The Democratic party and its candidates for president appear to be treating the current occupant of the white house with too much respect. I believe that is a mistake and I am going to argue for my view here.
Disrespect deserves to be disrespected. I believe that proposition, and it would not surprise me to find that top operatives in the D party also believe it, and are afraid that if they treat the current occupant with disrespect they will in turn invite disrespect upon themselves. I am sympathetic with this view. However, I believe it is too general to be useful as a guide for action. It is blanket disrespect, or uncalled for disrespect that deserves to be disrespected. Not occasional, well placed, pointed disrespect. And not disrespect for disrespect. To disrespect what is disrespectful must be respectable. That is presupposed by the maxim with which I opened this paragraph. When we disrespect what ought to be disrespected, the maxim says, we do what is deserved, that is, what is just, that is, what is right. And doing what is just and right is always respectable.
An epithet is a desciptive phrase intended to capture something about the character of the person or thing so named, such as Richard the Lion Hearted, Cyrus the Great, man of the masses, or uptight prig. Trump uses epithets for people, places and things, such as, Little Marco, the failing NY Times, enemy of the people, shithole countries. He has epithets for Dem party presidential candidates, including Sleepy Joe and Pocahontas.
On this front, I believe that the Democratic party MUST return fire. However, I cannot recall a Democratic party office holder using an epithet for the current occupant. I hope to be informed about some of them below. What office holding Dem has named the beast? I suppose that Rep. Tlaib’s phrase, “impeach the mother fucker,” did in fact use an epithet, but it also used the f-word, which is uncalled for.
I think it would be nice to hear some epithets on stage at the next debate. I think that a truly creative one, used in the right moment, could catapault one of these candidates into favor. Think of a casual use of the phrase, President Clown Hair. Dropping this epithet casually into a conversation, or into a response to the press, could capture the attention of the masses. One is finishing a remark, and needs to say that the current occupant vacillates and no one knows what he will do next. Instead, one says, ‘We will have to wait and see what President Clown Hair does.’ One gets a laugh, perhaps gets the epithet into the news cycle. One uses it casually again, freely, but only where appropriate. And, of course, once you commit to one of these, you have to stick with it. So, candidates should choose wisely.
I like President Clown Hair because it is true and there is nothing the current occupant can do about that other than change his hair style. It is funny. It is hurtful. It recalls his other clown features, like the spray tan, the long wide ties, and the elevator shoes. Also his deceptiveness, that is, his utter falseness. Also, because clowns are clowns, it threatens his credibility in all things.
I recall a few more epithets. The Donald. (Hillary used that a time or two) Orange Julius. Twitler. Donald Little Hands. The Bigot in Chief.
Since he was elected I have resorted to: President Bigot Head, Donald Dumb Dumb, Chicken Shit Don, Herr Donald, Cry Baby Don and a few more now forgotten ones.
Now it occurs to me that assorted moral passions will object to my chosen epithet, and perhaps to any and all epithet usage by Dem party office seekers. So I want to offer some guidance on responding to those passions when they appear.
They will want to say that we are disrespecting the office if we use such phrases. To that objection the proper response is that I am not saying that the presidency has clown hair, but that the president does.
They will want to say that treating the president with disrespect shows disrespect for the office. To that objection the proper response is that the presidency cannot grow hair, but the president in fact has clown hair, and these two facts are separate.
They will want to say that President Clown Hair is an epithet that makes fun of a man’s appearance, which is especially tasteless. To this I would respond, tasteless compared to what? To Little Marco? The occupant can change his hair, Marco cannot change his height. So President Clown Hair must be appreciably less tasteless than Little Marco.
They will want to say that by using an epithet you get down on the level of the occupant and his minions. That it is low. That we must remain on the high road. That we cannot resort to namecalling the president because it is … what? Immoral? It is not immoral. Unseemly? To that I would say, no it isn’t and even if it is, so what? How unseemly is it to cause pain to a person who causes pain as a way of entertaining others? How unseemly is it to engage a weapon weilder with a weapon equal to his? How unseemly is it to remind the world that the president has clown hair?
The man has concentration camps operating, he has allied with North Korea and Russia, he has alienated NATO and other allies, he has launched a war against science, assaulted environmental protections, signed an historic tax scam, and coerced a SCOTUS retirement who got replaced by a mob judge. 10k lies and he still has 18 months to go.
But no, a few will urge, don’t dare resort to calling him President Clown Hair on stage at a Dem party debate. That would be going too far. That would cross a threshold.
I disagree with the morality that would prevent us from meeting fire with fire. I am hoping to hear a candidate come up with a better epithet than President Clown Hair, and to use it effectively.
