A clubhouse in a New Jersey golf course is the most unlikely setting for the leader of the free world to make one of his most defining and controversial statements.
When questioned about North Korea, a defiant Donald Trump thundered: “They will be met with the fire and the fury like the world has never seen.”
He then referred to the North Korean leadership: “He has been very threatening beyond a normal state and as I said they will be met with the fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.”
That phrase – “Fire and Fury” – inspired the title of the latest tell-all book which promises some insights into the Trump White House. Written by Michael Wolff, it was published in the run-up to the first anniversary of Trump’s inauguration.
Understandably, Trump showed much “fire and fury” at the news of this book. When threatened with legal action to try and halt its publication, the publishers decided to bring forward the day of release by four days. In less than 24 hours, the initial print run was sold out. Trump has, inadvertently, made the book famous.
His off-the-cuff remarks and his initial reaction to the news of this book are representative of what the last year of his presidency was like; he reacts in haste and then others are left to pick up the pieces when everything is blown out of proportion. There is little, if any, repenting.
Trump has incensed many people including former close aides. Any journalist seeking to write a ‘tell-all’ book is spoilt for choice.
Katie Walsh, a former deputy White House chief of staff, believes that trying to understand what Trump wants is “like trying to figure out what a child wants”. This largely sums up the observations of many who are close to the President. They are often astonished at his lack of intellectual curiosity and of his limited abilities to think and analyse.
Others observe that Trump is “less of a person than a collection of terrible traits”. He is treated like a two-year-old, and the book is riddled with various expletives used to describe the President.
There are more serious allegations. Steve Bannon, the former White House strategist, describes a meeting between Donald Trump Jr and a group of Russians during the 2016 campaign as being “treasonous”. The disgraced Bannon later withdrew this remark and expressed his regret in taking part in the making of this book.
The political right has often taken the view that indiscretion and vulgarity are political virtues essential to challenging and changing the status quo
This does little to allay the fears of the public. The author of the book even suggests that Trump never wanted to be President. Indeed, the whole election was meant to bolster Brand Trump rather than to lead to President Trump.
In addition to legal action, Trump took to Twitter to declare himself a “stable genius”. He is attempting to denounce and discredit every allegation presented in this book.
Despite the explosive nature of the book, the reader will be hard-pressed to find anything which wasn’t apparent from Trump’s unpredictable behaviour during the past year. His frequent changes in staff rob the White House of much-needed stability; his indiscriminate use of Twitter is now a matter of concern, and his lack of gravitas may damage the reputation of the office he holds.
Trump’s serious public pronouncements are often overshadowed by his off-the-cuff remarks. His salacious comments on women overshadowed the electoral campaign. His childish taunts to the North Korean leader are both a source of concern and humour. His vulgar comparison of some countries to a cesspit raised eyebrows.
Worrying though these comments may be, they need to be placed within their proper context.
The politically-correct left often places an inordinate emphasis on the significance of words and language. It can imaginatively and creatively find offence in the most harmless of phrases. This has led to a gradual banalisation of public discourse where the things which are not offensive are lumped with those that are.
As a reaction, the political right has often taken the view that indiscretion and vulgarity are political virtues essential to challenging and changing the status quo. This is leading to the gradual erosion of intellectual conservatism and contributes further to the banalisation of public discourse.
The language of diplomacy, however, does not fit in theleft-right continuum. Indeed, diplomacy is most successful when it is seen on a larger time-continuum where the office holder provides direction but does not affect the balance of power on a global level.
Public commentary has largely forgotten the importance of hidden diplomatic channels. Instead, it chooses to focus on the inane utterances of Trump. In doing so, it gives them the attention and the importance that they do not deserve.
An arms race is more dangerous than an act of haste; bad intentions which threaten to destabilise some of the most vulnerable regions in the world are infinitely more perilous than a ridiculous Tweet.
Trump is not suitable to occupy public office; there is no doubt about that. His decision to transfer the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was, perhaps, his most ill-advised move.
However, the real threats to stability and security do not lie in the White House but in other locations around the globe. Most notably, they thrive in the ideologically-charged North Korea, in hidden terror cells, and in the insidious expansionist corridors of power in Beijing and Moscow.
The authority of these powers is unchecked and unrestrained while Trump’s ‘fire and fury’ can be tamed in the next electoral cycle. The other threats are there to stay. We must not lose sight of that either.
André DeBattista is an independent researcher in politics and international relations.
andre.deb@gmail.com