tests. It’s part of the cynical spoils of having your [expletive] be in charge of redistricting.
Congress
Prior posts have taken Congress to task for dereliction of duty in various areas – among them judicial appointments (1/25/19), immigration reform (5/10/19 and 8/21/19), and impeachment (6/23/20). No abuse of power is shameful enough to elicit a response. Other than to mourn the obliteration of statesmanship by partisanship, I won’t belabor here.
The President
Then there is you-know-who, the man for whom “He can’t possibly go any lower” is the one challenge gleefully accepted and always met.
As pointed out by Anonymous in A Warning (highly recommended, by the way; a much better read than expected), Trump is neither a true conservative nor much of a Republican. He IS what some left wingers have falsely accused all conservative Republicans of being (see below).
So, the question to conservative Republicans who’ve been giving Trump a pass is this: Is he really your [expletive]? Granted, he has the [expletive] part down pat. But how is he yours? He could not be clearer that he cares nothing about anyone or anything but himself. That includes you and almost everything you believe in.
Embracing those in power because they’re in power rather than on the merits of their ideas, character, or actions entails costs and risks, including to one’s sense of integrity and judgement. What does it say about you if this [expletive] is “yours”?
This is of genuine concern for two reasons:
- Some good, well-meaning Americans are going to rue the day they supported this man when the gravity and extent of his wrongdoing come fully into focus. Many already do, given the overwhelming evidence right out in the open, but the feeling we haven’t seen anything yet is inescapable.
- Needless, long-lasting damage has been done to both the Republican Party and the conservative movement in this country by acquiescence in extensive criminal activity. As someone in neither camp, I can speak to the need for two viable parties and competing points of view. It’s going to be a long time before a large number of moderates vote for Republicans again after their disgraceful enabling of this wretched, embarrassing man.
The mythology surrounding delta blues icon Robert Johnson includes the legend that he sold his soul to the devil at the “Crossroads” for his astounding musical talent. It’s understandable that people had difficulty explaining Johnson’s otherworldly singing, composing, and guitar playing in more conventional ways. Why anyone would sell their soul to the devil, acquiescing in harmful, abhorrent behavior, for the likes of a Donald J. Trump – now that’s inexplicable.
The Boy Who Cried “Wolf”
My father loved the fable of the Boy Who Cried “Wolf”. I know this because he told me the story at least three times as I was growing up. As is often the case, the Donald Trump nightmare is the most extreme real-life example of the fable in memory.
For decades, those creating the orthodoxy of the Left in America have assigned anyone not in complete agreement with every detail of that orthodoxy a series of damning attributes. Question a current belief or policy, or even simply use verbiage no longer in favor, and out came the “-ists” and the “-phobics”. You were racist, fascist, xenophobic, misogynist, sexist, etc.
One day, a guy who actually is all of the above – and more – somehow (incredibly) becomes President of the United States. This time, when all the old “-ists” and “-phobics” are trotted out to condemn him, guess how a number of conservatives react: “Yeah, we know – he’s racist, he’s fascist, he’s xenophobic , he’s misogynist, he’s sexist, blah, blah, blah. Sure. Everybody not on the far left is. You’ve been telling us for decades.”
This matters. In seeking refuge from what they perceive as unrelenting political correctness, many conservatives who don’t like Trump a little bit have been contorting themselves into philosophical pretzels to reluctantly back him. (Yeah, I know there’s also a contingent who believes the wrong side won the Civil War. Trump’s their hero. They’re not the folks being addressed here.)
Thus, a remarkable phenomenon occurs: Some wonderful people – who love their spouses and families, work hard, help others generously, tell the truth, seek knowledge, behave honorably, and serve their country and communities selflessly – find themselves supporting someone who is their exact polar opposite in every way. For all that matters most – character, morals, work ethic, respect, honesty, fair dealing, empathy – they would detest this man if they had any dealings with him.
A Suggestion
It must be exhausting and disheartening to concoct rationales under which Trump’s torrential outrages “aren’t so bad” – or at least “aren’t as bad as the alternative”. Here’s a suggestion: Do yourself a favor and give it up. Not your conservative principles. Give up the liar and his lies.
The country’s leading conservative columnist, George F. Will, who does believe deeply in conservative principles, has much insight to offer. His column is published by the Washington Post and appears in other major outlets. Among recent worthwhile pieces are those dated June 1 and July 29. The latter decimates some myths about Joe Biden the Trump campaign would have you believe, to consider Trump somehow not as bad as the alternative.
When the veteran plaintiffs’ lawyer delivered his memorable line at that long-ago lunch, it was with more of a world-weary sigh than a triumphant boast. We chuckled a bit, the mirth offset by unease. The conversation quickly turned to other topics, but the insight has been helpful ever since, especially in cases of truly bad behavior rather than simply a judge’s tendencies.
A recent reverie involved citizens filing a class-action civil lawsuit against Donald Trump under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), for conducting an ongoing criminal enterprise out of the White House. In sharing the idea with a close friend, I wasn’t completely kidding. (Establishing standing for citizens to seek damages might be a challenge, though.) Those thinking Trump is worth supporting because he’s their [expletive] are both deluding and demeaning themselves
Therefore, the Merits
Let’s go back to considering the facts and the merits of our important issues. Gerrymandering ill serves us, no matter whose [expletive] is doing it. One would think the Constitution forbids it in all but relatively benign manifestations. However, in June of 2019, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the flagrant examples before it were matters of politics into which the Court should not intrude. So it’s left to us not to put up with this nonsense. We better be vigilant. One-party redistricting authorities now have a green light; worse, there’s now extra incentive to attain such mapping power.
The same goes for legislators whose gamesmanship precludes serious deliberation on important congressional business. It doesn’t matter whose judicial appointments or meritorious bills never even get discussed. Wrong is wrong; the country suffers. We’ll find out soon enough if Kentuckians are proud to have had their very own Mitch McConnell the senate’s majority leader and the president’s enabler-in-chief. Maybe it’s time to consider term limits.
Above all, let’s not have any [expletive] – yours, mine, or anyone’s – be president again. Ever.
Ken Bossong
© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong