The other day Donald Trump was interviewed by Michael Gove and Kai Diekmann, former editor of the German newspaper Bild.
I sat down to write a balanced account, fully intent on finding some good things to say about the president-elect. Then I read the whole transcript – and shook with fear.
Some of the things Trump said were sound enough, some weren’t. But what caused my involuntary reaction was that they all, right or wrong, were expressed in ignorant, illiterate gibberish.
One can hear more cogent and enlightened rhetoric at my local King’s Head on a Saturday night, when everyone is on his seventh pint.
On Nato:
“I took such heat, when I said Nato was obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days.
“And the other thing is the countries aren’t paying their fair share so we’re supposed to protect countries but a lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States. With that being said, Nato is very important to me.
“There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much, from 22.”
First, a minor point. Last I looked Nato had 28 members, not 22. And, apart from the US, only one country, Britain, pays what members are supposed to be paying, two per cent of the budget.
Then it’s debatable whether it’s the job of this defence alliance to chase terrorists. One could argue that anti-terrorism is a police function, while Nato was created to keep Russia’s expansionism in check.
Trump’s statement is tantamount to saying that Russia is no longer expansionist or, if it is, its expansionism shouldn’t be resisted. The first view is ignorant; the second, immoral. And why is Nato so important to him if it’s obsolete?
As a comic aside, this was greeted with jubilation in the Russian press and parliament. They emphatically agree that Nato is obsolete. But, considering Nato’s purpose, they would, wouldn’t they?
On sanctions:
“They have sanctions on Russia – let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it. But you do have sanctions and Russia’s hurting very badly right now because of sanctions, but I think something can happen that a lot of people are gonna benefit.”
Deciphering this gibberish delivered in the idiom of a used car salesman, one gets the impression Trump will lift the sanctions in exchange for some sort of a ‘deal’ on nuclear weapons. Does he know that Russia has violated every such past treaty, starting from SALT 1? Or that the sanctions were imposed in response to Russia’s use of conventional weapons to attack the Ukraine, and electronic weapons to attack the US? No, perhaps not.
On the Iran treaty:
“Well, I don’t want to say what I’m gonna do with the Iran deal. I just don’t want to play the cards. I mean, look, I’m not a politician, I don’t go out and say, ‘I’m gonna do this – I’m gonna do – ’, I gotta do what I gotta do. But I don’t wanna play. Who plays cards where you show everybody the hand before you play it? But I’m not happy with the Iran deal, I think it’s one of the worst deals ever made, I think it’s one of the dumbest deals I’ve ever seen, one of the dumbest, in terms of a deal.”
I agree. But never mind the content, feel the form. That’s the leader of the free world speaking, ladies and gentlemen.
On the Paris conference:
“The problem I have is that it makes it a tougher deal for me to negotiate because the Palestinians are given so much – even though it’s not legally binding it’s psychologically binding and it makes it much tougher for me to negotiate. You understand that? Because people are giving away chips, they’re giving away all these chips.”
True. But don’t you just love all those references to trading and gambling? The man clearly sees foreign policy in the light of a deal to build yet another Mafioso casino.
On Brexit:
“You guys wrote it – put it on the front page: ‘Trump said that Brexit is gonna happen’. That was when it was gonna lose easily, you know, everybody thought I was crazy. Obama said to go to the back of the line.”
I can’t decide whether this locution reminds me of Demosthenes or Cicero. In either case, the last sentence is a non sequitur.
On the EU:
“I think it’s tough. I spoke to the head of the European Union, very fine gentleman called me up.”
Trump wisely refrained from naming the ‘very fine gentleman’. When he tried to do so earlier, he confused Donald Tusk with Jean-Claude Juncker. For once I can’t blame him: that’s an easy mistake to make.
On trade:
“It’s going to be different – I mean Germany is a great country, great manufacturing country – you go down Fifth Avenue everybody has a Mercedes-Benz in front of their building, right – the fact is that it’s been very unfair to the US, it’s not a two-way street. How many Chevrolets do you see in Germany? Maybe none – not too many – how many – you don’t see anything over there – it’s a one-way street – it’s gotta be a two-way street – I want it to be fair but it’s gotta be a two-way street and that’s why we’re losing almost $800, think of it, $800 billion a year in trade so that will stop.
“I would tell BMW if they think they’re gonna build a plant in Mexico and sell cars into the US without a 35 per cent tax, it’s not gonna happen, it’s not gonna happen – so if they want to build cars for the world I would say wish them luck – they can build cars for the US but they’ll be paying a 35 per cent tax on every car that comes into the country…”
One sees more Mercedes in Manhattan than Chevrolets in Germany because the former are great cars and the latter are rubbish. The rest of it betokens ignorance of what’s called Economics 101 in Trump’s country. Protectionist tariffs are more likely to make trade deficits worse, not better. And as to the 35 per cent levy on imports, that would never be approved by Congress.
The grand finale:
“I love the world, I want the world to be good but we can’t go – I mean look at what’s happening to our country – we are $20 trillion – we don’t know what we’re doing – our military is weak – we’re in wars that never end, we’re in Afghanistan now 17 years, they told me this, really – 17 years, it’s the longest war we’ve ever been in.”
So Trump is going to strengthen the US military while eliminating the $20 trillion sovereign debt (I assume that’s what he meant), ending all wars and in general making the world good. Good intentions, every one of them. Rest easy, the world’s future is in safe hands.
The problem is that if the same questions were asked of Hillary she would have said some vague answer that most everything is OK, we are headed in the right direction and only need a little tweaking here and here, etc. Reading a script as if an actress [no reading a script she is actress] all rehearsed, carefully choreographed, etc. Trump speaks extemporaneously and without the teleprompter and that is ONE REASON among many why he got elected.
Unless you state the problem and define it you will never be able to solve it. Follow up is needed but again with Hillary the problem would not even be stated.