13
Brion van Over
Let’s set the scene. It’s February 2017, and Trump enters a room nearly filled by a long conference table surrounded by comfortable leather rolling chairs. There are some twenty people standing around the table and lining the back wall waiting for the President to enter and be seated; the event has been billed as a “Black History Month Listening Session” (Trump 2017), and most attendees are Black supporters and aides, there to visually and publicly boost the President. It is the talk in this “listening session” that is the focus of the analysis throughout.
While Trump downplays the importance of the event as merely a “little breakfast,” the political stakes of the event are undoubtedly high, as a President plagued by accusations of racist and xenophobic remarks is expected to lead a meeting of Black Americans in the public celebration of the lives and accomplishments of some of our greatest Black historical figures.
As he enters, he pulls out a chair for Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former contestant on Trump’s reality TV show turned Trump White House official and aide. (A little over a year after this meeting, she was pressured to resign and has since fervently taken up the anti-Trump mantle.) As Trump moves to his seat, flanked by Omarosa on his right and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson on his left, the chatter subsides. Trump then takes the floor, beginning a segment of the event I’ll call his “opening comments,” and is followed by a round of introductions in which each guest seated around the table is invited to introduce themselves. (Note: In the analysis that follows I will indicate participants by their first names, following Trump’s practiced use of these for easy reference, as well as to distinguish a married couple who share a surname.)
Hardly a day goes by when those of us consigned to being addressed by the President on Twitter are not made privy to his evaluations of anyone and anything. It therefore may not come as a surprise to hear that both Trump’s opening comments and the introductions that follow are littered with evaluations of others, from “you did a fantastic job,” to “I think it’s a disgrace, the way the press is.” The central question I am concerned with here is: What does this barrage of evaluations of others do for Trump? What does he get from the use of this interactional style?
In this chapter, I demonstrate how Trump’s repeated assessments, both positive and negative, serve to place him in the role of “evaluator,” and thereby position his guests as “evaluatees.” With each guest likely noticing that their own turn to be evaluated is soon at hand, each works to provide Trump ample evidence of their fealty in exchange for his positive evaluation. However, this demonstration of commitment and loyalty to Trump and his ideals only works to garner his praise when guests provide evidence that meets Trump’s implicit criteria of worthiness, which he repeatedly models in his evaluation of others. As a result, Trump and guests work together to achieve his position as “Evaluator in Chief” and further solidify his public image as the “Boss.”
Of course, this is not the first time someone has suggested that men in positions of power may elect themselves to the roles of judge and jury of those they feel entitled to evaluate. In fact, linguistic anthropologists Ochs and Taylor (Ochs and Taylor 1995) identified just such a dynamic, which they deemed “father knows best” (a title derived from the 1950s sitcom of the same name) after observing the dinner table behavior of seven middle-class families in Southern California. The authors found that in a typical interaction the father would become the “family judge,” as various problems or topics were raised over the course of a meal. As the judge, the father would problematize the behavior, thoughts, or feelings of his wife or children far more than they would his, thereby taking on the role of “problematizer” and making his wife or children the “problematizee” – the source of the problem that the father identifies. This practice becomes a visible sign of the father’s power and authority, and also helps to maintain that authority each time the father takes on the problematizer role and each time the family implicitly or explicitly agrees to participate in being judged.
Ochs and Taylor are thus able to demonstrate one way that normal everyday conversations around the dinner table can become a field where the production and maintenance of social power are played out. The following analysis demonstrates the way a similar dynamic, Trump’s persistent evaluations of those around him at a meeting, can become a field on which his own power and authority are made and remade, with the aid and consent of all those who agree to and participate in the production of their own evaluation.
Rather than reproducing Trump’s full opening remarks here (about 1,200 words) (Trump 2017), and to give you a sense of the omnipresence of his evaluations of others, I provide an extract of each evaluation deployed by Trump during his opening comments. Far more evaluations follow during the introduction of guests and are reviewed later in this work.1
Introducing Paris Dennard, conservative political commentator and consultant
“Paris did such a good job”
“And ((points)) Paris has done a- an amazing job in a very hostile CNN community”
“I’ll take Paris over the seven.”
“I ((points)) saw you talking about it the other night Paris on something else that was really you did a fantastic job the other night.”
Introducing Pastor Darrell Scott, GOP political commentator and consultant
“You have been so helpful Darrell I- You have been really really-”
“I met Darrell when he was defending me on TV and the people on the other side of the argument didn’t have a chance right?”
Introducing Ben Carson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
“And I want to thank Ben Carson, who’s going to be heading up HUD, and it’s a big job”
“Nobody’s gonna be better than Ben.”
Introducing Omarosa Manigault Newman, former Apprentice star, and political aide
“I want to thank my television star over here”
“She’s been helpful right from the beginning of the campaign”
Evaluating Frederick Douglass, the former slave, abolitionist, writer, and statesman who died in 1895
“Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job”
“Big impact”
Evaluating Fox News
“But Fox has treated me very nice wherever Fox (news) is, thank you.”
Evaluating the group as whole
“This is a great group that’s been so special to me, you really helped me a lot”
On the face of it, these evaluations appear to be merely externalizations of how Trump feels about the targets of his evaluations, but in fact they do far more work than that. When we offer an evaluation of something, we are simultaneously “doing” the evaluation, that is, making those thoughts or feelings public, but also sending messages to those listening about the kinds of things I the speaker am likely to evaluate, and whether I’m likely to evaluate those kinds of things positively or negatively. If one were so inclined, one could pay close attention to these evaluations and get a good sense of what counts for Trump as something worthy of evaluation, in which direction he routinely evaluates that thing (positive or negative) and to what degree this is something he just “likes” or really “loves.”
Now, let’s say you’re sitting around a table with a really powerful guy, who really likes to evaluate the people around him. In fact, he’s already started doing it and you know it will soon be your turn. While there is typically a range of possible things you might offer when your turn comes around, that range is limited to comments relevant to the occasion and the particular interactional context, in this case, doing “introductions.” As is routinely done and expected in introductions, you can use this time to say some things about yourself that don’t necessarily highlight your allegiance to Trump, or you can try to figure out what you might be able to say to garner that positive evaluation, since it seems an evaluation of you will be rendered nonetheless.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that you wanted to try and get that positive evaluation. The first thing you would need to know is what kind of things he evaluates positively. What seem to be his criteria for deciding whether something gets a positive or negative evaluation? Are there any themes that emerge from listening to him do some of these evaluations over and over? A careful review of his evaluations draws out some patterns.
13.1Evaluation Themes in the Opening Comments: Establishing the Criteria
The first theme might be summarized as how much you’ve helped me further my goals. An example of this theme can be found in Trump’s evaluation of the overall contribution of the group of attendees: “This is a great group that’s been so special to me, you really helped me a lot.” Here, the group of attendees is positively evaluated on the grounds that “you really helped me a lot” and that doing so can make you “special to me.” Presumably, then, those who want to be special to Trump need to “help him a lot,” and likely make known exactly how this help has been rendered. This theme can be identified again when Trump evaluates Omarosa, saying “she is a very good person and she’s been helpful right from the beginning of the campaign.” In this instance, Omarosa is positively evaluated for again “being helpful” and additionally for doing so “right from the beginning,” making clear that the length of time one has been “helpful” to Trump is also something that might matter in his personal criteria for positively evaluating others. This theme is found again when Trump evaluates Pastor Darrell Scott’s contribution, saying “well these are a lot of my friends, but you have been so helpful Darrell I- you have been really really” before cutting off and shifting to comments on his election win. Here, Trump uses the term “friend” to characterize his relationship with some other attendees but selects Darrell from among members of this category for special attention, apparently for the intensity of his helpfulness – “so helpful.”
The next criterion for positive evaluation might be summarized as publicly defending me against my enemies. This can be identified in Trump’s additional evaluation of Darrell when he says, “I met Darrell when he was defending me on TV and the people on the other side of the argument didn’t have a chance right?” Trump’s positive evaluation of those who “defend” him in public media contexts is also evident when Trump points at Paris and says, “Paris has done a- an amazing job in a very hostile CNN community.” For Trump, then, positive evaluations are attached to advocating for Trump’s political agenda publicly, in large media contexts, and against those who are “hostile” to him or take up “the other side of the argument.” Omarosa is evaluated positively on the same grounds when Trump refers to her as his “television star.”
In addition to offering positive evaluations to those who have “been helpful” or “defended” him, Trump sometimes offers positive evaluations of those who are partaking in major efforts on his behalf. These evaluations are often distinguished by the presence of intensifiers like “big,” as in, “I want to thank Ben Carson, who’s going to be heading up HUD, and it’s a big job.” Here, Ben is evaluated positively, not for what he has done in the service of Trump’s campaign or election (after all, Ben was one of Trump’s competitors in the Republican primary), but instead with a focus on the size of the contribution Trump believes Ben will make. Positively evaluating the size of a contribution is used again in Trump’s evaluation of Frederick Douglass when Trump says, “Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job,” later offering an additional reason for this evaluation when he characterizes Douglass’ contribution as having a “big impact.”
Finally, Trump offers evaluations on the basis of whether people are perceived as being nice or saying nice things about me. Since a disproportionate amount of Trump’s talk is often devoted to denouncing those who speak ill of him, it stands to reason that grounds for positive assessment might include doing the opposite. While this theme is clearly related to “defending” him against those who are “hostile” to him, here, the evaluation is also assigned to an entire media organization when Trump evaluates the Fox News agency saying, “but Fox has treated me very nice wherever Fox (news) is, thank you.”
Reviewing the above identified themes, we might note that Trump’s evaluations seem to be prompted by behaviors that count as displays of loyalty or commitment, whether these be in the form of defending him to his enemies, advocating for his agenda, working hard for him, or complimenting him. In fact, an implicit question that seems to lurk just around the corner of so many of Trump’s interactions is the question, “so what have you done for me lately?” Given that this pattern is readily understood and identified, it is likely that these guests have become aware of how important these behaviors are to staying in Trump’s favor, and if one wanted to elicit a positive evaluation from Trump, the criteria for doing so would be fairly clear. Let’s call this the tell me what you’ve done for me lately dynamic.
We can now turn to see if the guests at this event identify and make use of the above themes that Trump repeatedly models as things likely to receive his praise during his opening comments (spoiler alert: they most certainly do, nearly every time).
13.2How to Get Love from Trump
Trump begins the round of introductions by inviting Paris Dennard, GOP commentator and consultant, to start. The Paris introduction exchange is interesting, as it is the only one between Trump and a guest that does not follow the recurring pattern that each subsequent introduction follows. This is likely because, as the first exchange, the exchange itself helps to establish the pattern as Paris and Trump work out what needs to be done to get that positive evaluation. Unlike the guests to follow, Paris does not make clear what he has contributed to Trump (what have you done for Trump lately?), but instead remarks on Trump’s support for his organization (what Trump has done for him) (Trump 2017; video excerpt starts at 6:20).
Paris:pleasure to be here Mr. President,honor to be hereParis Dennard.I’m (with) Thurgood Marshall College Fund (that) represents the forty-seven publicly supported historically black colleges and university which I know you are very much in support of.so it’s a pleasure to be here sir.
Trump:well I’m glad you’re in support of me because uh (.)I’d be all,I’d be in the wilderness without you guysyou are so effective I appreciate it
In this instance, Paris doesn’t seem to say anything that meets Trump’s criteria for positive evaluation. There isn’t any talk about how he’s defended Trump, or what he’s done for Trump. In fact, Paris turns the tables, offering a positive evaluation of Trump for his support of black colleges and universities, temporarily stealing the reins and becoming the evaluator, making Trump the evaluatee. Trump manages to offer Paris a positive evaluation, nonetheless, but only after recharacterizing what Paris said as having purportedly been about supporting Trump, saying “Well I’m glad you’re in support of me because …” By taking what Paris said and transforming it into a statement that claims support for Trump, Trump models that what guests should say is something about how they support Trump, not how Trump supports them. This correction may help the guests that follow to offer something that better meets Trump’s criteria.
The next introduction proceeds with Bill Cleveland, who introduces himself as “Bill Cleveland, retired Capitol police officer, former vice mayor (of) city of Alexandria, and substitute teacher in Alexandria school system.” Bill fails to specify how or what this does for Trump and so is met with merely a “thank you.” However, Earl Matthews, who’s up next, interjects and provides some additional information that Bill is also a Vietnam veteran, saying “And Bill’s ((touches Bill’s shoulder)) also a Vietnam veteran, sir.” This apparently offers Trump something he can evaluate, as he replies, “Oh good for you.” While not seen in the themes for positive evaluation established in his opening comments, Bill’s status as a Vietnam veteran does speak to his service to the nation, if not to Trump personally. Note, however, that Trump does not thank Bill for his service to the “country,” but treats his veteran status as a personal good.
The next guest is Pastor Belinda Scott, who self-identifies as “Darrell’s wife” and goes on to have the longest introduction exchange with Trump (video excerpt starts at 7:18).
Belinda:I’m like you’re next ((laughing))Belinda Scott uh-Darrell’s wife New Spirit Revival Centerumfrom Cleveland Ohio,Pastor of New Spirit,great amount of support in the uh- African American peop- community where we are,uhm we love the lord we love our new president,and we are praying for our president.
Trump:thank you
Belinda:on a regular basis
Omarosa:amen ((applause))
Belinda:that’s what I do what we do
Trump:you know the one thing I didn’t understand about Belinda I ((palm point)) thought they were married maybe five or six years, cause ((palm point)) look how they look so young?((laughter))
Trump:should you say how many years you’ve been married?
Belinda:th- thirty? five?
Darrell:been together thirty-eight
Belinda:thirty- been together [thirty-eight
Trump: [now can you believe that
Belinda:but- but in the LORD((laughter))
Belinda:thirty-five, yes
Darrell:thirty-three, [three of the thirty-eight under the blood
Trump: [that’s great
Trump:that’s ((laughter))
Trump:that’s actually amazing, I wouldn’t have known
Belinda:but can I say this,I am so grateful that our President gives us a ear,you know- you- to listen
Omarosa:that’s right
Belinda:to the community, to listen,and and- and people like-like us are just here to constantly put that message out into the community
Trump:thank you Belinda, that’s so nice
After identifying herself, Belinda goes on to say, “New Spirit Revival Center from Cleveland Ohio, Pastor of New Spirit, great amount of support in the African American community where we are, we love the lord, we love our new president, and we are praying for our president.” Like the instance with Bill above, Trump replies here with only a “thank you,” which Belinda likely finds insufficient, as she goes on, saying “on a regular basis.” With praying for Trump apparently not being something worthy of positive evaluation, Trump looks to produce his own noticing that he can and does go on to positively evaluate. This begins with Trump saying “look how they look so young” and offering for Belinda to say how long they have been married (“thirty-five?”), to which Darrell offers “been together thirty-eight.” Trump now finds an opportunity to offer an evaluation, though this is one of his own making, saying “that’s great” and “that’s actually amazing, I wouldn’t have known.”
The force of the structure in this event, Trump’s need to evaluate each guest, is such that in both the Paris and the Belinda introductions, when Trump finds nothing worthy of evaluating in what his guest has said, he decides to say something himself that he can then go on to evaluate. This allows Trump to invoke and maintain the role of evaluator, even when by his own view there appears to be nothing to evaluate.
The next guest is Darrell Scott, who introduces himself as another pastor at the New Spirit Revival Center (video excerpt starts at 8:28).
Darrell:Darrell Scott, pastor New Spirit Revival Center,and black (.) Trump (.) supporter.
Audience:(Yes)
Omarosa:((laughter)) ((applauds))
Audience:((applauds))
Trump:thank you
Trump:you have been a great supporter
Darrell opens with a declaration of support for Trump, and makes clear that his being a “Black” Trump supporter matters and is worthy of note in its own right, presumably because common conceptions of Trump’s supporters don’t include many members of Black communities. Trump again offers his thanks and the now seemingly compulsory evaluation. In this case, Darrell’s being Black and being a supporter is all that is necessary to garner Trump’s praise – “You have been a great supporter” – presumably because his support is helping Trump to achieve some of his goals, which is one of the themes identified in Trumps opening comments. Darrell, perhaps unsatisfied, decides to go on (video excerpt starts 8:38).
Darrell:I was recently contacted,by some of the top gang thugs in Chicago,for a sit down.
Belinda:((nods))they wanna sit down
Darrell:they reached out to me because they associated me with you,[they respect you
Trump:[right
Darrell:they- they they believe in whatcha doin,and they wanna have a sit downabout lowerin that body count
Darrell:so in a couple of weeks,I’m going into Chicago,
Trump:I think that’s a great idea because Chicago is totally out of control(segment ends 9:00)(transcription resumes at 9:25)
Darrell:but they want to work with this administration
Trump:good
Darrell:they want to,they reached out-I didn’t reach out to them, they [reached out to me,
Trump: [I think that’s great
Darrell:they wanna work with this [administration,
Trump: [I think it’s
Darrell:they believe in this administration,they didn’t believe in the prior administration.they told me this out of their [mouth
Trump: [I think that’s great.
Darrell:but they see hope with you.
Trump:I love (it)
Here, Darrell proceeds to tell Trump about his recent contacts with “some of the top gang thugs in Chicago” who want a “sit down” because they “respect” Trump, and that Darrell plans to go to Chicago “in a couple weeks” to advocate for “lowering the body count.” This garners an upgraded evaluation from Trump who replies, “I think that’s a great idea because Chicago is totally out of control,” providing Trump an opportunity to expound on his recurring complaint about the state of inner cities, a popular talking point in his stump speeches. The pattern continues with Darrell emphasizing that it is really Trump who has brought these “street guys” to the table, offering Trump various compliments, or, generally saying nice things about him, for which he is paid in ever more enthusiastic positive evaluations from Trump, saying “good,” and “I think that’s great,” and again “I think that’s great,” finally stopping only when Trump offers the most upgraded evaluation, “I love it.”
This general pattern continues across the remaining participants. The evaluatee offers things for Trump to evaluate that generally conform to the kind of things Trump has positively evaluated earlier in the event, followed by positive evaluations from Trump who is thereby positioned as the evaluator. Below are the remaining evaluatee’s bids for positive evaluation as well as the evaluator’s (i.e. Trump’s) positive evaluations, each of which conforms to this patterning.
Introduction of Gerard Robinson, Executive Director, Center for Advancing Opportunity
Gerard: I was proud to be the leader of the education policy team for Trump–Pence transition.
Trump: Thank you, that’s great.
Introduction of Ashley Bell, member of Trump transition team, attorney
Ashley: Chairman Priebus called me out of my little town to come help run African American outreach for your campaign […] I’ll be wanting to help you out at the State Department.
Trump: Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Introduction of Tucker Davis, West Virginia
Tucker: I’m Tucker Davis. I ran your campaign in West Virginia, working for you in the-
Trump: We did well in West Virginia!
Introduction of Leah LeVell, Republican National Committee
Leah: I was at the RNC and also at PIC, and I helped launch the video series every week um the midweek message that reached out to millennials and college students and helped launch the college Republican chapter at Howard University.
Trump: Good. Good. I heard that.
Omarosa: That’s Bruce LeVell’s daughter. We snagged her.
Trump: Oh that’s good. Oh good. Great job.
Introduction of Monica Alexander, Office of Public Liaison
Monica: Executive administrative assistant in the Office of Public Liaison, supporting Omarosa.
Trump: Good.
Monica: Spellman graduate.
Trump: Okay, well, that’s nice.
Introduction of Ja’Ron Smith, congressional staff member
Ja’Ron: I’m with the Domestic Policy Council, Andrew Bremberg’s team, and I’ll be focusing on urban affairs and revitalization.
Trump: Fantastic!
Omarosa: And Howard graduate.
Trump: Howard graduate. That’s good stuff.
13.3Why Does This Interactive Pattern Matter?
That Trump is a fan of praise, and often heaps it upon himself in the absence of another to provide this service, is not a new observation. In fact, an editorial in the New York Times identified a 2017 cabinet meeting wherein member after member offers their praise during a similar round of introductions (Davis 2017). The results of the 2016 presidential election also attest to Trump’s mastery of bringing (some) people under his tent, going from the unlikeliest of candidates to growing a legion of followers. The question becomes, how does Trump manage to continue to transform once stable and routine contexts and practices and bend them to his will, including taking a meeting purportedly about “listening” to African Americans during Black History Month and turning it into a fealty forum? And how does he get others to go along with it?
I suggest the interactional practices outlined here aid Trump in establishing his “Boss” persona through the public aggregation of supplicants. More specifically, Trump uses evaluative language to (1) establish and normalize standards of behavior, as when he models in his opening comments the kinds of things that good people worthy of praise ought do, (2) invite others to swear fealty through their willing participation in the co-construction of their own evaluations, and (3) encourage them to evaluate themselves on the basis of Trump’s standards. Those who play along win the promise of approval and avoid the public verbal abuse Trump reserves for those who don’t.
This analysis aids our understanding of how the public perception of power and authority is cultivated through interaction. This knowledge is essential to our being critical participants in our politics, rather than an unwitting audience of language games staged for our consumption. Like the “father knows best” dynamic observed by Ochs and Taylor, the practice identified here makes visible how Trump’s power not only pre-exists events like these, but is made and remade through the interactions happening in them. Put another way, power is not only had, but also made, through communication.
Note
1.For this chapter in particular, only segments that include a significant back-and-forth between Trump and his constituents have been transcribed in a conversation analytic style. Other quotes have been left in conventional orthography. Transcription conventions used for conversation analysis here include the use of CAPITALS to indicate talk spoken with special emphasis. Colons after a vowel indicate an elongated vowel sound. A left bracket ([) marks the onset and a right bracket (]) marks the offset of overlapping talk. Numbers in parentheses – for example, (1.2) – note the length of silences in seconds, while a single period in parentheses (.) indicates a micropause of less than 0.1 seconds. A dash (-) marks the cut-off of the current sound. An equal sign (=) indicates “latching,” where talk starts up in especially close temporal proximity to the end of the previous talk. Transcribers’ comments and non-verbal action descriptors are italicized in double parentheses ((like this)); single parentheses, (like this), around talk indicate a problematic hearing. Punctuation symbols are used to mark intonation changes rather than as grammatical symbols: a period indicates a falling contour; a question mark, a rising contour; and a comma, a falling-rising contour, as might be found in the midst of a list. Each line of text (without a hard return) indicates talk spoken within a single breath group.
References
Davis, Julie H. 2017. “Trump’s Cabinet, with a Prod, Extols the ‘Blessing’ of Serving Him.” The New York Times, June 12, 2017. https://nyti.ms/2rjw0pn.
Ochs, Elinor, and Carolyn Taylor. 1995. “The ‘Father Knows Best’ Dynamic in Family Dinner Narratives.” In Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, edited by Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz, pp. 97–120. Routledge.
Trump, Donald. 2017. “Black History Month Listening Session.” C-SPAN video. February 1, 2017. https://cs.pn/2tRKdpX.