Yesterday morning, upon waking up, Quebecers discovered a new resounding outing from President Trump, whose communication strategy on the war in Iran appears increasingly disjointed.
After claiming to be in discussion with a regime that denies it, announcing an imminent end to the conflict, promising a merciless response and predicting a short war, the president added insults to his register. HAS”Open the fucking strait, you weirdos, or you’ll live in hell. YOU WILL SEE…! Glory to Allah.” he wrote on his social network. He also predicted massive strikes for Tuesday against bridges and power stations in the Islamic Republic.
This is the most recent manifestation in a series of emotional and disorganized speeches by the American president. However, this use of vulgarity is neither trivial nor isolated. It even seems to be imposing itself more and more in public space. What does it really translate? Is it effective? Let’s take a closer look.
Synonym of dismay
In this specific case, it is difficult to analyze this intervention without seeing it as a form of impatience with the resistance of the Iranian regime. On March 1, at the start of the conflict, the president spoke of a war lasting four to five weeks and a total victory. Since then, the situation has become more complex and the United States is bogged down in a conflict that the American population neither requested nor approved.
The message published on Truth Social resembles a cry from the heart, mixing sincerity, frustration and contempt. It reflects the exasperation of a clearly tired president, who does not wish to engage in a long war, but who refuses any withdrawal without being able to claim a victory.
Vulgarity attracts attention
Another dimension is evident. The president perfectly masters the levers of media attention. His message quickly went around the world, in the middle of Easter day, when millions of families were reunited. If the objective is to occupy public space, provoke discussion and make an impression, the insult is a extremely effective tool.
Some will see it as a spontaneous drift. Others, including myself, see it as a strategy. Since his first campaigns, Trump has demonstrated that he leaves little room to chance. He excels in the art of provoking, imposing his themes and mobilizing. The apparent spontaneity often has more to do with skill than improvisation.
Is this a trend?
Donald Trump is not an isolated case. The use of harsher, even insulting, expressions is also observed in our own public space. We will remember Magali Picard affirming that Jean Boulet was “either innocent or he is acting innocent”, Pierre Poilievre describing Justin Trudeau as “crazy” in the House of Commons, or even Paul St-Pierre Plamondon denouncing the “intellectual vacuity of certain actors in the cultural sector”. The phenomenon is part of a broader context of polarization of discourse, where decorum is gradually declining.
These outings generally occur in contexts of internal political confrontation, highly charged on an emotional level, and often target an already established audience. These are the supporters who value more direct, clear-cut words, perceived as authentic and committed.
Does it work?
It all depends on the desired objective. If you want to advance a debate or convince an opponent, insults are ineffective. It brings nothing to the discussions, hardens positions and impoverishes the discussion. No one wins an oratorical contest by degrading his interlocutor, whether he is right or not.
On the other hand, if the objective is to make noise, to demonstrate strong commitment or to ensure that emotion takes precedence over substance, the strategy can prove effective.
Donald Trump is not the first to integrate insults into his positions, but he makes particularly visible use of them in the field of international diplomacy. If this approach seems to find an echo among its base, everything indicates that it will have no impact on the Iranian regime.
On the other hand, it could contribute to redefining the standards of political communication. When an American president adopts this tone and this form on the international stage, he opens the door to a trivialization of these ways of doing things among other leaders. This is undoubtedly the real issue.
Let’s hope that this dynamic does not impose itself too quickly elsewhere and above all, that it does not cross the border too quickly. To insult is to provoke, not to debate or communicate.
To receive all of Victor Henriquez’s columns, subscribe to our newsletter,Saturday debaters.
