Trump’s Cards
Everyone seems to have been shocked by the disgusting, disgraceful conduct of Trump, Vance and their political and journalist cronies in the Oval Office on 28 February; it has been referred to as an ambush, a mugging, an invective-laden attack. I have yet to meet or hear of anyone who disagrees with this assessment. Indeed, as an example, a few days later, when we were having a bite to eat in the cafeteria of a popular store, the three respectable middle-aged ladies at the adjacent table were discussing Trump (including casting doubt on his ‘assassination attempt’!). The language was less than complimentary, and some of it was uncharacteristically expletive-laden. So, why were so many of us so shocked? I suspect that – looking at it positively – we British, of whatever political persuasion, are just decent people, shocked at such unseemly treatment of a visiting head of state!
UnSUITably dressed?
Would it have occurred to anyone but Trump and Vance to be concerned about Zelenskyy’s dress? The whole world understands that his habitual attire is that of the leader of a country at war, yet Trump and Vance felt it appropriate to make a big deal about this as being ‘an insult to the dignity of the Oval Office’. Even if it had been appropriate to observe that Zelenskyy was not wearing a suit, how was it appropriate to make such a fuss about it to a visiting head of state? Ermmm… what about Musk’s casual dress and baseball cap, worn virtually every time he is seen in the Oval Office, and the inappropriacy of bringing his child along to this hallowed chamber which symbolises the US Constitution? No, this seems to have been a put-up job, a staged confrontation, in the words of The Observer, premeditated to wrong-foot President Zelenskyy right from the start.
Body-jabbing body language
As a linguist, I recognise that body language and facial expression are important components of communication. What we were being presented with in this infamous ‘interview’ had the appearance at first of a friendly, informal meeting between two heads of state. It was incumbent upon the host to set the tone of the meeting, to be welcoming and reassuring; the more so considering the beleaguered situation of the country the visiting head of state represents. Instead, the encounter quickly degenerated into what seemed every bit like a head teacher and his deputy admonishing a naughty pupil. The finger wagging, hand waving and facial expressions were appalling, and I suspect that the overwhelming majority of people who saw it were shocked; certainly, British viewers I know, whatever their political persuasion, all seem to have expressed this reaction, demonstrating that the British sense of decency and propriety is well-embedded in UK society.
Sticks and stones may break my bones… but names will always hurt me
An essential element of proper communication to convey the right attitude on the part of the speaker is ‘appropriacy’, which refers to whether a word is suitable for the context in which it is being used. The Cambridge Dictionary defines appropriacy as “the fact that a word or phrase sounds natural and is acceptable when used in a particular situation”. I am reminded of my years of teaching English to foreign students at the naval college; in particular, I recall a couple of Singaporeans who were perplexed by the various uses of the expression ‘pissed’. Each of the several meanings depends on the context and, of course, on the situation: fine to use among friends and shipmates, but not in the presence of the captain’s wife! Language should be chosen and used carefully and with appropriacy, just as we select the clothes we wear as befits the situation.
So, was Vance using appropriate language when he accused Zelenskyy of being “disrespectful” and trying “to litigate this in front of the American media” just because he was trying to set the record straight on the sequences of events since 2014. Worse, he accuses Ukraine: “Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems” and states: “You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.” In answer to Zelenskyy suggesting that Vance is not aware of the situation on the ground: “you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour”. Later, Trump accuses Zelenskyy: “You’re gambling with World War III”, after which the repeated accusation is levelled at him of being ungrateful for the help received from the US. Reading the aggressive language in the transcript again is making me feel ill, especially the inappropriate language, so I won’t quote any more here. I suggest that you, dear reader, read it for yourself in full… so long as it doesn’t raise your blood pressure the way it is mine!
Idiotic idiom
‘You have none of the cards’… OK, so card games are international, but to use this expression and manipulate it the way they did might well have confused Zelenskyy, especially when both Trump and Vance ranted on about this to insist that the Ukraine had no hope of recovering its sovereignty over the territory it possessed before the vicious and illegal Russian invasion. “I’m not playing cards…” was Zelenskyy’s reply… and indeed the use of the image of a game of cards had trivialised the national tragedy which had changed life in Ukraine forever. Apart from anything else, this metaphor may not work in Ukrainian, and in any case Trump and Vance were arrogant if they assumed that their host would grasp its significance.
Cultural empathy…
This sort of mistake is often made by those who lack cultural empathy: they are insensitive to cultural differences. They lack the awareness which would make the speaker filter out idiom for the sake of avoidance of ambiguity or incomprehension. The person initiating a contact should bear in mind that their interlocutor, if from a different culture, may not grasp the meaning being communicated because the expression used emanates from the culture of the speaker but not that of the listener. A simple example might help here: we Brits love to talk about the weather, and might say “It’s raining cats and dogs!” Try saying that to a Spaniard, a French person or an Italian: they will be totally perplexed and think you have gone doolally… but each has their own idiom to describe heavy rain. The Spaniard might say “llueve a cántaros” (“it’s raining pitchers”); the French person “il pleut à verse” (“it’s pouring”); the Italian “piove a catinelle” (it’s raining basins-full”). Clearly, the idiomatic image used in each language will probably not be readily understood by those who are not native speakers, with the necessary cultural experience. Even within one country, idiom varies from one region to another. Do you understand “It’s raining stair-rods!”? This is what you might hear in Manchester, and if you’ve experienced a downpour there, you’ll understand why!
Host v guest
So, let’s imagine a domestic guest-host situation: the host criticises the guest’s dress as soon as they arrive, suggests that the guest is not respecting the house, tells the guest they are in a hopeless situation, complains that they are ungrateful, suggests they should be submissive… and so on. Clearly, this would be a pretty awful example of how not to treat a visitor. Timothy Snyder has referred to five failures in the Oval Office. Bear in mind, too, that what we should have witnessed was the exercise of diplomacy, sympathy, empathy, a supportive atmosphere. Remember also that this was all being watched by millions of people around the world on television. Trump used this situation to prove himself to be an awful television host, but boasted afterwards that this made good television. It is almost as if he had planned it that way to boost his ego and to entertain his voters. What a way to trivialise and exploit a tragic war…
Gaslighting
Among the many analyses I’ve come across of our infamous interview, I’ve come across one which describes it as a textbook example of gaslighting. The analysis in the link describes ten aspects used by Trump and Vance; they employed the full spectrum of the abusive tactics of gaslighting: for example, victim-blaming, coercion into gratitude, and manipulation of the concepts of peace and diplomacy. This meeting was not so much a negotiation – more an attempt to force Zelenskyy into accepting terms beneficial to the US but potentially fatal for Ukraine. To add insult to injury the terrible duo chose to minimise the reality of the war and devalue its victims, distorting reality. Repeatedly cutting their guest off in mid-sentence, they employed the tactics of dominance, and tried to get him to capitulate. By ignoring the supreme effort and sacrifice of the Ukrainians, they created the illusion that Ukraine ‘owes’ the US, and portrayed its efforts as entirely dependent on US support.
What do others think?
Apart from humorous renditions in cartoons and videos, the consensus is not exactly sympathetic to Trump.
In Spain’s El Mundo, Silvia Román describes the event as an “attack starting in the first minute, focusing on Zelenskyy’s dress, with Trump greeting him sarcastically with “Oh, you’re very elegant today”. The article describes Trump as towering over his guest at 1,92 m as compared to Zelenskyy’s 1.67, followed by a sequence of poison-tipped darts making fun of the visiting head of state of Ukraine.
Ouest-France, describes how Trump lost his temper with his Ukrainian counterpart, repeatedly heaping abuse on him. To add insult to injury, at the end he commented to the assembled journalists: «Cela sera de la bonne télévision!»
The Italian reporter Marco Liconti who likens the event to a humiliating pub-brawl, says in Il Giornale: “Mai era accaduto che uno scambio così duro tra due leader, in teoria alleati, si consumasse davanti alle telecamere e ai taccuini dei cronisti.” (Never had such a hard exchange between two leaders, supposedly allies, been conducted in front of the television cameras and notebooks of the reporters.)
A BBC report quotes a number of Americans; among them Kat O’Brien said she was ashamed to call herself an American in the wake of the meeting. “They were selfish, rude, callous, and displayed a complete lack of basic human empathy.” John Carroll is quoted as saying: “I was absolutely disgusted with it. Even if Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians were considered adversarial to us, you wouldn’t talk to their head of state or head of government that way.” And how about this for a succinct and passionately-felt comment… from another American. “Once upon a time a man without a suit and suits without men met in the White House.”
A telling overall judgement of Trump appeared recently in a Facebook post from Phil Goff the former New Zealand High Commissioner in London: “Like many others, I was appalled and astounded by the dishonest comments made about the situation in Ukraine by the Trump Administration. As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of an Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out. I found it bizarre to hear President Trump publicly label Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Everyone knew that Zelenskyy had been democratically elected, and while Trump claimed his support in the polls had fallen to 4% it was pointed out that his actual support was around 57%. Trump made no similar remarks or criticism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and never does. Yet Putin’s regime imprisons and murders his opponents and suppresses democratic rights in Russia.”
“It disgusts me”
The last word goes to a British politician, quoted in various newspapers on 17 April: former Tory Defence Minister, Grant Shapps. He condemned Donald Trump’s soft stance on Putin, calling his response to Russia’s very recent missile strike on Sumy, Ukraine (“It was a mistake”) “weasel language.” He is reported in The Guardian, as being “disgusted” at President Trump’s lenient view of Russia, comparing his comments on this deadly missile strike to “IRA-style weasel words.” Shapps also stated that the path to ending the war is clear:
“All anybody needs Putin to do is get the hell out of a democratic neighbouring country.”
He also said:
“I just have to put this on record: it disgusts me, I feel disgusted by the idea that the leader of the free world cannot tell the difference between the dictator who locks up and murders his opponents and invades innocent democratic countries and the country itself that has been invaded. This lack of moral clarity is completely demoralising for the rest of the democratic world.” And this: “I think I know what kind of leverage Putin might have over Trump, but it’s simply not right.”
Enough said.
