Analysis: Why conservatives loved Trump's U.N. speech so much

For many of President Trump's core supporters, his appeal has always been more about tone than substance.

Commentators often misunderstood his 2016 success by overly focusing on the specific policies he was proposing. To borrow one trite formulation, the media took Trump literally while voters took him seriously. Many Republicans who backed Trump in the primaries were willing to overlook his apostasies on the issues they theoretically cared about most, such as abortion or guns, because they liked his style. The brashness, bellicosity, swagger and machismo – whatever you want to call it – that made so many elder statesmen so uncomfortable was central to his success.

Many conservatives feel like the system – in Washington and the world – is broken. They don't want leaders to prevaricate or speak the language of diplomacy. They want a streetfighter.

After a week of being angry at Trump for cutting deals with "Chuck and Nancy," that's what a lot of these same people saw in Trump's maiden speech Tuesday to the United Nations General Assembly.

"Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime," the president said in the most memorable sound bite of the day. "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."

The conservatives who praised the speech focused mainly on the way Trump talked about North Korea.

John Bolton declared that "this was the best speech of the Trump presidency" because "people will remember" Trump's threat against Pyongyang. "I think he was as clear and direct as it's possible to be" the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. said on Fox News. "For Americans, plain speaking is still a virtue. And there was a lot of plain speaking in that speech."

The Resurgent's Erick Erickson also called it "the best speech by President Trump so far" and said it was because "he did not mince words": "A White House contact told me the President intended to wake up the United Nations to the threat North Korea poses on the world stage by using harsh language. I think it probably worked. Foreign policy elitists will treat the President's statements about North Korea and 'rocketman' with the same disdain they showed Reagan for his 'evil Empire' remarks. But I suspect both Presidents will have the last laugh. . . . With President Trump we are not going to get the soaring rhetoric of Barack Obama or the happy smile and sentiment of George W. Bush. We are not going to get Reagan or Clinton. What we are going to get is a blunt instrument who understands he can occasionally use his bluntness to make real change."

"The apology tour is over," wrote Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt, praising the "strong dose of straight talk."

"Thank God we have a president who . . . is not afraid to speak truth to the whole world," evangelical leader Franklin Graham wrote on Facebook. "It made you proud to be an American."

"If his supporters worried about the supposed 'globalists' on his staff watering down Trump's approach on foreign policy, the president dispelled all of those worries. . .," Ed Morrissey wrote on his Hot Air blog.

"It may not be the most elegant solution, and it's certainly not what we're used to, but blunt threats are sometimes the only thing two-bit despots understand," added Washington Examiner columnist Becket Adams.

Compare the tenor of that commentary to the horrified reaction of many media elites: ABC News correspondent Terry Moran said on the air after Trump finished speaking that threatening to "totally destroy" a nation of 25 million people "borders on the threat of committing a war crime."

From CNN's senior White House correspondent:

From Politico's chief international affairs columnist:

Here is a taste of some of the headlines out there this morning:

On the right, though, Trump offered a little something for everyone.

If you want to believe that the president's heart is in the right place, if you're inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, there was at least something in the speech you could seize on and celebrate.

Whether you're a traditional Republican who cheered when George W. Bush focused on promoting democracy abroad during his second inaugural address or a libertarian who wants to bring the troops home, there was a theme for you to embrace.

In part, that is what happens whenever a speech is drafted by committee. It's plainly obvious from reading the transcript that different sections of the speech were written by different people with different worldviews.

The Washington Post's Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung focus on the ideological incoherence that resulted from that dynamic:

• "In previewing the speech for reporters, one senior White House aide described it as 'a deeply philosophical address' that would explain 'how America fits into the world, how it operates, what its values are.' These have been subjects of often intense debate in a White House split between foreign policy traditionalists and Trump's senior political advisers . . . Trump's initial instincts often have been to upend U.S. foreign policy – or at least question the core principles that have guided it – before pivoting back to a more traditional stance. Trump's U.N. speech struggled with these conflicting impulses to the point of incoherence."

• "In some moments, Trump suggested that his commitment to sovereignty – a word that he repeated 21 times – would lead to a less interventionist foreign policy. . . . In other instances, Trump outlined a far more expansive role for the United States."

• "In paying homage to American generosity on the world stage, Trump cited several U.S.-funded global health programs that the budget his administration released May 7 calls for significantly cutting. He praised the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe after World War II, even as he has repeatedly vowed that the United States' days of nation-building are finished."

• "The president was selective in his view of bad actors – North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Venezuela – whose sovereignty did not merit respect. He made little mention of China or Russia, congratulating both on their recent U.N. vote for more sanctions on North Korea and offering only a brief mention of Moscow's violations of Ukraine's sovereign territory."

The Post's foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius said he was "modestly reassured" by what he saw as a shockingly "conventional" speech: "He supported human rights and democracy; he opposed rogue regimes; he espoused a global community of strong, sovereign nations. . . . Because he's Trump, the zingers got the headlines. . . . He said the Iran nuclear deal was 'an embarrassment' and Iran's regional actions were a 'scourge,' but he didn't say he would tear up the deal. He appealed to the Iranian people, without exactly calling for regime change. He checked all the hard-liner boxes, in other words, without making any new commitments. . . . He spoke about righteousness defeating evil, a 'great reawakening of nations' and other fuzzy Reaganisms. But at its core, this was a speech that any president since Harry S. Truman probably could have delivered. (Interestingly, Trump twice favorably mentioned Truman. . .) . . . Trump even invoked the Marshall Plan, the very cornerstone of the liberal international order. . . . (Warning to base: Has POTUS been kidnapped by the black-helicopter crowd?)"

"The tension between national sovereignty and universal rights has thrummed through the UN's work like an electric charge ever since the organization was founded after the second world war," the Economist observes. "Mr. Trump, in his speech to the General Assembly, did not so much resolve that tension as pretend that it does not exist. This required some heroic squinting at the historical record."

The fact Trump threaded the needle allowed various conservative thought leaders who have been critical of his foreign policy to praise him.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, for example, thinks the president signaled that he's coming around to their more globalist views: "Donald Trump's method has been to use his speeches on the world stage to roil diplomatic convention, and he did it again Tuesday in his address to the United Nations. No coterie of complacency deserves candor more, and perhaps Mr. Trump's definition of 'America First' is even evolving to recognize the necessity of American global leadership."

Other Trump critics in the GOP tent also found something to like.

Mitt Romney posted a rare tweet praising Trump:

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), a former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has been one of the most outspoken Trump critics among congressional Republicans since announcing her retirement. But she loved his attacks on the governments in Havana and Caracas.

The Washington Post's Breanne Deppisch and Joanie Greve contributed to this article.