Skip to main content

Did Trump trump her, or was it trumped up?

Huge agonising about how and why he won, but very little mention of the influence his name might have played. There can be little doubt that perceptions are formed on hearing a name before meeting the person. A Rupert in the UK is an upper class twit. I know a few Ruperts and none of them are either upper class or twits, but when you're going to meet a Rupert, you prepare for cravats, limp handshakes and a lack of chin. Likewise Sharons are loose blondes from Essex. Not very bright, but a vodka and orange can end up a cheap and energetic date - if not one you'd want to repeat. But every Sharon I know is charming and, as far as I can tell, far from loose. I'm sure every Rupert and every Sharon in the UK suffers from jokes about the stereotypes their names suggest. I don't know why we form impressions about people because of their names (other than clues about nationality, age and gender perhaps), but we do. And I suspect it has a far greater effect than we are comfortable to admit.

How powerful would you imagine a Superman to be if his nom-de-Earth was Cyril Floss rather than Clark Kent? The leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) who trashed the UK by misleading people into believing there was a viable EU-exit strategy, is called Nigel Farage. He pronounces his surname as in 'large', but I have it on good authority his father pronounced it as in 'marriage'. Nigel changed his name from Farige to Fararge, presumably not to sound more French, but to convey strength and breeding.

So what to make of a man called Donald Trump, and how might his name have influenced how people voted?

The Donald every American knows is MacDonald. A huge corporation who keeps many Americans alive (in the short-term), but is responsible for killing them (and the planet) longer term. America's favourite food, mashed cow and sugar, is plied from under golden arches (how trump-like is that - and as American as apple pie?). Spot on US voter split. Love and hate. One type of observer sees nothing but good things, the other nothing but bad. One is blinkered by short-term attitudes, the other recognises deeper meaning and consequences.

The word 'trump' originates in 16th century UK. It is a form of the word 'triumph' - to win. In cards, you use the trump card to win a trick. To trump someone is to go one better. Clearly Trump used his accidental family name to good advantage, especially all over his casino buildings with tastefully modest signs and subtle branding. Perhaps he believed from the cradle that his destiny was to trump others. To people who believe in their god having a plan, how many Trump voters saw his name as a divine sign?

So around 50% of a highly superstitious America must have picked up some flavours of him being a natural born winner from that version of his name. But there is an incredible paradox. His name also means exactly the opposite. It means to lie, cheat or deceive. Here's a definition I found:
Trump: "fabricate, devise," 1690s, from trump "deceive, cheat" (1510s), from Middle English trumpen (late 14c.), from Old French tromper "to deceive," of uncertain origin. Apparently from se tromper de "to mock," from Old French tromper "to blow a trumpet." Brachet explains this as "to play the horn, alluding to quacks and mountebanks, who attracted the public by blowing a horn, and then cheated them into buying ...." The Hindley Old French dictionary has baillier la trompe "blow the trumpet" as "act the fool," and Donkin connects it rather to trombe "waterspout," on the notion of turning (someone) around. Related: Trumped; trumping. Trumped up "false, concocted" first recorded 1728.
Which works perfectly for the other half of the US electorate who believe their country will shortly be in the hands of a megalomaniac nutter who simply said whatever it took to gain power whether he had a clue what he was saying or not, or whether it was true or not.

And so they divide. One half sees Trump the winner, the other sees Trump the deceiver.

If you want my prediction about how this will play out, I believe he will begin to hate every second of his presidency. The media will continue to mock and vilify him - which hurts a narcissist. The establishment will universally deride and frustrate his attempts to do anything bonkers. And his attempts at restoring jobs to America will have exactly the opposite effect as he breaks the budget trying to turn back the tide of a global economy.

He will also fall out with his wife as he already has with several previous versions. In fact she will make his life hell when she realises the FLOTUS has duties other than spas and shopping. In short, the whole of America will rapidly get sick of his incompetence, and will want to quickly find a way to make him resign, or impeach him. Perhaps the stress will put him in an early grave (he doesn't look too fit). In the meantime, let's hope they've taken the batteries out of the button!

In the end, it will turn out that Trump is just a name. Not good, not bad in itself, but loaded with emotion, hope, expectation... and terror.


Post a Comment

Thanks for taking an interest.

Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat