Plotting. Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC.
Ensuring that lawmakers are “on-message” — dutifully singing from the same hymn-sheet in the daily round of briefings and interviews — has long been key to political communications. In the Nineties, when New Labour began its rise to power, MPs were famously issued with vibrating pagers to ensure they were apprised of the current “line” at all times.
In the UK the received wisdom, long after the pager disappeared, remains that success is defined by the clarity and unity of the message. The imminent electoral failure for any party is invariably signalled by the spectacle of MPs and ministers going off on constituency-courting sprees of their own. Yet new incumbents in Downing Street, buoyed by a fresh mandate, still understand coherence as the route to public respect.
Across the Atlantic, however, Donald Trump has now smashed the tried-and-tested delivery system. In its place comes something much more complex, apparently chaotic and instinctively manipulative: the “multi-message”. In place of details he generates “vibes” and his message is spread by a broad cast of actors, only some of whom have formal political roles or are even nominally accountable to the American public.
All the while, unelected figures from Elon Musk to Joe Rogan keep alive a bubbling, rolling dialogue on X and YouTube, setting the tone for the Trumpian take on any given topic, even before the President himself has officially adopted it. Trump himself is adept at sending out multiple signals, often shifting position or contradicting himself. The perpetual uncertainty generated by this approach, accelerated by its rapid delivery on social media, has a destabilising, mesmerising effect on domestic opponents and potential foreign allies alike.
Individual members of Trump’s entourage, particularly Musk, are effectively licensed to crash through all previously accepted boundaries of political protocol and veracity. In January, for instance, the technocrat’s relentless and baseless online attacks on Keir Starmer’s history as director of public prosecutions represented outrageous libels that 10 or even five years ago would have placed the accuser beyond the pale.
Musk — despite wild attacks on friendly heads of state, his energetic support of the far-Right AfD in Germany, or even his admission that “some of the things I say will be incorrect” — remains Trump’s most visible henchman. Yet when the President himself talked about Starmer later that same month, he was warm and emollient. “I get along with him well,” he said. “I like him a lot. He’s liberal, which is a bit different from me, but I think he’s a very good person and he’s done a very good job so far.” In Trump’s world, such a statement is not at all incompatible with his closest political ally’s false accusation that Starmer is guilty of heinous moral crimes for which he should be literally imprisoned.
Such is the nature of the multi-message, which depends on the unbolting of speech from verifiable truth, and the unapologetic liberation of rhetoric from consistency. In America’s new sphere, with Trump at its heart, the primary function of speech is not to build a shared understanding towards a common purpose but rather to produce an effect. The intended effect of Musk’s attacks, pumped out to millions online, was to smear Starmer’s reputation and weaken his popular support. Meanwhile, Trump’s praise was aimed at peeling Starmer away from potential European allies, while dangling the hope that cultivating a warm personal relationship with the President might protect the UK from economic tariffs. While these two messages might appear contradictory, they have a unified logic: a weakened prime minister, who is nonetheless fighting to defend his country’s interests, is more liable to agree to demands which he might otherwise refuse. This logic of dual effect is why Trump never chided Musk for his intemperate comments.
For adherents of the old post-war politics, the newly fluid, multi-message order is proving disorienting. So too is its orchestration and staging. Take, for instance, the recent, acrimonious Oval Office meeting between Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump and his Vice President JD Vance. Despite what some more credulous observers may have believed, it was clearly very far from a spontaneous personality clash which erupted out of nowhere.
For months beforehand, Musk and Donald Trump Jr had laid the groundwork by assiduously promoting contempt for Zelensky online, sharing memes which mocked and belittled him. They presented him as a chancer and supplicant, the Home Alone 2 kid intent on fleecing Trump and the US taxpayer for the defence of a corrupt administration. On his podcast last November, Rogan expressed his furious impatience over Ukraine’s resistance to a Russian invasion. “Fuck you people!” he cried. “You people are about to start World War Three!” Earlier this year, meanwhile, Trump dubbed Zelensky “a dictator without elections” on Truth Social (despite the practical impossibility of holding elections in the midst of war) and suggested that Kyiv “never should have started it” (despite Russia being the invader).
A few days later, though, General Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy in Ukraine, met Zelensky and praised him as “the embattled and courageous leader of a nation at war” — something which may have reflected Kellogg’s genuine opinion, but also offered worried European leaders a strand of reassurance. At the same time, Musk called Zelensky “a fraud machine feeding off dead bodies of soldiers”. Yet when Trump was asked about calling Zelensky a “dictator” during Keir Starmer’s visit to the White House, he dissimulated. “Did I say that?” he asked aloud. “I can’t believe I said that.” The head-spinning, multi-message mechanism for smear, distraction and disinformation was in full swing.
It’s in this context that we come to Trump’s infamous meeting with Zelensky at the White House. It was purportedly arranged to sign a deal with Trump for the extraction of Ukrainian minerals — though, as yet, without any assurances of US protection if Putin reinvaded after a ceasefire. The descent into wider ill humour was triggered by a question over sartorial etiquette. “Why don’t you wear a suit?” one reporter suddenly asked Zelensky. “Do you own a suit?”
This strange interjection can be understood by who that journalist was. Brian Glenn works for the “Real America’s Voice” cable network, and is the partner of the far-Right Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. He was a recent addition to the White House press pool after Trump banned the Associated Press, took over control of access from the White House Correspondents’ Association, and hand-picked a number of supportive outlets from outside “legacy media”. It is frankly inconceivable that Glenn would ask such an aggressive question of a foreign dignitary without prior sanction from the very top, a suspicion intensified by the wink which Trump aimed at the reporter after his question.
As JD Vance escalated the argument, accusing Zelensky of disrespect and ingratitude, Trump weighed in with the same language as Rogan: “You’re gambling with World War Three!” The US president’s subsequent remark — “this is going to be great television” — was a pat on the back for his own orchestrated reality, casting a dignified Zelensky, attempting in a second language to correct untruths, in the role of a grifting ingrate. But a staged row, followed by a peremptory dismissal, is territory in which Trump feels comfortable: his long-running role in The Apprentice was his bridge to his first successful run at the presidency.
There’s another parallel, too, with the way in which the Trump administration advances its aims: the coercive control of the domestic abuser. Such people are masters of the shifting multi-message: first charming, then cruel; gaslighting, insulting and complimenting; denying things they said, and keeping the more vulnerable person invested with promises of a future together, while chipping away at their external friendships and sense of self. This is not a comparison that should offend the administration, since members of Trump’s circle apparently helped facilitate the flight to the US from Romania of the misogynist online influencer Andrew Tate, who has often boasted about pimping and abusing women, and is being investigated in the UK for rape and human trafficking. The action has sparked outrage from the Republican governor of Florida, where Tate arrived.
An idea common to many victims of abuse, at least for a time, is that if you only play the abusers’ tightening game very carefully, you will be all right where others aren’t. Keep smiling, give him all the things he likes, speak softly, don’t wind him up. Something of this can be spotted in commentary about Zelensky: he should have humoured Trump and Vance, critics say, instead of trying to correct their false assertions. But to argue this is to miss the point. Starmer’s visit went well largely because the Trump team wanted it to, and Zelensky’s imploded for the same reason.
The supposed offence given by Zelensky will be used as an excuse to further sideline Ukraine from a future US-Russia deal. Trump’s performative exasperation — “America will not put up with it for much longer!” — has already been used to suspend US military arms to Ukraine, and to press Zelensky into a minerals deal without a security guarantee. It should not go unnoticed that Musk’s new demand is that the US should leave Nato.
There is a warning here for Britain. It is time to wake up from the last woozy traces of anaesthetic concerning the historic “special relationship” with a clear-eyed understanding of the malign profundity of the change in Washington. Even as the UK’s survival strategy is under construction, it really needs to start reading the multi-message.
Jenny McCartney is a journalist, commentator and author of the novel The Ghost Factory.
mccartney_jenny 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt sounds like the author is genuinely baffled by the concept of ideological diversity. When Americans hear dozens of politicians or news agencies repeating identical platitudes and talking points, they view it as a system of a thought-control; like an Orwellian Hivemind.
Musk says different things than Trump because he thinks differently than Trump. Rogan has views that are entirely his own. Trump’s cabinet is stacked with heterodox thinkers by design. He wants people with different ideas. It’s kind of like DEI except instead of 20 people with different complexions nodding along it’s 20 people with different opinions.
Trump was nice to Starmer and Macron because they were respectful and undertook diplomacy and found common ground. Trump made clear he wants peace now. He expected Zelensky to come in and sign the deal, which is a security guarantee because it puts Americans on the ground as a deterrent to Russia. Zelensky wanted to keep fighting, which was his choice but it was totally unexpected and created conflict.
The author gives the impression that the American taxpayer has a perpetual obligation to fund the defense of Europe. Then she threatens to withdraw the “special relationship” if those funds are reduced. So who’s really the Bully doing the gaslighting here?
Volodymyr Zelensky was ready to sign the minerals deal last Friday at the White House and would have done had he not been lectured and then unceremoniously and rudely told to leave.
Watch Ben Shapiro’s breakdown of the interview. It was the best one by far. Zelensky started it and Vance threw fuel on the fire. Trump tolerated a lot.
Zelensky is a war mongering, corrupt coke head.
Its OK to admit you were wrong Lesley.
That’s an interesting take on Zelensky. How does defending your nation against a land invasion from a neighbouring nation count as ‘war-mongering’? At what point do you have to surrender to avoid the charge?
Please rephrase. America does not do irony.
Z is correct to defend his country, but he is dead wrong to be making demands from his most important ally in that fight. And you can tell, because he has already come back with his tail between his legs begging forgiveness.
America owes Ukraine exactly zero. America has interests in keeping Ukraine independent, but they are not America’s most important interests, as Trump clearly schooled Z.
NATO did say they would defend Ukraine if they gave up their nukes. Still, how long was never addressed.
You are wrong. NATO didn’t promise that. Sad but true
Budapest memorandum I believe.
Though not nato, but then again the us and the uk so a vast majority of the nato strength.
Everybody seems to have forgotten that, only a short while ago, a not unpopular interpretation of the war in Ukraine was that it was USA-proxy war-against Russia.
This is a good point. It was ever that, it sure ain’t now…
Under Biden it clearly was. Welcome to the new paradigm.
You can file this under the heading “elections have consequences”.
TBH his profession was “comedian” so its odds-on he has used cocaine. Whether he got in the mess that most UK and US “comedians” do with the White Lady? I am doubtful, as he seems coherant in speech and consistent in mood, at least in public. Many MSN hysterical or psychotic outbursts resemble come down rants, or the firing of neurons no longer under natural chemical control. As Roy Hogsed wisely said “come on all you hopheads listen unto me – lay down your whisky and let that cocaine be // you’ll get yourself addicted and you’ll flip your lid – look what happened to the cocaine kid”
He met with the Democrats before meeting with Trump. You know that right?
Volodymyr Zelensky met with both Republicans and Democrats before meeting with Donald Trump.
A load of cobblers, the UK is not in danger of invasion by Russia, we are being invaded by Muslims.
Muslims encouraged by politiciansof all parties, this enemy within is more dangerous to the UK than either Putin or Trump.
“It’s kind of like DEI except instead of 20 people with different complexions nodding along it’s 20 people with different opinions” – Great phrase!
The only kind of diversity the left doesn’t tolerate is the only one that really matters. It’s stupid beyond reason. If one actually bothers to understand the philosophy behind the supposed benefits of ‘diversity’, the benefit is supposed to come from the fact that different races, religions, nationalities, are supposed to provide unique, different viewpoints that would not be heard were those different races, groups, etc. not present. Curating by political ideology or enforcing conformity to an ideological standard completely defeats the purpose and makes things worse.
I think it is a good analysis of how Trump keeps everyone off balance – but I take issue with the notion that only Trump is rude and obnoxious. There are numerous videos of European diplomats smirking and laughing in their hands when Trump addresses them. No politician in history has been more relentlessly smeared than him. The other thing is that most of what Trump and his supporters say is at least directionally true. The Pakistani rapes gangs are a national disgrace. Europe is militarily weak and allowing itself to be invaded by hostile immigrants. The same applies to his mockery of Canada. We have been infiltrated and compromised by China. We don’t take border security seriously.
That sounds like a pretty unserious take, T Bone. Do you deny that Trump himself deliberately sends out false and conflicting claims? Like “Zelenskyy is a dictator who started the war”, later to be brushed aside in favor of a dig at the Ukrainian president’s wartime outfit, then a staged ambush in the interest of “great television”.
The real bullies in what’s left of the transatlantic alliance are clear: Trump, his administration, and the sold-out, effectively silenced majority in Congress. Kicking over the game board is not 3-d chess. Hollowing out core institutions and alliances is not “reclaiming the center”, nor using any recognizable version of common sense. A shake up is warranted but the idea that you can kick every hornet’s nest and poke every ally in the eye on tv without getting stung or humiliated yourself is, to say the least, optimistic. Like Europe, what we pay for in defense of our allies, and against adversaries like Russia serves to uphold our own safety and interests. We can’t build a dome over America.
Do you deny
1) That the “Transatlantic Allies” began overwhelmingly allying themselves with the Democratic Party and against the Republicans beginning around 2008?
2) Do you deny that our administrative agencies were overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats from 2008 onwards? We have political donation data on agency contributions.
With your use of “overwhelmingly”, I disagree with 1) and 2). The hyperreaction was specific to Trump, and began no earlier than 2015. What data, from what source? You also ignore the number of conservatives and partisan Republicans within parts of the federal government, like the CIA and FBI–anti-Trump does not equate to Democrat. Also, the strong if not overwhelming majority of police officers nationwide lean right.
Of course this is always true, but more so than normal: Nobody know quite where we’ll be after six months, let alone four years of this radical shake-up.
I appreciate your sharp and civil argumentation and am willing to look at any statistics or hard evidence you can send me.
I get it, you dispute my total capture theory.
I haven’t been through every agency but if you go out to Open Secrets and look up agency donations under Totals, you’ll notice the donation ratios. For ex: USAID, HHS and Dept of Education donations have been well over 90% Democrat since 2008. Pretty darn close to 100% in some cases. This change was not spurred by Trump.
Washington DC is the Lobbyist Capital of the World and has consistently been over 90% Democrat since Obama. Other left wing bastions like SF or Chicago sit around 85/15. That stat doesn’t really make sense unless federal employees are overwhelmingly voting for the Party of Government.
Yes, you’re correct that there are Anti-Trump Republicans probably voting Democrat now but they can’t be that numerous because the ratios aren’t changing. Neoconservatives (often Republicans) who are extremely small in numbers align with Left Wing Socialists on “Democracy spreading” abroad for different reasons. But they share the desire and belief that the world can be politically liberated through “Democracy.”
I am “Pro-Democracy” but believe in a different form than many Democrats. Representative Democracy is much different from Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is much more totalizing. Although, I would guess you and I are generally aligned on representative Democracy being the better form.
The Democrat Chair Elections looked exactly like the 2019 Democratic Socialists of America convention. Cringe really doesn’t do it justice. The Ro Khannas, Jared Polis and Elissa Slotkins need to get this Party back in order. I don’t say this gleefully.
I think we understand each other well enough, given our sharp disagreement here. You give selected pieces of valid information that, for me, indeed do not amount to total capture. I don’t think the number of Republicans switching sides temporarily OR leaving the ballots blank for president OR writing in a protest candidate is trivial at all.
I agree that many of the leaders and figure heads of the Democrats are some combination of far left and stupid woke. I see an absolute mirror image with far-right Republicans and quite radical actors of a less-partisan (even Democrat leaning) kind in RFK and Musk*.
I’m making an effort to step back and observe more, drawing fewer and less stubborn conclusions. This is all playing out fast and furious—though it ain’t no action movie.
*I’ll add that I don’t think rank and file Democratic OR Republican voters tend to be wingers. However, Trump has a hardcore following—in large measure transcending party—for whom he can do almost no wrong. As to Musk, I really do think this Afrikaner has drifted well to the right in recent years.
I feel like you still realize Trump has got alot of good things right even though you don’t like him personally. Free speech, DEI, Immigration, Transanity and foreign wars. He’s said what everybody else was afraid to say.
Not liking Trump personally is completely understandable to me. My favorite aunt hates Trump. I have friends that hate Trump. My gym buddy hates him. Whatever. Existential political disagreements are the norm. Jefferson and Adams was a character assassination contest.
I am not a fan of character attacks because I can be a very mean person in spurts but I always feel awful about it later. At the very least you need people that see others as people. As crappy of a person in many ways he is…Trump does that.
You’re correct about that. In fact earlier I was about to admit my agreement on two of the points you mentioned: “transanity” and DEI. It’s also true that I don’t like his manner and the methods he favors—even with those things—but I’m not gonna let that cause me to be unable to give him ANY credit for anything. The fallout and upshot of his current policies—not to mention his unpredictable next steps!—is unfolding, so we’ll see. We won’t agree about aspects of what we do see, but they’ll at least be more evidence and substance to argue about. We’ll gain some perspective on his first term and total impact too—you’d think anyway. But that’ll be years from now and we have to fill comment boxes and exchange opinions; I can’t fully resist anyway.
Interesting to consider that even Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Lincoln were detested by a number of good and intelligent people during their own lifetimes. Good point about the enmity between Jefferson and Adams. I believe it cooled in later years though, before they died on the same day: July 4th, 1826.
In fairness to Zelensky the US secret service and their eurocrat allies removed the elected leader Yanukovic in 2014 and got the Einsatzgruppen Azov Battalion to run riot in the Russian speaking east. The lead to the seizure of Crimea ( Russian anyway after the Mongols dispersed) and finally the invasion of the Donbass and more in feb 2022. NATO members whinging about others invading sovereign states after their excesses in Iraq, Afghanistan & Libya just make them look stupid. Their support for the SS and sunwheel tattoo’d Azov nutters is also an embarrassment – how would they like it if a state actor assemlbed and paid a large ISIS force and sent them to Wales or Scotland? – Oh. er, wait a minute….lol
This is the common sense criticism of this article, more obvious than mine. The nitty gritty that we’re getting down to is how many people outside the US do in fact believe the US, by virtue of their wealth and power, has a significant obligation to the rest of the planet. I hate to break it to them, but the American taxpayers don’t agree, and we’re not going to bomb ourselves into submission until we agree to pay what we obviously owe to them, although they could always buy the weapons to use on someone else and then turn around and use them against us. Osama made that trick sort of work, though he didn’t come out of it too well personally speaking.
The level of power and global sway America has is largely a function of our relative generosity and cooperation. If America First (which we’ve always practiced to some degree) means surrendering our cooperative leadership there will be a much a bigger global opening for China, Russia , and India.
Many American taxpayers believe that we have a broad self-interest in contributing to world safety and peace, whether or not we announce after-the-fact mineral backpay for weapons or open up colonial resorts in Gaza and Greenland, and so on. Not that any of that is sure to happen. Let’s just wait and see.
Being the cynic, I’m more of the opinion that America’s power and global sway are a consequence of its economic, military, and technological strength. America would be powerful and influential by virtue of its size, strength, and wealth whether it were generous or cooperative or tyrannical and demanding. China, in fact, is tyrannical and demanding and their power and influence has increased in keeping with their growing wealth and power regardless of their behavior. This is a trend that will no doubt continue. China, Russia, and India will undoubtedly increase in relative power and influence as their own economic and military power closes the gap with the USA. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. In such a world, the US needs to use its assets and make its investments more strategically. America can no longer afford the extensive overseas commitments and investments that don’t pay off because the consequences for wasting money and influence on investments that don’t pay off is a relative loss of power versus the competition. It’s fine to make investments that do pay off, which is what Trump is saying in his usual blunt, insensitive, and careless way. I highly doubt Trump is the best judge of what constitutes a good use of America’s power, and he squanders too much of it with his grandstanding, but the attitude shift is necessary in a more competitive, multipolar world.
The cynicism is understandable*. I don’t agree that Chinese power isn’t limited by their “attitude” or manner of implementing it. The compliance that comes of pure dominance or brute force is not the same as what comes of gentler persuasion. It is different in kind. “Payoffs” are not a purely monetary thing.
Very few nations would willingly adopt the Chinese model; that’s why they can’t make it optional, for their citizens or those they seek to control. The U.S. is supposed to love liberty and care about human rights around the world. Doesn’t mean we need to play world cop or make any specific intervention. But no one knows where this surrendering of (at least the veneer of) moral leadership will leave the world. This is radical stuff, not moderation or common sense. We’ll have a better idea of what it means in the near future–maybe six months in–even though it’s pretty certain we’ll still disagree on many points.
*I share in some part of it on most days
When this author uses the lazy and overused term, “far-right”, it immediately puts all the rest of his writing at question of falsehood or error. Again, without consistent reference to the “far-left”, without which there can be no “far-right”, the term “far-right” has no meaning.
Worse the author is delusional and being deliberately offensive
She says “There’s another parallel, too, with the way in which the Trump administration advances its aims: the coercive control of the domestic abuser. Such people are masters of the shifting multi-message: first charming, then cruel; gaslighting, insulting and complimenting; denying things they said, and keeping the more vulnerable person invested with promises of a future together, while chipping away at their external friendships and sense of self.”
I cannot see that Trump has been anything less than open and honest. America cannot and will not go on funding this war (why should it). If Europe is unwilling or unable to step into the shoes of the US (which they are) Ukraine needs to make peace. America will not guarantee that peace (why should it)
The author is very in on Trump’s tactics, though. The mixed messages, the reversals, the use of sometimes crazy proxies, the fact that the public enjoy all this and ‘get’ it much better than political analysts.
Think of DJT’s life history. New York property, casinos, an airline, TV reality show. He has rubbed shoulders along the way with the Mob, the Unions (not so different to the Mob), DC politicos who enabled and flew his airline, all the bitchy TV producers you could wave a pink flag at, federal prosecutors galore, desk and nondesk generals.
He enjoys chaos and knows how to work it. Lots of the public see that too. Millions are along for the ride.
Exactly right! When I got to “In January, for instance, the technocrat’s [Musk] relentless and baseless online attacks on Keir Starmer’s history as director of public prosecutions” I knew where the article was going…
The sad part? The Trumpian narrative is vastly more coherent than the counter-programming. In Trump’s world, the time for peace is now and the EU and Ukraine need to give him the flexibility to cut a deal.
If you want multi-messaging, let’s cross the Atlantic: NATO is simultaneously the bedrock of Western security, while Europe must also be prepared to go it alone because America has abandoned the alliance. Russia is an existential threat, but not so terrible as to stop sending billions in oil and gas money. Europe plus Ukraine are strong enought to push Russia back in today’s war, but too weak to deter Russia in the future.
Trump sounds like he has a point, these aren’t the positions of people serious about peace.
How can a narrative contain self-contradictions ?
So true.
It sometimes seems that putting an end to the bloodshed is the last thing on the minds the NATO-niks, the European establishment, and the Democratic party in the US.
Trump has the ball. I say “Let him run with it”!
Exactly what is it in the history of Europe would make one think that there is a real desire for peace. The US has had a hegemonic position in the Western world for the simple reason that the Europeans have seen fit twice to host a free for all war not once but twice.
Makes sense, a feasible analysis I think.
Re the domestic abuse parallel, on a personal level, if you are suffering coercive control, all you can do is either get faraway from the abuser fast, or destroy them. How can that happen between countries and their leaders ?
We had the old media and politics and all it gave us endless wars, endless immigrants, hatred of our own ancestors and men in dresses.
God bless Trump!
Well at least old media didn’t give us hatred of our ‘allies’.
BTW. What is new politics and new media ? Might-is-right and TikTok ? Please…
You’re commenting in the new media, in case you hadn’t noticed. Maybe you prefer the days of Blair’s pagers?
Interesting argument. Worth considering the events from the other side of the aisle.
I agree. I found this an insightful analysis of a communications strategy. Lots of interesting points. It would be interesting to reflect on why this strategy works for trump as the head of a very ideologically diverse cabinet. Perhaps it’s just to flood the channels? Not sure about the analogy to domestic abuse. You can leave your abuser but you can’t leave geopolitics.
I, too, was looking at it from a comms point of view. I was called a ‘maga’ supporter by someone close to me in Trump’s first term when it was fashionable to call him a fascist. Even so, the whole Zelensky affair looked stage-managed to my eyes.
I thought this was an excellent and enlightening article.
It’s more interesting than that. Blair was the classic era of soundbite politics – slogans as policy (eg Build Back Better). The soundbites were then boosted through TV snippets and journalist quotes – things that could be played in 5-10 seconds on a radio news show. Stay on message.
Social media and continuous video recording has made people much more aware of clipping and packaging – not least all the hoaxes of Trump’s first term, and they’ve become much more comfortable with longer form discussions that reveal the person. The drift is away from what’s your message, to whether you’re a person I think is going to do the right thing. The shock to Democrats, who judge every word spoken for microaggressions and dogmatic purity, is that Republicans actually trust Trump, Musk and Vance because they reveal themselves as people in the long-form where it’s warts and all – people with flaws, foibles and passions, just like normal people.
Long-form, as pioneered through reality TV, is much more revealing and it’s much more difficult for ‘fakers’ such as Markle, or Alex Baldwin to maintain a false character over a long period. It wouldn’t surprise me if cameras are invited into the offices of managers of government departments or hospitals. Reality shows already exist for customs and border work, so it’s not a huge step. Literally, show us how the taxpayers’ money is spent.
More and more articles are appearing now to somehow make sense of Trump. That his messaging is actually very very clever, and that ‘the old ways are dead’
Look. If it walks like a duck and quacks etc. Then it isn’t a kangaroo.
Even The Telegraph has cottoned on, Unherd is caught trying to analyse something that is very simple.
Face it. Trump is barking. The only smart thing he did was to pick a VP who makes him seem restrained by comparison.
J.D. Vance is one of the most composed human beings you’ll ever see.
Do explain what you mean?
Yes. His speech to the Europeans about censorship was a model of political communication And very well delivered.
^Irony_alert = TRUE
Ok so you’re just emotionally hyperventilating and then projecting. Got it.
Composed ? Beard + emotions + camp macho drama = closet…. and it takes one to know one.
A really interesting and insightful article by someone who’s taken the time to stand back and look for the method behind the madness that’s team Trump political communication. Ignore the author’s political biases. This is the most coherent explanation I’ve seen so far.
And yes, there are parallels to abusive relationships and coercive control here. If that’s how it’s going to be now, we have to see it for what it is.
Let’s not forget that Z had already signed an agreement with the UK! No wonder Trump and Vance were upset!!
I think it would be far more sensible for Zelensky to go talk to the Chinese to stop the war and provide security guarantees. The devil and the deep blue sea. Take the deep blue sea.
Brilliant. If your ally lets you down, try another. What’s to lose ?
‘henchmen’ ‘far-right AfD’ etc tell me all I need to know about this author. He suffers from TDS and ain’t worth reading.
The author is female. Such lack of attention isn’t a promising start to any point being made.
Well, you have to understand there are a portion of folks who refuse to read anything that might not agree 100% with their existing thoughts. The weird part is that they comment on these articles, adding absolutely nothing of substance.
You are so wrong. I haven’t laughed so much in ages
Well, thank you for contributing so much of substance Mr. Pot Kettle Black.
“Such is the nature of the multi-message, which depends on the unbolting of speech from verifiable truth, and the unapologetic liberation of rhetoric from consistency.”
Please acquaint yourself with the riotously unhinged rhetoric of Democrats up and down the spectrum, including elected members of Congress, who swore (and some still swear) that Trump was literally the treasonous tool of Vladimir Putin in the runup to the 2016 election.
She explains the background preparation of the trump coterie to ambush Zelensky. Well written & so pertinent her comparison to domestic abuse methods. It was school playground bullying from trump & vance, which we could all see. No excuses for their crap
Spot on. Interesting that it takes good women like Jenny McCartney and Suzanne Moore to point out the abusive nature of such behaviour. And of course Trump, Musk et al are heavily influenced by Bannon’s “Flood the zone with shit”. It’s a strategy that makes people confused, insecure and ultimately fearful and more likely to believe the lies that are said to them.
Any different from the lies that have been fed to us for the last two decades by the non-Trumpian transatlantic blob?
The counter revolution is underway in the US. The deliberate Cultural Marxism (DEI, ESG, Cancel, Transgender, Climate, Global Elitist, debt) that has so divided and weakened us just may be turning.
I earnestly hope the Europeans understand the rot and join us in a free, energetic and more optimistic future. Make Europe Great Again.
Our populations are ready, it’s just a matter of how we can use, or if necessary circumvent, our political systems in order to help move the world forward.
Great speculative analysis into Trump and his team workings.
What we have to remember is that the Biden administration have brought America to a sorry pass. Democracy & freedom of speech has been rubbished, the economy is on its backside and illegal migration was encouraged rather than stopped as demanded by the electorate.
The only way to turn this ship around is to disrupt the client state and its workings, which is exactly what Trump is doing.
If he succeeds Trump will be a genius, if he fails he will go down in the annals of U.S. history as a complete failure & incompetent.
My money is on Trump succeeding despite the enormity of his task.
Well she does have tds and has went to work while she is dealing with her illness. So likely she is spreading it around abit.
But besides that I think it’s an accurate description of what she thinks trumps strategy is.
And yes it is funny that they can’t understand competing ideas. Doesn’t happen in their circles because they are adequately provisioned with NKVD and the forest of no return is just out the back door.
“The intended effect of Musk’s attacks, pumped out to millions online, was to smear Starmer’s reputation and weaken his popular support” – What kind of reputation are you talking about?
A load of cobblers, the UK is not in danger of invasion by Russia, we are being invaded by Muslims.
Muslims encouraged by politiciansof all parties, this enemy within is more dangerous to the UK than either Putin or Trump.
Seems like she’s attributing a high level of competence and coordination to Trump and a significant number of other people in various orbits around him. The chief problem with conspiracies is keeping everyone on the same page, which ironically is what the author spends the first few paragraphs actually defending and praising, though she calls it consistency and uses words like ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ to imply that such things are beyond reasonable debate. I could pick apart the unlikeliness of getting all the people involved to behave in the exact right way, including Zelensky, who presumably wasn’t in on it, and Musk, who is rich enough to be able to say whatever he likes with or without Trump’s approval or consent and owns his own media platform to say it. Are we to believe that Vance, Musk, Rogan, and all these other folks she’s mentioned are taking their cues for over the top criticisms and hot takes from the President’s desk? Is there someone in the White House feeding them all lines so they can properly coordinate all their various lies? Perhaps there is. She talks of using pagers to keep MPs ‘on message’ with the ‘current line’ on every issue and praises that as normal political practice, openly pines for its loss. What she’s referring to is message control, how a party, leader, or organization can ensure their message gets out to the public the way they want it to. It’s odd that after going to the trouble of pointing out how important this was, she then turns around and criticizes Trump for accomplishing the same purpose, that being conveying a controlled message, through vastly more complicated means.
I’m going to assume for the purposes of criticism that the author is completely correct and this ‘multi-messaging’ does in fact represent a purposeful and calculated strategy, and that he can in fact orchestrate meetings with foreign leaders to explode out of control in a predictable way that conveys his point. There’s a movie quote about how politicians lie to conceal the truth, and artists lie to reveal it. There’s something to be said for that. One can convey deeper messages through fiction than by a dry reading of facts. In this case, it might be said that there is a truth that Trump’s deceptions revealed. It is perhaps the case that deep down, Zelensky wants to continue the war in spite of the reality that most analysts and military strategists of all sides admit it is unlikely the situation on the ground will change. I do not know this is the case, but one could reasonably make that inference from his past comments and actions. Ukraine does not have the manpower to expend to reconquer the lost territory. They cannot even continue to defend what they have without continued American support, which means billions more taxpayer dollars. Achieving peace given the strategic realities will likely require further concessions by Ukraine, and Zelensky is no doubt unhappy about that as well, and again, would balk at such conditions. If Trump entered negotiations with Putin and brought Zelensky along only for him to explode when the two leaders got down to brass tacks about what peace would really require, it would probably be a much worse and more costly spectacle. Thus, by revealing Zelensky’s real position now, in this way, Trump provides the conditions for what he probably already has decided he must do, which is negotiate directly with Putin over the head of the Ukrainians, who will be handed a peace treaty that they can either sign, or not sign, but either way, there will be no more free weapons shipments. If this is truly what happened, it’s brilliant in a way that I did not believe Trump was capable.
My question to this author is this? How is what Trump does more deceptive or misleading than what politicians did in previous eras, exactly? We’ve seen so many examples of lying, deceitful, and duplicitous politicians that the joke of the dishonest politician is about as cliched as any joke can be. We’ve become so used to politicians deceiving us directly, why should we care if one deceives us on purpose to get his message across? I’ve had quite enough with politicians treating citizens and voters like children who have to be coddled, sheltered, and talked down to. A politician who treats his voters as adults who can understand subtlety, context, and artistry is something a bit refreshing. If this is the real Trump, an entertainer who is calm and in control of the situation because he’s orchestrated it, it is a far better version than the one from 2016-2020 who was constantly fighting with the media at every press conference. He demonstrates his awareness, competence, and understanding of people and situations by doing so. All the other one demonstrated was how much Trump hates the media and how the media somehow hates him even more than that. The end result is that the half of Americans who voted for him now trust the media now about as much as they trust the politicians, which is not very, but perhaps this too was purposeful deception that revealed the truth of media bias and the specific agenda of particular media outlets. Now we basically accept that media outlets and journalists themselves have their own personal bias just like we all do, so perhaps this is all genius unrecognized at the time.
Is Trump controlling the message by excluding critical media voices? Of course he is. Can this author, or anybody, look me square in the eye and tell me Obama, Bush, and Clinton weren’t doing the exact same thing using different methods? How did those media outlets that are considered ‘acceptable’ and ‘trustworthy’ today achieve such a status? Is it possible that some of them achieved that status by toeing a different political line and following some other politician’s message control scheme several decades ago? I think given the political climate of the Cold War, that’s a distinct possibility. In any event, putting forth one’s ideas and persuading others is an ancient art form, and politicians and media would do better to learn from superior artistry rather than criticize it and attempt to suppress it. The internet has changed the game, and Trump is playing it better than the other side. The answer is to play it better. As long as speech is still free, there’s nothing stopping the other side from using the same tactics unless it’s their own stubborn pride.
Message control itself is neither good nor bad. In the world of mature adults, deception is neither good or bad either, but rather something we accept as good or at least necessary in some situations. Politicians have always used deception against foreign leaders and in some cases allied ones, to further the interests of their nations and people. It has been done in different ways since ever, and we humans of today are not markedly better or different than the ones born two hundred or two thousand years ago. History judges them not by their particular lies and deceits or even the methods they use. History judges them by what they accomplish. Hitler is one of history’s greatest villains because he started WWII and perpetrated the Holocaust, not because he was particularly more dishonest or conniving than other politicians (he actually wasn’t). Churchill is a hero despite most historians agreeing that he was capable of being deceitful or being vicious or being anything else if he thought it was good for the British Empire. Practically all the leaders of history we regard as great leaders were masters of deception and messaging in their particular time. Even if I take everything the author says at face value as unimpeachable fact, I am left with the conclusion that Trump is in fact capable of controlling and orchestrating situations to convey his political messages in unorthodox methods that I myself would not have thought possible or been remotely capable of achieving, and that actually makes me feel more comfortable with his competence, which I admit I have doubted on many occasions.
When you use different and less extreme methods. you are not doing “the exact same thing”. How something is done and to what degree matters. Everybody has lied; a minority are blatant and shameless liars. Do you see anything Churchillian in Trump, in a good way that is?
It’s quite something when you read an entire piece and wonder whether the author watched the first 30 minutes of the couch chat, rather than just the last ten that the MSM showed.
This was a failure on negotiation skills 101; we could call it Getting To No.
Zelenskyy reopened an already agreed deal and started renegotiating using emotional blackmail, personal insults and flip comments.
In public.
In the Oval Office.
With the world watching.
Think about that.
For some time before the VP kicked off he baited POTUS, the most powerful man in the world and the only person who can sign the cheque.
(This lasted a long time, watch the whole show. You won’t find another example of such behaviour in the White House, l should coco.)
Call him brave if you like- he has been extraordinarily brave these past three years and is being let down by European leaders*, playing poker with American chips- but he was naive here and lost the plot.
None of what happened was in the plan he and his advisors will have discussed.
He knows it, his advisors will have told him, Starmer and Macron have told him, and after all that he’s going to sign the deal anyway.
If he’s still in his job.
*Leaders who are now persuading us 5% spending on defence is essential, and that our young men must be ready for the front line.