President Donald Trump shocked U.S. allies, not to mention many Americans, when he called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a 性视界传媒渄ictator without elections性视界传媒 who 性视界传媒渂etter move fast or he is not going to have a country left.性视界传媒
Trump性视界传媒檚 comments radically departed from President Joe Biden, who publicly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine to justify NATO性视界传媒檚 (including American) support for Ukrainians.
Trump性视界传媒檚 supporters explain he is merely fulfilling a campaign pledge to stop the war in Ukraine. However, his announcement still left many Democrats, and some Republicans dismayed. As liberal commentator Tom Nichols summarized these reactions in The Atlantic, Trump 性视界传媒渇alsely accused Ukraine of starting a war against a much larger neighbor, inviting invasion and mass death.性视界传媒
Communication scholar Robert Ivie once explained how American presidents rhetorically justify wars by portraying enemies as 性视界传媒渟avages性视界传媒 性视界传媒 aggressors 性视界传媒渄riven by irrational desires for conquest性视界传媒eeking to subjugate others by force of arms.性视界传媒 This image is 性视界传媒渋ntensified by a contrasting image of the United States性视界传媒 as civilization性视界传媒檚 representative 性视界传媒渨ho is rational, tolerant of diversity, and pacific.性视界传媒
Trump性视界传媒檚 rhetoric is a kind of rhetoric of savagery in reverse: By indicating Ukraine under Zelenskyy is 性视界传媒渟avage性视界传媒 and suggesting Russia under Putin is a rational and peace-loving nation engaged in self-defense, Trump utterly upended how Americans are supposed to perceive Russia性视界传媒檚 war against Ukraine, U.S. priorities and their own national identity.
What motivates such dramatic rhetorical about-faces and what are their risks?
Nichols attributes Trump性视界传媒檚 policy switch to the fact that he genuinely believes 性视界传媒渂ad性视界传媒 guys like Russia are 性视界传媒済ood.性视界传媒 Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger suggested the president性视界传媒檚 rhetoric lays the groundwork for even more seismic shifts in foreign affairs.
Some think Trump rhetorically redefined Ukraine as savage to serve his political interests. Much has been made, for example, of Trump性视界传媒檚 alleged efforts to extract mineral rights from Ukraine in exchange for U.S. protection. In either case, Trump性视界传媒檚 savagery rhetoric boosts his image as appearing to be looking out for U.S interests, loyal to the newfound friend Russia, and standing firmly against the U.S.性视界传媒檚 latest enemy, Ukraine.
What are the risks of such rhetoric? First, it disorients foreign and domestic audiences, leaving U.S. allies 性视界传媒渞eeling,性视界传媒 as one news source described it.
The rhetoric also puts countries like Ukraine in compromising one-down positions. Not only must they deal with warring parties such as Russia, but as the blameworthy aggressors, they also face prospects of conceding terms to even more formidable (and once allied) countries like the U.S.
Additionally, while traditional rhetoric of savagery is meant to unify Americans, the new inverted rhetoric may sow division. It can leave the newest policy supporters and holdovers from the established policy scapegoating each other. Those who see Russia as a friend and Ukraine as the hated enemy, for instance, can accuse those who do not as intolerant, irrational and warmongering.
As mentioned, the rhetoric of savagery in reverse can also subvert a nation性视界传媒檚 entrenched moral principles. One can imagine how some individuals, who sacrificed life and limb for democratic ideals by fighting illiberal foes, experience frustration, if not outright anger, after being told their sacrifices hurt those foes who are now the nation性视界传媒檚 friends.
Finally, it性视界传媒檚 hard for many democratically minded persons, upon hearing this rhetoric of savagery in reverse, to comprehend how brutal autocratic regimes like Vladamir Putin性视界传媒檚 Russia are so instantly and transparently self-governing and deserving of respect. Or how close friends like Ukraine turn so quickly into villains. Indeed, the rhetoric of savagery in reverse, Princeton historian Timothy Snyder warned on MSNBC, too easily dismisses or justifies the now friendly regime性视界传媒檚 horrendous behaviors or forgets the behaviors as if they never happened.
Dramatic paradigm shifts in foreign policy are not unprecedented and sometimes warranted, as was the case with U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union following World War II. Still, radical changes in foreign policy, framed in terms of savagery rhetoric typically employed to justify war, demand a full and robust public debate, whatever the context in which the rhetoric appears.
Otherwise, a democratic nation性视界传媒檚 foreign policy becomes vulnerable to the problems above, potentially destabilizing an entire global order. Before a powerful nation like the U.S. decides to abandon its former friends and treat them as enemies and vice versa, a concerted public deliberation is needed to address these problems.
