This section introduction introduces the theoretical concept of “collusion” in language studies, with reference to James Comey’s testimonial of what it is like to be “caught in Trump’s web.” In spite of themselves, those interacting with Trump often find themselves playing along with their designated role when their turn arrives to make a verbal contribution. Scholars of language have referred to dynamics like these as “collusion,” a kind of joint action that, in language studies, concerns the often-unwitting ways in which people coordinate and synchronize aspects of what they are up to in a speech event, playing into one another’s script while achieving a loose consensus about what is going on. Conversational collusion characterizes Trump’s congenial relationships with Fox News hosts, as well as the apparent lack of resistance when Trump enlists those around a conference table in performances of fealty to him. The chapter concludes by foreshadowing the work of this section’s chapters, concerning ritualistic routines of male in-group talk, and the ways in which collusive laughter and applause seem to ratify Trump’s authority.

This substantial introduction covers Trump’s divisive verbal shock tactics during his rise. It offers a history of presidential oratory and speech style, discusses Trump’s use of social media, and his rhetorical feedback loop with his supporters. It analyzes the way the “culture wars” over so-called “politically correct language” feed into Trump’s popularity and the dismay of his critics. Trump supporters often refuse the notion that word choice creates problems, arguing instead that linguistic care stokes oversensitivity, or that it evades harsh realities that harsh language merely describes. They also feel his simple, profane verbal style and even his spelling and grammatical errors reflect his “authenticity” and positive masculinity. Trump’s critics, meanwhile, believe his insulting words and hate speech incite violence while his style denotes lack of education and care, possibly even dementia, while demoting the verbal standards expected of a president. Disagreements over Trump’s verbal style and propriety have sometimes played out over class lines. Trump’s well documented prevarications have exhausted journalists and seemed to influence his supporters, some of whom take his statements as merely hyperbolic articulations of a deeper underlying truth.

Though he may deny it, Trump’s statements and actions cumulatively point toward the notion that “making America great again” means bringing it back to an era of more overt White supremacy. And whiteness, for Trump, is mapped onto the English language and particular ways of speaking it, while White superiority is encoded in his word choices, his metaphors, and his mockery. Since several chapters in this section address the way language is weaponized in service of Trump’s authoritarian White nationalism, this section introduction furnishes some broader context from linguistic anthropology addressing how racism and xenophobia often play out in Trump’s language. These include his aversion to Arabic and Spanish, both of them stand-ins for native speakers; the covert and overt racism in his use of Mock Spanish (Hill 2008); and his dehumanizing word choice to describe immigrants as polluting and dangerous. All these techniques prove relevant as a backdrop to the chapters that follow.

This paper explores the “crybaby/snowflake” name calling leveled by Trump’s supporters against his detractors, a discourse that exploded in the immediate wake of the 2016 election. It explores interdiscursive (or intertextual) relationships and functional similarities between the crybaby discourse and the language historically used by Drill Instructors during basic training in the United States Marine Corps. In both cases, someone in the role of “ritual elder” uses language as a punitive and didactic cudgel to weed out the weak (whether literally, from the military, or more symbolically, from cultural citizenship/the nation) while signifying that the interlocutor needs to “grow up” or “man up” by attenuating their sensitivity to both suffering and linguistic meaning. The ideal citizen then has a calloused quality, in the model of military masculinity, ready to face harsh realities and to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others. The crybaby discourse is intended to discredit political opposition and discourage empathy as part of Trump’s new nationalism. Its interdiscursive passage between military personnel and American conservatives can be seen in memes and mass media. The crybaby discourse has also been taken up by many of Trump’s detractors and leveled at Trump himself to infantilize and discredit him.