Donald Trump and the Art of Doublespeak

Donald Trump

When Donald Trump gave his Truth Social speech in the wee hours of February 28, 2026, “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear program did not mean that he had obliterated anything. Why did Trump play a word game? He needed to squirm out of the trap that he had created with his own rhetorical history. That is, Trump had earlier boasted that a June 2025 attack had obliterated Iran’s nuclear program. That was false. The raid damaged the program but did not obliterate it. 

The problem is that “obliterate” is an absolute word. So, we could damage something but not obliterate it. There can be degrees of damage, but there is only one level of obliteration. According to the dictionary, to obliterate something means “to remove or destroy all traces of; do away with; destroy completely.” That is quite absolute!

When something has been obliterated, it simply no longer exists. Unfortunately, since Trump had previously claimed to have obliterated Iran’s nuclear weapons program, he needed to play a word game to justify obliterating it again. Never one to admit error, Trump played a game of doublespeak to justify his February 2026 attack.

Yes, yesterday, February 28, 2026, United States President Donald Trump gave a brief speech – on Truth Social, of all places – announcing an air and missile strike against Iran. After reviewing various Iranian bad actions, most of which dated back decades, Trump’s Truth Social speech emphasized that he wanted to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, indeed, the same nuclear program that he said he had obliterated in June 2025. He said:

“It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again, they can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Continuing, Trump boasted that the United States military had, at his direction, previously “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program:

“That is why in Operation Midnight Hammer last June, we obliterated the regime's nuclear program at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.” [italics added]

Trump then accused Iran of trying to “rebuild their nuclear program.” He promised that Iran’s missile program “will be again totally obliterated.” [italics added]

Again? After only a few months?

Obliterated once, obliterated again: Trump’s speech began to sound like a science fiction story in which the dead space alien comes back to life again, again, and again.

Sadly, however, Trump’s previous statements trapped him. We must remember the history of Trump’s obliterations. That is, back in June 2025, he had posted on the White House website that:

“Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear [sic] sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term! The white structure shown is deeply imbedded [sic] into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!” [italics added]

Obliteration!

At the same time, Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had said:

“Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. [italics added]

That, as it happens, turned out to be wrong. United States intelligence services quickly found that the June 2025 attack left Iran's major nuclear equipment undamaged.

It defies credulity to think that we would need to obliterate a program that had already been obliterated, and, indeed, obliterated so recently. Disinclined to admit that Trump could be mistaken, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded, still in June 2025, that the intelligence report was wrong, and that Iran’s nuclear program had, in fact, been obliterated: 

“The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.” [italics added]

Although Leavitt tried to defend Trump’s gross overstatement of the facts about the June 2025 raid, she also unwittingly foreshadowed the rhetorical history that Trump would need to overcome in February 2026.

Trump Prayer Breakfast Speech: Fighting for God?

That is why Trump’s word game – obliteration then and obliteration now – only worked, to the extent that it worked at all, if Trump used the exact word every time. If he said in June that the program had been obliterated, and then said yesterday that the program had merely been destroyed in June, the entire word game would fall apart. Trump could not say, “We obliterated Iran’s nuclear program in June, and now we have destroyed it.” He could not say, “We obliterated Iran’s nuclear program in June, and now we have smashed it.” Obliteration does not permit degrees. Logic gave Trump no escape, but the word game helped Trump avoid conceding that he had been wrong the first time. 

Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech: A Lesson for Our Own Time

In his novel 1984, George Orwell defined doublethink as the political practice of holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Writers have evolved the related term “doublespeak” to reflect a similar idea, in which we use one word to mean contradictory things. In Trump’s case, does “obliterate” really mean “obliterate”?

Trump’s linguistic trick is obvious: brazen, maybe. Unfortunately, its powerful persuasive force cannot be denied. Trapped in a history created by his own previous exaggerations, unwilling to retreat, unable to admit error, Trump implicitly asked his audience to revise the entire concept of obliteration. Doublespeak indeed. 

by William D. Harpine

______________

P.S.: Now, I am just a retired speech teacher, and I’m not qualified to say how much damage these raids did to Iran’s warlike ambitions, nor am I qualified to say whether Trump’s policy is wise or unwise (although I have my doubts!). One must suspect, however, that Trump would not play word games if he and the facts played for the same team.

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Donald Trump, public domain, official White House photo 

"A New Era:" General Douglas' MacArthur's Speech on the USS Missouri

Douglas MacArthur on the USS Missouri

“Today the guns are silent. A great tragedy has ended. A great victory has been won.”

So said General of the Army Douglas MacArthur eighty years ago, as he spoke over the radio from the battleship USS Missouri in Tokyo Harbor on September 2, 1945. The Pacific war was over. And MacArthur offered the United States, the assembled delegates – and the world – wisdom for the future. Wisdom that we have, I regret to say, sadly forgotten. Ceremonial speeches praise what is good and condemn what is bad, while offering values that can guide us. MacArthur urged people to build a world of spiritual and humanitarian growth.

In that vein, although World War II was an unfathomable cataclysm, MacArthur offered an opportunity and a warning:

“A new era is upon us. Even the lesson of victory itself brings with it profound concern, both for our future security and the survival of civilization.”

As a shaky world emerged from the war’s horrors, MacArthur offered, not fear, not hatred, but a “new era.” Unlike many world leaders from past to present who celebrated victory as vengeance, MacArthur instead called for peace and preservation:

“We must go forward to preserve in peace what we won in war.”

With the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only a few weeks in the past, MacArthur warned that, not war, but only spiritual and moral awakening could preserve humanity. The disaster that authoritarian governments had wreaked upon the world proved, MacArthur explained, that:

“We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.”

Harry Truman’s Atomic Bomb Speech Revealed “The Power of the Laboratories”

Adolf Hitler's Speech in the Berlin Sportpalast: God and Power

Note, please, that MacArthur admired human advances in knowledge, art, industry, and culture, but those advances were, he reminded us, not sufficient. To avoid destruction, humanity must revitalize the spirit. We must, he insisted, have a spiritual rebirth. It would not be enough merely to preserve the human character – for, as he knew all too well, human character had created World War II – but we also needed an “improvement of human character.” His lesson was that the new technologies that have been created in peace and war alike will serve us only if we improve our souls.

Eleanor Roosevelt's Speech about the Struggle for Freedom

MacArthur’s warning, however, called us to hard reality. Hitler and Nazi Germany had promised to create the Master Race. They created only ruin. Japanese war dogma preached the doctrine of indomitable fighting glory. They only created radioactive rubble. That is why MacArthur began his speech by praising democracy and freedom. And that is why his final point resonates today, when he called for a world:

“...based upon a tradition of historical truth as against the fanaticism of an enemy supported only by mythological fiction.”

So, as he summed up with a militaristic metaphor, MacArthur stated the cause of peace and justice:

“Today, freedom is on the offensive, democracy is on the march.”

However, in 2025, is freedom still on the march? As you look back, have we fulfilled MacArthur’s vision for “a new era?” MacArthur gave our forebears cause to reflect. If we ever think to retreat into ourselves, to shirk compassion and to eschew responsibility, will MacArthur’s vision have been in vain? In a larger context, have we in 2025 achieved the “improvement in human character” which MacArthur advocated? Or have we, in the United States, fallen victim to conspiracy theories (what MacArthur’s speech called “mythological fiction”), which lead overconfident people to tremble in terror from make-believe dangers? Do we want democracy and freedom to march forward, or shall we instead cling to our memories of a glorious past that never really existed? Do we constantly seek to improve our character and spiritual health, or will we, as so many nations have done throughout history, sink into cold indifference? Will we waste what MacArthur called “our last chance?” Such are the value questions that MacArthur addressed. 

Indeed, every good ceremonial (or epideictic) speech espouses values and offers at least generalized advice for the future. Speaking eighty years ago, MacArthur said much that can inspire us today. Can we honor the sacrifices of World War II and continue to build “a new era?” Heaven help us if we do not.

On a personal note, many American families can recall tales of selfless sacrifice. My father, Sergeant Casper Allen Harpine, Jr., earned battle stars for Operation Torch and Operation Dragoon. My father-in-law, Gunner’s Mate Third Class Jesse Doyle Clanton, was a disabled veteran of the Battle of the Atlantic. My mother’s brother, Private First Class Peter Feduska, died fighting Nazis in the Ardennes forest at Christmastime, 1944. Countless thousands of such stories can be told. Those men and women served to bring about “a new era.” We can best honor the Greatest Generation’s memories by seeking MacArthur’s vision: to “go forward to preserve in peace what we won in war.”

by William D. Harpine   

_____________________

Historical Note:

During his long career, Douglas MacArthur had many military triumphs (like the Inchon landing) and his share of disasters (like the failed invasion of North Korea). The public admired MacArthur’s eloquent speaking and strong sense of values. Presidents worried about his publicity-seeking egotism. He was at times disciplined, and, at other times, despicably insubordinate. In my view, however, his greatest accomplishment was that he and his staff organized the postwar occupation of Japan to create a lasting parliamentary government that respects human rights and became a force for peace and prosperity in the western Pacific. That alone was accomplishment enough for a lifetime.

Image: US Navy photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Donald Trump's Iranian Bombing Speech: Whom Should We Believe?

“There has never been a military,” boasted United States President Donald Trump, “that could do what took place just a little while ago.” Trump made this statement on June 21 after a group of United States Air Force aircraft and United States Navy vessels bombed Iran to destroy its nuclear enrichment program. Trump defended his action in a televised speech. He promised to attack Iran again if that nation failed to comply with his demands. Force majeure.

Few major speeches have relied as much on the speaker’s credibility as this one. Trump presented almost no evidence to prove that Iran either had or was developing nuclear weapons. If we trust Trump, we might believe him. Do we trust Trump, or the experts? Do we trust Trump to have gathered accurate information? Do we think that competent people surround him?

To be specific, Trump’s key statements offered no evidence whatsoever to support his claims:

“A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive, precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime. Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan. Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise.

“Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”

In this case, any evidence about Iran’s nuclear program is mired in the mysteries of international espionage. This situation differs from, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor speech, when Japan had openly attacked an American naval base. Trump’s speech also diverges from the argument that, “we should trust the president because he has all of the intelligence information.” This was not a unanimous decision. Individuals with knowledge of the situation spoke against the attack. No, the audience response to this speech depends entirely on whether they consider the speaker to be personally credible.

What was missing from Trump’s brief speech? Evidence! He cited no intelligence reports. He quoted no nuclear warfare experts. He gave no facts and figures. Saying “Everybody heard those names” does not count as proof. Since the speech included no facts or evidence to prove that Iran was about to produce nuclear weapons, Trump implicitly asked the nation – and the world – to accept his views purely on trust.

But what about the experts that Trump did not cite? What did they think? In contrast to Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, the president’s chief national security officer, had earlier stated that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons. The joint assessments of the nation’s national security apparatus presumably led her to that conclusion.

Disbelieving Gabbard’s views, Trump told reporters that, “I don’t care what she said.” More to the point, Gabbard was excluded from the final meetings where Trump and his other top advisers agreed to launch the attack. Perhaps bowing to pressure, Gabbard later backtracked. Quite odd. 

As a former college debater, I spent most of my academic career teaching classes in debate and public speaking. I was trained to debate with evidence and reasoning. Yet, Trump’s speech notably contained no evidence. Not bad evidence - no evidence. Can such a speech persuade people? Of course it can! Public speaking teachers from the ancient Greeks and up to the present have noted that the speaker’s credibility is the greatest persuasive factor. An important research article by my late professor and mentor Kenneth Andersen and his colleague, Theodore Clevenger, Jr., showed that credibility is a function of how the audience perceives the speaker’s expertise, goodwill, and dynamism.

With that in mind, despite my mistrust of Gabbard’s personal motives, I, for one, am somewhat more inclined to trust the intelligence establishment than political leaders. It would be valuable to hear directly from, for example, the CIA’s professional Iran specialists.

Let’s look at some examples. From the Vietnam escalation (the Gulf of Tonkin clash), to the Iraq war (did Iraq actually have chemical weapons? None were found), and on to the present, the United States' leaders have too often let political expediency overcome facts. Trump’s terrible record among fact checkers reinforces my mistrust. (As of this morning, PolitFact has rated hundreds of Trump’s statements, with a summary of 3% True, 7% Untrue, 11% Half True, 19% Mostly False, 39% False, and a stunning 18% Pants on Fire.) Thus, more than half of the statements that PolitiFact checked were untrue. That is bad even for a politician.) Of course, conservatives who think that fact checkers are left-wing Marxist stooges will care little about a fact-checkers' statistics. 

So, let us continue with Andersen and Clevenger’s theory. PolitFact leads me to doubt Trump’s expertise and good will. His enthusiastic speaking style, however, surely helps his uncritical target audience find him credible. Although Trump presented no evidence, perhaps his skillful identification with conservative voters leads them to trust him. Average Americans (like me) have no direct access to the nation’s intelligence findings; therefore, we find ourselves wallowing in a game of trust or mistrust. Truth or Dare. No, I do not trust the Iranian government. But can we trust the American president?

We Americans, and the world at large, find ourselves evaluating this momentous occasion according to our personal, subjective evaluations of President Trump’s credibility: our own judgment of his expertise, goodwill, and dynamism. Trump left us unaided by any of the evidence that he, unfortunately, failed to cite.

Maybe Trump figured that he did not need to prove his points. Plenty of Americans trust him implicitly Furthermore, basic wartime psychology will lead many Americans to support the decision to bomb Iran. Still, I wish that Trump had stated his proof. Perhaps he had no proof to state. Maybe the bombing raid and subsequent speech were merely a political ploy to distract the public from recent controversies about immigration or Trump’s infamous military parade. Maybe Trump has prevented World War III. Maybe he has triggered World War III. Who knows? The inexorable march of history will eventually judge who was right.

by William D. Harpine   

__________

Research Note: I didn’t only teach public speaking. Priding myself on being a communication generalist, I also spent several years teaching college classes about group discussion and group decision-making. The most basic principles of effective group decision-making are to solicit opinions from all viewpoints, to welcome dissent, and to give special attention to people with whom we disagree. If we suppress dissent, we often suppress truths. One-sided discussions are bad discussions. That is well proven. Now, pundits often ream social scientists for offering uncertain, inconsistent, or poorly proven conclusions. In contrast, the evidence about how to conduct effective group decision-making has been thoroughly established. In Trump's case, certainly, members of the professional intelligence community needed to be involved.

Readers who want to learn more about the decision-making processes that lead to the often-unwise decisions to start wars might look at these two classic books:

Why Nations Go to War, by John G. Stoessinger

Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, by Irving Janis

Or, for that matter, any college textbook about group discussion or group psychology.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

What Did the Gettysburg Address Really Say?

Abraham Lincoln, 1863

The United States of America’s most famous speech, Abraham Lincoln’s November 19, 1863, Gettysburg Address praised the thousands of young men who gave their lives to repel Robert E. Lee’s invasion of the North and, according to some, turn the tide of the American Civil War.

Lincoln gave no vacuous speech uttering empty praises for the war’s dead. No, he called for policy. He called for action. He asked the nation to continue the war.

Standing on a platform at the cemetery’s muddy excavation site, Lincoln spoke with surpassing eloquence. American schoolchildren learn his famous phrases:

“Four score and seven years ago.”

“Conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

But let us not miss the point. In this most magnificent of all epideictic speeches, Lincoln called passionately for a controversial and bloody policy: to continue the Civil War until the Union was restored and justice could reclaim the American ethos. The American Civil War’s appalling bloodshed and brutality shocked the nation, as hardly a household anywhere in the North or South had escaped the grief of losing a husband, brother, son, or cousin. Lincoln was not, in 1863, a popular man. 

Today, such vague, almost spiritual, value-laden rhetoric seems strangely unfamiliar. Indeed, in our cynical, technocratic 21st century, we expect to decide policies by nitpicking analysis, statistics, proof, and expert testimony. Lincoln offered none of that. Instead, he discussed values. His central value was simple. Brave men had consecrated Gettysburg’s hillsides with their blood – as they fought for the Union and against the cruel institution of chattel slavery. It was their values, the value of freedom, the value of justice, of equality, of wise and just government, that justified continuing the war.

By this point in his presidency, Lincoln had overcome some of his initial reticence and was hinting more and more boldly about the evils of slavery. Keep in mind that, although cynical southern apologists frequently saw slavery as a positive good, no one with a conscience could possibly believe them. The idea that human beings could be captured, kidnapped, and beaten, to force them to work for nothing, appalls everyone who knows right from wrong. Reasoned argument was not the point. The time for reasoning was over. It was time for justice: that is why Lincoln’s key point, which was so often overlooked when we read this speech, comes down to these arguments:

First, Lincoln, the great sovereign of words, said that actions count more than words:

“The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.” [italics added]

Second, he said that the dead, no longer able to fight, implicitly asked us to continue their noble struggle. That is a policy. That is action:

“It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain…”

Third, and, finally, out of the horrors of war, the nation had an opportunity – a God-given chance – to reform itself, to regain union according to justice:

“That this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Government “of the people, by the people, for the people” was no empty phrase. Wise, just government never appears by accident. According to Lincoln, only after the United States pursued its bitter conflict and paid the horrible price for the wickedness of slavery, at which he hinted in this momentous speech – then, and only then could we have government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

From values, we get policies. From suffering, we learn terrible lessons. From justice, we hope to reconcile.

Sadly, according to what I read in the news, that lesson has still not been fully learned. There can be, however, no greater lesson for a president to teach. And this, my dear readers, is why Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president. 

by William D. Harpine

Prince Harry Talked about Sacrifice and Freedom at the 2018 Invictus Games

Abraham Lincoln and the Definition of “Liberty:” A Lesson for Our Time

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

____________________________________

This remarkable picture is the only known photograph of Lincoln at Gettysburg. It appears to have been exposed some time before his speech. Lincoln's head is in the marked red box. 

Interestingly, Lincoln's friend Edward Everett was the day's featured speaker, and Lincoln was invited as an afterthought. 

Portrait of Abraham Lincoln by Alexander Gardner, 1863, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Lincoln at Gettysburg, unknown photographer, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In Warsaw, Biden Warned the World of "The Long Fight Ahead"

Biden Speaking in Warsaw

In an era in which everyone wants problems to be simple, when news reporters look for soundbites rather than content, President Joe Biden dug into the hard truths in his speech in Poland yesterday, March 26, 2022. He spoke to a huge outdoor crowd in the square at the Royal Castle in Warsaw. Biden told the crowd, 

“Time and again, history shows that it’s from the darkest moments that the greatest progress follows.”

Our dark moment is that Russia invaded Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, a little more than a month ago. Evidently the Russian government expected an easy conquest. Instead, they have encountered fierce resistance and dim prospects for ultimate victory. In the meantime, a great nation is being bombed to rubble – and yet continues to resist.

So, Europe is again at war. War is so very terrible, but people too often think – at the war’s outset – that victory will be quick and easy. Initial enlistments in the Confederate and Union armies in 1860 were for only 90 days. Both sides anticipated a quick, easy triumph. Both sides were wrong about that. People are still wrong when they think that war is easy.

In contrast, Biden’s speech warned the leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that the world is in for a long, hard struggle. He gave us a precedent. After World War II, Poland was an occupied satellite state of the Soviet Union. Under Lech Wałęsa’s leadership, Poland broke away from the Soviet tyranny and established itself as an independent and proud nation.

As Biden explained in his speech:

“Ten years later, the Soviet Union collapsed, and Poland and Central and Eastern Europe would soon be free. Nothing about that battle for freedom was simple or easy. It was a long, painful slog fought over not days and months, but years and decades.”

That was Biden’s key point. Nothing, Biden emphasized, about that flight “was simple or easy.” It took years. It took decades. The result of the hard struggle, however, was a breath of freedom:

“But we emerged anew in the great battle for freedom: a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force.”

And that, Biden emphasized, gives us a historical precedent. Ignoring the angry pundits, optimistic supporters, and political opponents who expect a quick, easy solution to the Ukraine crisis, Biden warned NATO – warned the world – warned the United States – that nothing about this would be easy:

“In this battle, we need to be clear-eyed. This battle will not be won in days or months either. We need to steel ourselves for the long fight ahead.”

Biden’s “clear-eyed” warning was the most important part of his speech. That, more than anything, is what we needed to hear. We can only face dangers if we acknowledge them. The press concentrated on a soundbite, when Biden called for Vladimir Putin to leave office. That, most certainly was not the speech’s most important point. Biden was preparing NATO to accomplish its purpose. NATO’s purpose is to deter Russian aggression. That is why NATO was founded, and that is why it still exists today.

I am merely a retired speech professor, and I don’t pretend to know what the best foreign policy would be. I do know that the world has reached a dangerous inflection point. The world could erupt into full-blown World War III, which would surely be the worst calamity in human existence. Or, by acknowledging the danger and working together, world leaders might have the wisdom to fend off disaster.

The postmodern political world pays the most attention to politicians who deliver quick quips and then offer easy solutions to complicated problems. Biden offered neither. Instead, he offered the wisdom of history. Are we listening?

Earlier Post Never Give in: Words of Wisdom from Winston Churchill

 
Earlier Post: Franklin Roosevelt's War Message, December 8, 1941
____________

P.S. During my teaching years, I often asked my students to read Why Nations Go to War by political scientist John Stoessinger. That superb book examines the key decision moment when world leaders, invariably by mistake, decide to jump over the cliff and launch their nations into combat. What leads presidents and dictators to such overconfidence, violence, and poor judgment? In every case, world leaders’ poor judgment involved poor small group communication. That is, nations go to war because leaders fail to listen, jump to conclusions, ignore advice, or surround themselves with incompetent sycophants. When history writes the history of Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine – and I’m assuming that there will be someone left to write the history – bad communication, poor judgment, and impulsiveness will surely turn out to underlie his leadership. Anyway, I recommend Stoessinger’s book to everyone. 

Image: clipped from White House YouTube channel

Why Do Republicans Praise Vladimir Putin in Their Speeches?

Map of Ukraine

Why are Republican leaders so fascinated by Russian President Vladimir Putin? In this post, I look at Republicans’ own words from their own speeches. What have they said about Putin – openly, and publicly – and, as I said, in their own speeches? (I am not looking at what the mainstream media says about the Republicans, nor am I reading between the lines. I’m looking at their exact words.) And what we find is that certain powerful Republicans have long praised Putin in odd and yet compelling ways. They do not talk about Putin’s moral goodness – how could they? Instead, they praise him as strong and clever. Maybe they mean “crafty” rather than clever. That, in turn, tells us something about the difference between conservatives and liberals. Linguist George Lakoff explains that liberal rhetoric tends to work with what he calls “nurturing mother” metaphors, while conservative rhetoric more often speaks in what he calls “strong father” metaphors. I’m sure that sounds sexist. All the same, Lakoff shows us that conservatives seek forceful leadership, while liberals prefer leaders who will care about them and try to do the right thing. Are conservatives wise to think that strong leaders will protect them? Well, no, and I will write about that at the end.

So, to be clear, Republicans never say that Putin is either a good man or wise leader. They often, however, admire his strength. Since conservatives feel safer if a strong man (rarely, if ever, do they mention a strong woman) protects them, they come to admire Putin. Unfortunately, Putin’s cruel invasion of Ukraine gave Republicans a moral dilemma of their own making. 


Putin Invaded Ukraine

On February 21, 2022, Putin ordered Russian troops to attack Ukraine, supposedly focusing on two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine. Russian troops attacked regions of eastern Ukraine on February 24, and soon assaulted the entire country.

This posed a political problem for Republican leaders, several of whom have long given Putin their close but uneasy admiration. In any case, as the war in Ukraine becomes increasingly brutal, many Republicans are backpedaling about Putin. Well, good for them, and better late than never.


Trump Admired Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine

Putin recognized the independence of Ukraine’s breakaway provinces on February 21, 2022. Former President Donald Trump promptly showed up on the right-wing Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. Trump said that Putin’s decision to annex parts of eastern Ukraine was “genius.” Commenting about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Trump said: 

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion ... of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent.”

Lest anyone think that Trump just tripped over his tongue, he also said:

“So, Putin is now saying, ‘It’s independent,’ a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s [the] strongest peace force.”

Trump continued that United States President Joe Biden should show the same kind of strength on the United States border with Mexico. Trump said about Putin:

“Here’s a guy who is very savvy. We could use that on our southern border.”

Strong, savvy, and a genius. That’s what Trump said about Putin. 

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 26, 2022, just five days later, Trump harshly criticized the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That was to be expected, since the invasion had become so brutal that for Trump to continue to support it would seem irrational. Consistency has never been his strong point. Trump nevertheless reiterated that Putin was “smart.” Trump continued to compare Putin’s supposed great talent against the supposed weakness of American leaders:

“The real problem is that our leaders are dumb. . . . [Putin] is playing Biden like a drum, and it’s not a pretty thing to watch.”

Trump’s Past Rhetoric about Putin

Trump’s effusive praise should surprise no one. As far back as 2015, Trump told broadcaster Bill O’Reilly that Putin was an exceptional leader:

“I will tell you that I think in terms of leadership, he is getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well.”

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump also said:

“We’re going to have a great relationship with Putin and Russia.”

Speaking at a campaign rally a few weeks later, Trump praised Putin as a “strong leader,” contrasting him against President Barack Obama. He also encouraged closer friendship with Putin’s Russia:

“I respect Putin. He is a strong leader, unlike what we have. We have a pathetic leader, pathetic. You don’t have a leader. The word ‘leader,’ you put leader in quotes. We don’t even have a leader. Wouldn’t it be nice to get along with Russia? Wouldn’t that be nice?”

Notice, of course, that Trump emphasized strength. He did not call Putin wise or good. He called him “strong.” The theme continues!

During another 2016 campaign rally, Trump was only slightly less gushing. He repeated that the United States should get along with Russia:

“Putin said Donald Trump is a genius and next great leader of the United States. They wanted me to disavow what he said. How do you call me a genius? How dare you call me a genius, Vladimir? Wouldn’t it be nice if we would get along with Russia?”

Trump was, however, back at full throttle during an Ohio campaign rally when he attacked Hillary Clinton for, of all things, being too tough on Putin:

“She speaks very badly of Putin, and I don’t think that’s smart.”

Trump continued:

“How do you speak so badly of someone?”

Going even farther, Trump continued to praise Putin in a September 2016 Town Hall:

“Well, he does have an 82 percent approval rating, according to the different pollsters, who, by the way, some of them are based right here. Look, look...”

Pressed by the moderator, Trump became even more effusive:

“If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him. I’ve already said, he is really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, oh, isn’t that a terrible thing -- the man has very strong control over a country.

“Now, it’s a very different system, and I don’t happen to like the system. But certainly, in that system, he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader.”

Again, Trump emphasized Putin’s strength – his power as a leader, his “very strong control over a country.” While disagreeing with Putin’s system of government, Trump admired Putin’s strength.

Okay, that’s enough about Trump. What have other American conservatives said about Putin?


Other Republican Leaders Praised Putin

Former Vice President Mike Pence has said various odd things about Putin. Like Trump, Pence contrasts Putin, as a supposedly strong leader, against Democrats, who he considers to be weak. During the 2016 campaign, Pence offered this remarkable comment about Putin:

“He’s been a leader far more than our president has been a leader.”

Isn’t Pence’s phrasing interesting? Pence neither praised nor criticized Putin’s political ideas or accomplishments. Instead, he focused on strength, as if strength should be a leader’s main, or only, quality.

Prominent Republicans continued to praise Putin as late as January and February 2022, with dark clouds of impending war already hanging over Ukraine. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo extolled Putin, while expressing hope that President Biden could be equally strong:

“He is a very talented statesman. He has lots of gifts. He was a KGB agent, for goodness sakes. He knows how to use power. We should respect that.”

“Power,” Pompeo said. “He knows how to use power.” It was Putin’s strength, not his wisdom, that Pompeo admired. Stunningly, the once-great National Review published an article trying to spin Pompeo’s comments as a warning, not as the fawning praise that they were. 

Most astonishing of all, Fox News host Tucker Carlson delivered a television monologue on the eve of the Russian invasion, savagely attacking Putin’s critics. Carlson compared Putin’s implied goodness against evil things that Carlson thinks liberals have been doing. He even implied that American public health restrictions were worse than what Putin was doing:

“What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my children to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity? Does he eat dogs?”

Carlson’s rant implied value judgments. In Carlson’s moral universe, pandemic restrictions sounded worse than a threatened invasion. In a loud, angry voice, Carlson continued:

“These are fair questions, and the answer to all of them is no. Vladimir Putin didn’t do any of that. So why does permanent Washington hate him so much?”

Carlson sneered that the impending Russian invasion was merely a “border dispute.” Predictably, Russian television made a big deal of Carlson’s pro-Putin comments. Of course, as Russia’s invasion became increasingly brutal, Carlson soon flip-flopped as if he had never made the above comments. Instead, only a few days later, he viciously criticized Putin:

“Vladimir Putin started this war. So, whatever the context of the decision that he made, he did it. He fired the first shots. He is to blame for what we are seeing tonight in Ukraine.”

Conservatives are nothing if not flexible.


It’s Not All Bleak

Republicans have not universally praised Putin. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example, recently criticized Putin in harsh terms. More pointedly, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that those of his fellow Republicans who supported Putin were nearly traitors. He condemned his fellow Republicans for shillyshallying in their attitudes toward Putin. Romney continued that some of his fellow Republicans were “almost treasonous:”

“Well, a lot of those people are changing their stripes as they’re seeing the response of the world and the political response here in the U.S. But how anybody in this country which loves freedom can side with Vladimir Putin — who is an oppressor, a dictator, he kills people. He imprisons his political opponents. He’s been an adversary of America at every chance he’s had. It’s unthinkable to me. It’s almost treasonous, and it just makes me ill to see some of these people do that. But of course, they do it because it’s shock value, and it will get them more eyeballs and make a little more money for them and their network. It’s disgusting. I’m hopeful you’re seeing some of those people recognize just how wrong they were.”

So, Romney gave the Republican Party a brief taste of patriotism.

What is strange about this is that Republican voters are not particularly pro-Putin. In a recent YouGov opinion poll, 88% of Biden voters had an unfavorable view of Putin, while 76% of Trump voters shared that unfavorable view. Only 5% of Biden voters had a favorable view of Putin, while 9% of Trump voters also had a favorable view of him. So, although Trump voters are slightly more favorable toward Putin than Biden voters, opposition to Putin was high in both groups. Whatever is going on with Republican politicians, they are not pandering to their base voters.


The Politics of Strength

How can we summarize this? First, I took all of this from Republican leaders’ own speeches and other spoken statements. I gave you their own words. Second, from former President Trump on down, many, although not all, prominent Republicans have frequently praised Vladimir Putin. They often compare Putin favorably against Democratic leaders. This praise arises from their perception that Putin is smart, manipulative, and, most of all, strong. Republican politicians are reluctant to endorse Putin’s policies, which they seem to separate from their admiration for him as an individual. Which matters to them more? Putin’s strength, which they admire, or his brutal policies, which they occasionally condemn? I’m not sure that they know the answer themselves.

What Republican leaders often show, however, is a yearning for a strong leader. If we think of a strong leader as decisive and wise, that’s one thing. When we think that strong leadership means to smash people under a tank’s treads, that’s something else. When people perceive danger – and conservatives perceive danger around every corner – they sometimes seek a strong person to defend them.

Do strong leaders keep us safe? If you want to know the answer, you might want to ask the ghosts of the 3.5 million people who died in Stalin’s pogroms, the 11 million murdered in Hitler’s concentration camps, or the untold millions who perished in Pol Pot’s Cambodia purges. You might ask Talat Paşa’s Armenian genocide victims. You might ask the victims of the massacres in Rwanda. Strong leaders typically wreak havoc. 

That’s not the exception. That is the norm. If you want to pretend to feel safe from enemies, real or imaginary, vote for tyrants. If you want to stay safe in real life, avoid leaders who boast of their strength as if they carry the plague. Let’s go back to the strong father metaphor. You might want a strong father, but you don’t need a cruel, tyrannical father. That isn’t true strength. A true father is loving, nurturing, and reliable. Not violent, unpredictable, and vicious.

And, no, I don’t think I misunderstand what Republicans mean when they talk about “strong leaders.” They have been quite emphatic. What they don’t understand is this: a true leader inspires people to be better than they already are. A true leader inspires a nation to go forward, not back into the past. Remember that.

And I convey my hope that the people of Ukraine, my maternal grandparents’ homeland, will soon enjoy peace and justice.

_______________

European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Why Didn’t Vladimir Putin Deny That He Had Compromising Information about President Trump?

_______________

Image: US Dept. of State