Politics & Policy

How Should We Decipher Trumpspeak?

(Reuters photo: Jonathan Ernst)
Trump needs to understand that presidents are taken seriously and literally, at all times.

It would make a perfect clickbait ad: “Learn this one simple trick to stop worrying about Donald Trump and Make America Great Again.”

What’s the trick? All you have to do is take Trump seriously, but not literally.

The formulation is credited to reporter Salena Zito, who, in an article for The Atlantic last September, noted that the news media take Trump’s more outlandish statements literally but not seriously, while his supporters do the inverse.

Even the president-elect’s team has declared this a kind of Rosetta Stone for deciphering Trumpspeak.

“This is the problem with the media,” Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager, said recently at a post-election conference at Harvard. “You guys took everything Donald Trump said so literally. The American people didn’t.”

Peter Thiel, a major Trump backer, made the same point at the National Press Club in October. The “media always is taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously . . . I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously, but not literally.”

Trump has hinted that he buys this interpretation as well. Last week, he explained that he never really meant it when he said in April, “We’re not going to let Carrier leave.”

“I said, ‘Carrier will never leave,’” he admitted. “But that was a euphemism. I was talking about Carrier like all other companies from here on in.”

The press treated Trump as a joke, not appreciating the fact that for many voters the media’s scorn is a badge of honor.

As a defense of some of candidate Trump’s statements, this distinction is not bad, and as an indictment of the media, it’s pretty good. The press treated Trump as a joke, not appreciating the fact that for many voters, the media’s scorn is a badge of honor.

Of course, Trump isn’t the only politician to expect “non-literal” status. Vice President Joe Biden has said some absolutely ludicrous things over the years. He said FDR went on TV after the stock market crash of 1929, when FDR was not yet president and TV did not yet exist. No one took him literally. Nor does anyone take him literally when he, literally, asks to be taken literally. He told a group of students, “You are the keystone to East Africa — literally, not figuratively — you are the keystone.” In 2010, Biden said, “Before we arrived in the West Wing, Mr. Boehner’s party ran the economy literally into the ground.”

The non-literal approach to Biden is safe for two reasons. Because he is a well-known character in the Washington establishment, the public knows more or less what to expect from him. And, as a vice president, there’s only so much harm he can do. (In other words, we don’t have to take him too seriously.)

Trump is different. On his own terms he’s an outsider and a “disrupter” who claims that political elites range from stupid to malevolent. He also has zero experience in foreign or domestic policy. What he says — and how he says it — takes on greater importance precisely because he lacks a track record in public office to put his language in context.

This seriously-not-literally thing is a great analytical insight into how then-candidate Trump communicated with his supporters. But it is fairly ridiculous hogwash as a prescription for how to treat an actual president, or president-elect, of the United States.

When Trump says millions of people voted illegally, how should the news media go about taking that indefensible claim “seriously but not literally”? Should reporters assume that some number of people voted illegally, but not millions? Or that millions of people voted, but not illegally?

#related#When Trump says he spoke on the telephone with the president of Taiwan, should China be expected to take what it sees as a grave violation of diplomatic norms “seriously but not literally”? What does that even mean?

Perhaps we shouldn’t take the literally–seriously distinction too literally. Perhaps what Trump supporters really mean is that he should get a free pass whenever his mouth gets him in trouble?

Trump has said, “I know words, I have the best words.” He’s also said he could be more presidential than anybody, except maybe Abraham Lincoln. He’d be well advised to take his own words seriously, if not literally.

What a president says matters. And credibility — with citizens, allies, enemies, and markets — is a finite resource, easily depleted when you think you’ll never be held to account for what you blurt out.

— Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. © 2016 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Most Popular


‘Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself’

It was just one more segment to fill out the hour, and thereby fill the long 24 hours of Saturday’s cable news on November 2. Or so it seemed. Navy SEAL Mike Ritland was on the Fox News program Watters World to talk to Jesse Watters about trained German shepherds like the one used in the raid that found ... Read More
Film & TV

The Manly Appeal of Ford v Ferrari

There used to be a lot of overlap between what we think of as a Hollywood studio picture (designed to earn money) and an awards movie (designed to fill the trophy case, usually with an accompanying loss of money). Ford v Ferrari is a glorious throwback to the era when big stars did quality movies about actual ... Read More
Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More

What Happened to California Republicans?

From 1967 to 2019, Republicans controlled the California governorship for 31 of 52 years. So why is there currently not a single statewide Republican officeholder? California also has a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature. Only seven of California’s 53 ... Read More