The truth according to Donald Trump
The American president likes to disguise the facts or arrange them in his own way. Wanderings, strategy to create a diversion or provocation: analysis of a phenomenon that taints its credibility
How to qualify them? Inaccuracies, lies, untruths or alternative facts, the fact is that President Donald Trump and his entourage have distinguished themselves for several weeks by the most approximate statements, which immediately trigger an army of "fact checkers", activity which has the wind in its sails in the United States. But beyond the problem of definition, the most important thing is to measure its impact. And, above all, to understand the purpose. When there is one.
The mistaken facts emanating from the Trump administration can be categorized into different categories. There are those which result from incompetence, ignorance of the files or lack of preparation, sometimes accompanied by a crass bad faith, those who assimilate to real lies to conceal an inglorious truth and, finally, those which aim to sow discord and disconcert the adversary.
The story of the crowd
Sean Spicer, the spokesperson for the White House, opened fires with his sentence on the day of the swearing-in of Donald Trump: "It was the largest crowd ever seen during an inauguration, full stop" . Totally wrong, as the pictures easily prove. Kellyanne Conway, adviser to the US president, continued. It is to her that we owe the famous "alternative facts" used to defend Sean Spicer's mistaken claim. Mocked for her "invention", she then got stuck in her fake Bowling Green "massacre", a slip-up that one might think was unintentional.
These attitudes become more problematic when they come from the president himself. We know his untimely tweets written out of anger. Bloodthirsty, narcissistic, Donald Trump attacks when he feels challenged and touched in his ego. Without necessarily taking the time to think about the impact of his 140 balancing signs on his favorite social network. He draws, strikes, attacks the media as much as he accuses of being vectors of "fake news", as well as of comedians or his political opponents. In a haphazard way, without hierarchy.
Provoke and observe
A strategy for creating a diversion, blurring the lines or simply making people talk about him, Donald Trump often acts like someone who has just unpinned a grenade. He throws it into the middle of a crowd, waits for it to explode, and observes how people react. This is his version of the popular politicians' test ball. Except that he doesn't necessarily use this strategy to adapt decisions. Donald Trump has confirmed it again recently: he rarely regrets his words, even the most unfair and vitriolic.
So there is the "pomegranate method", which implies that approximate or false statements pursue a goal: to provoke, intimidate, unseat. But there is worse. Like the recent tweet where Donald Trump violently attacks Barack Obama accusing him of wiretapping him and qualifies him as a "bad and sick type". Donald Trump was apparently inspired by Breitbart News, a far-right platform, which was led by his strategic advisor, the sultry Steven Bannon. The charges are apparently not based on any evidence. FBI and NSA bosses, during their recent congressional hearing, claimed the statement was false, as was the alleged British involvement. Despite the denials, Donald Trump is staying the course and not going back. By drawing attention to this tweet, he distracts her a bit from the matter of Russian interference during the US presidential election.
"Someone disinterested in the truth"
In January, Gerard Baker, editor of the Wall Street Journal, explained in an editorial why he was careful with the use of the word "lie". Lies are intentional. But for Donald Trump, intent is difficult, if not impossible, to prove. How to judge the errors stated in his speech to Congress? Take an example: "94 million Americans are excluded from the labor market." The figure is correct. But the statement gives the wrong impression, as the unemployment rate (4.8%) affects only 7.6 million Americans. Here again, it is impossible, without falling into the process of intent, to say that he sought to enlarge his features. At the most, one can suggest that these approximations, intentional or not, are helping him.
And this is where you come to a crucial point in understanding the psychology of the character: Donald Trump doesn't like the truth. For Bertrand Kiefer, editor-in-chief of the Swiss Medical Review, "he cannot stand reality, because it opposes his self-centered and megalomaniac view of the world," he wrote in our columns. Welcome to Orwell's world and his famous "1984" "ministry of truth".
What if Donald Trump just didn't care how true he was? In his successful essay "On bullshit" (translated as: "The art of saying bullshit") published in 1986 and republished in 2005, the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, professor emeritus at Princeton University, gives his definition of the follower of "rubbish", which he distinguishes well from the liar: he is someone who is disinterested in the truth, who does not care whether what he puts forward is factually correct or not. “He doesn't mind if the things he says describe reality. He chooses them, or invents them, to support his point and provoke a reaction in his audience ”. For Harry Frankfurt, "bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies".
Threats taken more seriously
"I would tend to say that Trump is always on the rubbish register in his tweets, even when what he writes ends up being true," the 87-year-old philosopher told Le Temps. "Indifference to the distinction between right and wrong is the hallmark of the 'bullshitter', and I fear Trump is concerned with this indifference." A person only lies if they know what they are saying is wrong. But with Donald Trump, he can believe what he says without seeking to verify its veracity, if that serves him. As when he said he saw footage showing "thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets of New Jersey after the attacks of September 11, 2001".
You don't have to look far back in history to find US presidents implicated in lies. Some had serious consequences: that of President Nixon, in 1974, with the Watergate scandal that brought him down; statements by George W. Bush in 2003 about Iraq; and Bill Clinton, who in the middle of the Levinsky affair in 1998, denied having had sex with his intern. The Center for Public Integrity, for example, looked at all the public statements made by George W. Bush and his cabinet on Iraq, and came up with an edifying figure: during the two years following September 11 2001, at least 935 false statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq were reportedly made.
The difference with Donald Trump is the frequency of untruths, the highest level ever. According to the Trump-O-Meter of the Pulitzer Prize-winning site Politifacts, 70% of the president's statements are false. To adapt to this new situation, several newspapers have set up fact checking teams. The Washington Post even offers a system that checks every presidential tweet. When his mistakes are highlighted, Donald Trump prefers to discredit journalists by accusing them of distorting opinion. They are the "most dishonest human beings on earth," he told CIA collaborators.
Strategy or not, the approximations, exaggerations or unfounded accusations of the president, which multiply, tarnish his credibility. He ends up instilling doubt with each of his statements. “It’s extremely dangerous. The words of such a president do not instill confidence. This can complicate cooperation with the allies, but the enemies might also not take the threats seriously, ”concludes Harry Frankfurt.
