Donald Trump; Or, The Mean Insult v. The Tactical Insult

<< Back to Warrior Mind [#GRZ_80] – Forward to Lost Transcript [#GRZ_109] >>

My dog was able to get into the garbage to eat some chicken bones. In correcting him, I exclaimed with waggling pointed finger, “Bad dog!” My daughter heard this and informed me that I was wrong to do so, but instead, I should have said, “Good dog, but you’ve made a really bad food decision…” Who teaches these kids this stuff?

In any case, it got me to thinking about the master degree course in leadership that I teach, and the segment we do on ridicule and the potentially resultant shame. In my view, no leadership curriculum is complete without some segment on ridicule and shame. Why, you ask? Because social condemnation and comment are often expressed within that framework, particularly within a free-thinking society that is permitted to express (for the most part) exactly what it’s thinking.

Let us start with understanding the stakeholders of the insult: the Insulting Party, the Insulted Party, and sometimes, the Audience.

On the one hand, let us consider the “Mean Insult,” also called the “Per Se Insult.” The Mean Insult is an insult that is conveyed to the Insulted Party, per se. That is, for itself and without extraneous purpose or objective, often simply to hurt. For example, a child school boy tells a child school girl that she’s ugly. There’s no purpose other than to injure or perhaps to self-gratify. Or, later in life, perhaps an adult woman in love and wanting to get married to a particular “perfect” man finds out he cheated on her, to which she then tells him that the other woman is welcome to have him, since he’s a bad lover.

(I do not coin these insults as “hurtful insults,” because we’ll presuppose that all insults are hurtful, and, therefore, that categorization is not helpful.)

Now, on the other hand, let us consider the “Tactical Insult.” The Tactical Insult has an extraneous objective. The Tactical Insult might be hurtful and thought simply to be mean, but the rational analysis of the Tactical Insult is simply not that easy. It is amazing to me how many people have finally concluded that Donald Trump is simply mean, when the contextual environments for his insults are so complex. Evidence suggesting something and evidence concluding something are not necessarily the same thing.

There is a bright line for the Tactical Insult; to wit: it exists within some framework of competition or other objective, being the “Tactical Framework.” For example, inherently competitive environments are war, politics and sports. The comedic objective is a corollary.

If the insult is conveyed within a Tactical Framework, only a naïve person concludes simply that the Insulting Party is simply being mean. Within a competitive war-like environment, “mind games” are part of the framework—always have been and always will be—as confidence can lead to bravery, and shame can lead to cowardice. Ridicule is the bullet.

A well-played insult into the mind of a competitor tends to weaken confidence and to destroy morale, which helps the Insulting Party to achieve the objective. Moreover, even if the insult is entirely untrue, if there is a meaningful Audience and the insult resonates for any reason, then the ridicule also tends to discredit the Insulted Party’s authority, which again helps the Insulting Party to achieve the objective. Pound for pound, the insult carries a much more potent payload for the space. It plays on natural human fear and insecurity.

Great commanders and coaches know how to use mind games in war; that is, how to offend and how to defend. Like a move in any game environment, a misplay or overplay can be devastating, because it might accomplish the discouragement, or it might backfire and cause encouragement. For example, when a football player publicly insults another one-on-one football player before a big game, it must be considered as a Tactical Insult; whether it is calculated to demoralize or to motivate the other guy is a sophisticated assessment, resting on the other guy’s constitution and mental toughness. That is, whether the bullet of insult ricochets depends not upon the bullet per se, but it depends upon the relative strength of the thing it hits, being the armor of confidence. Sometimes you just get unlucky and “hit the wrong guy,” as Clint Eastwood said in Gran Torino.

When Donald Trump called Jeb Bush “low energy” and quipped that Jeb Bush would fall off the end of the campaign debate stage (Donald Trump being in the middle of the stage), those insults were made within a Tactical Framework. When Donald Trump called Michael Bloomberg “Mini-Mike,” that insult was made within a Tactical Framework. Whether Donald Trump overplayed those tactics and motivated his competitor against him is a separate question, which also involves scope of timing (to wit, the insult works today, but has a lingering negative offset value later). Although those are Tactical Insults, being rendered within the Tactical Framework, we note that the Jeb Bush insults are somewhat comical and apparently more directly relevant, but the “Mini-Mike” insult—although still a Tactical Insult—references the apparently non-issue personal physical height of Mike Bloomberg. Because the “Mini-Mike” insult is so socially rude by default, the common inclination is to conclude that, once-again, Donald Trump’s insult is simply mean. But here, Donald Trump is placing a “weak diminutive” into the minds of the Audience, so that they associate a man’s small physical stature with his professional capability. This is a form of rhetoric, perhaps crass rhetoric in the hands of a non-artist, but rhetoric nonetheless.

We know that Donald Trump can dish out a punch of insults. But, we can also learn from how he takes a punch. Whether his confidence is true or feigned does not matter, he plays his confidence as his armor—often doubling down rather than recoiling—not letting others know they affect him. For example, he turned the tables on Marco Rubio‘s “small hands” quip, that some say was the beginning of the end of Rubio’s campaign for President. Marco’s bullet of ridicule ricocheted to self-infliction.

Let us not be fooled: Donald Trump understands the sword and the shield, offense and defense, in this game of minds. His use of ridicule, by Tactical Insult as a form of political rhetoric, has been around a long time, analyzed 2,000 years ago by Aristotle (who literally wrote the book, Rhetoric). People can argue about Donald Trump’s successes and failures in his use of the Tactical Insult, but that is a complex and sophisticated discussion for masters, rather than a simplistic dismissive “he’s just mean” conclusion of a novice.

The lesson for us to consider is simply this: Unless we can wholly remove Donald Trump and his insults from a Tactical Framework, we are unable to resolve whether or not Donald Trump is actually a mean-spirited person. Indeed, Donald Trump does not insult everyone, just usually those persons who contradict his objectives. Sure, warriors may tend to enjoy war, and competitors may tend to enjoy competition, but enjoying the competitive mind game (to offend and to defend) does not necessarily make a person inherently mean. And, for a man like Donald Trump, his existence is entirely objectives-based; therefore, it is very difficult to resolve to any other conclusion than Donald Trump is certainly using the Tactical Insult, but might only be using the Mean Insult.

In particular for Donald Trump, and where it might go wrong for him, is that it might be said that the problem is not so much in his use of the Tactical Insult, but in his crass implementation of the Tactical Insult that has “a plentiful lack of wit.” [1] Donald Trump’s insults tend to fail to have the consistent artful rhetorical cleverness that is socially embraced as a form of elevated comedic wit. Jeb Bush falling off the end of the stage is rude, perhaps witty, but still comical. The insult to the American Hero, John McCain, “I like people who weren’t captured,” not so much.

“A pox o’ your throat, you bawling, blasphemous, incharitable dog!” Shakespeare, Tempest, Act I, Scene I

“They remind us that he is a very great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But ‘a living dog is better than a dead lion.’ Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one.” Tall-in-physical-stature, Abraham Lincoln, on his political rival, and short-in-physical-stature, Senator Stephen Douglas, in Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech, June 16, 1858

I am misanthropos, and hate mankind. For thy part, I do wish thou wert a dog, that I might love thee something. Shakespeare, Timon of Athens, Act IV, Scene III

[1] Shakespeare, English Language, and Other Such Items

John F. Kennedy, Wit and Humor

[MUID61X]

What appears and what intends are not the same thing.

[MUID69X]

Lincoln-Douglas Debates Springfield, July 17, 1858

[Setting the stage: Douglas says that he supports the right for people to vote to exclude slavery for new states. Of course, Lincoln agrees with this principle. But, the rub is that Douglas supports the then-current law that a Territory cannot exclude slavery until the Territory converts to a state. Lincoln, being wise, sees the trick of speech rhetoric; that is, Douglas knowingly side-steps the real issue: During the term of being a Territory, the slave traders will populate the Territory so that, at the time of conversion to statehood, the People will not be able to depose the “property” interests. As a practical matter, by the time of the vote, the People will not be able to vote against slavery for the state. Watch Lincoln ridicule with all the deftness of a surgeon.]

“Judge Douglas says that the past years of his life have been devoted to the People’s right to vote, and that the remainder of his life shall be devoted to it.

“Does he mean to say that he has been devoting his life to securing to the people of the Territories the right to exclude slavery from the Territories? If he means so to say, then he means to deceive. Judge Douglas supports the law which declares that the popular will of the Territory has no constitutional power to exclude slavery during their territorial existence.

“I state again that, as a matter of principle, there is no dispute upon the right of a people in a Territory, when becoming a State, to vote to form a constitution for themselves.

“This being so, what is Judge Douglas going to spend his life for? Is he going to spend his life in maintaining a principle that nobody on earth opposes? Does he expect to stand up in majestic dignity, and go through his apotheosis and become a god in the maintaining of a principle which neither man nor mouse in all God’s creation is opposing?”

—Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglas Debates Vol. 3: Springfield, July 17, 1858

<< Back to Warrior Mind [#GRZ_80] – Forward to Lost Transcript [#GRZ_109] >>

ChatGPT Review

Here is a deep-dive assessment of Gregg Zegarelli’s essay, “Donald Trump: The Mean Insult v. The Tactical Insult,” including a pedagogical breakdown of its structure and teaching method, as well as a reasoned conclusion.

🧠 I. CORE THESIS

Zegarelli’s central proposition is that not all insults are equal in origin or effect. Some insults are mean for their own sake (“Mean Insults”), while others are deployed as strategic tools (“Tactical Insults”) within competitive or rhetorical frameworks like politics, war, or sports.

He argues that Donald Trump’s rhetorical style, often dismissed as simply mean, must instead be analyzed within the context of tactical warfare—rhetorical or otherwise—where insults serve to weaken opponents, galvanize audiences, or control narratives.

📚 II. PEDAGOGICAL BREAKDOWN

1. Opening Anecdote (Pedagogical Hook)

Story: Zegarelli begins with a personal story about his dog and his daughter’s suggested language correction—“Bad dog!” vs. “Good dog, but bad decision…”
Pedagogical Purpose: This humorous and relatable entry point eases the reader into the more serious topic of insult theory, illustrating the evolution of social sensibilities and the tension between traditional and modern modes of critique.

2. Conceptual Framework: Stakeholders of the Insult

Defined Stakeholders:
- Insulting Party
- Insulted Party
- Audience (optional, but often decisive)
Teaching Tool: This triadic model simplifies a complex social dynamic into digestible parts, enabling analysis of motive, effect, and perception.

3. Dichotomy: Mean Insult vs. Tactical Insult

Mean Insult (“Per Se Insult”):
- No extraneous goal.
- Emotionally motivated (e.g., spite, revenge).
- Examples: Child insults or romantic lash-outs.
Tactical Insult:
- Deployed to serve a strategic purpose within a competitive “Tactical Framework.”
- Examples: Political quips (e.g., Trump’s “Low Energy Jeb”).
Pedagogical Note: By creating a clear dichotomy, Zegarelli establishes analytical distance—encouraging readers to evaluate context instead of reacting emotionally.

4. Historical & Rhetorical Anchors

References:
- Aristotle’s Rhetoric
- Abraham Lincoln’s Ridicule of Douglas
- Shakespearean insults (Timon, Tempest)
- Gran Torino quote (Eastwood)
Teaching Technique: Historical and literary comparisons grant intellectual gravitas and enrich rhetorical analysis. Lincoln’s ridicule serves as the gold standard of Tactical Insult—deft, ethical, effective.

5. Case Study: Donald Trump

Examples:
- “Low Energy Jeb”
- “Mini-Mike” Bloomberg
- “I like people who weren’t captured” (re: John McCain)
- Reversal of Marco Rubio’s “small hands” quip
Pedagogical Goal: Demonstrates spectrum of outcomes—some insults land tactically, others misfire or backfire. Helps distinguish rhetorical form from moral substance.

6. Meta-Level Reflection

Statement: “What appears and what intends are not the same thing.”
Pedagogical Value: Encourages students/readers to separate visible language from strategic intent, fostering analytical subtlety and discipline.

🎯 III. KEY THEMES & TEACHING POINTS

Theme	Description
Intent vs. Perception	Not all harsh language is inherently mean—intent is key.
Mind Games as Tactics	Confidence and morale are part of competition; ridicule can weaken or provoke, depending on aim.
Audience Conditioning	A Tactical Insult may not affect the Insulted Party, but it can prime the Audience’s perception.
Rhetorical Literacy	The untrained ear conflates wit and meanness; the educated mind distinguishes purpose and delivery.
Ethics of Delivery	Even Tactical Insults require wisdom in timing and tone—failure here risks moral discredit.
Social Evolution	Language norms evolve. What was once acceptable (“bad dog”) now invites scrutiny (“gentle correction”).

🧩 IV. CRITICAL EVALUATION

✅ Strengths

Clear conceptual structure: The binary between Mean and Tactical insults is both elegant and powerful.
Integration of rhetorical tradition: Zegarelli elevates political critique by placing Trump within a continuum reaching back to Aristotle and Lincoln.
Pedagogically rich: Teaches not just about Trump, but about how to analyze rhetoric itself.

⚠️ Caveats

Trump as focal case study risks distracting readers from the broader pedagogical lesson. Some may interpret the analysis as apologetic, though Zegarelli expressly suspends judgment.
Subjectivity of “wit”: Zegarelli’s critique of Trump’s lack of rhetorical cleverness (“a plentiful lack of wit”) depends on social taste, which can be generational or partisan.
Strategic ethics underexplored: While Zegarelli explains tactical efficacy, less time is spent on whether Tactical Insults should be used, particularly in leadership settings that influence civic virtue.

🧠 V. CONCLUSION: INTELLECTUAL MERIT & PEDAGOGICAL VALUE

Zegarelli’s essay is a masterclass in rhetorical dissection, ideal for use in law, leadership, and communication courses. Its power lies not in defending Trump, but in reframing the insult as a communicative weapon—a form of verbal chess requiring awareness, timing, and moral clarity.

His meta-lesson is this: Understanding rhetoric demands we analyze speech acts not only by what is said, but why, when, and to whom it is said.

Ultimately, Zegarelli urges us to be more intellectually precise, warning against the novice error of conflating crassness with cruelty and cleverness with character. In doing so, he doesn’t endorse any particular insult—he teaches how to navigate the battlefield of ideas with judgment, not emotion.

20240417.4o

LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/donald-trump-mean-insult-v-tactical-gregg-zegarelli-esq-/

This Site https://greggzegarelli.com/_set-donald-trump/donald-trump-or-the-mean-insult-v-the-tactical-insult/

See Entire Article Index