The Spire

Anna Lucci ‘28

Staff Writer

On February 28, 2025 President Donald Trump of the United States of America and President Vlodymyr Zelensky held what Google refers to as a “highly contentious, bilateral meeting televised live in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington D.C.,” What was overwhelmingly apparent to me as a former parliamentary extemporaneous orator–which is a pretentious way of saying former debater–was the rhetoric used by allegedly professional communicators. Now, I do not wish to be misinterpreted. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or the Declaration of Independence is it written that the President of the free world must be a professional communicator. However, for a man who has made deals his whole life and who seems to be striking a chord with many moderate political minds with his advertised agenda of political objectivity and common sense, where were the effective communication methods? And where was the common sense? Now it is important to note that accompanying President Donald Trump, was Vice President J.D. Vance, and every major news outlet and organization in the United States and several international news outlets and organizations as well. America and everyone else who owns a mobile device, has watched as Trump has incessantly made the initiative of prioritizing transparency with the public, and that I think is duly noted among the citizenry. However, I must contest that the choice to televise what was bound to be a “highly contentious” meeting was in-error, no fault or otherwise attributed blame to Google. President Trump had just surpassed his one month mark, in office, and within a month, the news reading public/television-owning public was supposed to believe that Trump had not only conducted, but financed a peace negotiation and newfound economic relationship between the United States and Ukraine, all while coaxing Russia into remaining at-bay? Now, we won’t get side-tracked by the political or quasi-economic stipulations of the meeting, however we must recognize the rhetorical infelicities of a presidential têt-a-têt at prime time.

It seems as though Trump, who managed to bully Biden and a disabled news reporter for their physiological speech impairments (mainly their stutters) is suffering from perhaps a similar non-physiological ineptitude. Although it is a broadly ineffective method that 78 million Americans regretfully seem to understand, it is what I like to call the “ever-uninterpretable, yet totally blunt, glorifying, but not quite a sentence-straight-shooting-Americanism” of Donald Trump. And boy oh boy is it something. The leader of the free world used to be respected for the casual gracefulness and poise by which he delivered news, executive orders, and new policies to the American audience. Now, a barely construed sentence makes the grade–not only does it make the grade, it is exalted by pundits, the press, and the people. I contend that there is something useful still to be said for a sign-post-a formulaic, claim, warrant, impact strategy for delivering important information to the population you govern. I also contend that there is a way to disagree politely. The same calming rhetorical mastery of JFK and Ronald Reagan, and the master of masters Abraham Lincoln is presidential. There’s a stark difference between a “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall,” and the rude interruption of a President who can barely speak English by saying: “You don’t have the cards” and “I haven’t heard you say thank you to President Trump once.” Whilst I understand that laying out an argument and the rationale behind it no longer matters in the public media sphere, what I as a former debater refuse to come to grips with is the rejection of rhetoric’s bottom line, and that is respect, that means, ethos, pathos, logos and, above all else, clarity by the orator delivering the rhetoric. All of this consternation begs the question, was the “propaganda parade” alleged by Vice President Vance really the exemplar for their own attack against Zelensky when American cameras went live on February 28th? Does Zelensky and Trump’s interaction communicate something about how 78 million Americans wish to see communication happen, where the weaker party is overruled by shouting, and less words said angrily? Or does this wiley misuse of rhetoric by the two highest-office holding individuals in America, seem to suggest that the 78 million Americans who elected them are hungry for this type of dominating communication-a certain Make America Shout…Again, a revised rhetoric so-to-speak? Does “America first” mean everything? Even conversations between world leaders must end with a decisive American victory?  

Featured image courtesy of NBC News

Web Edited by Zexuan Qu ’28