Distract

Distract (pronounced dih-strakt)

(1) To draw away or divert, as the mind or attention.

(2) To disturb or trouble greatly in mind; beset.

(3) To provide a pleasant diversion for; to amuse or entertain.

(4) To separate or divide by dissension or strife; to confuse.

(5) To make “crazy or insane” (now rare except in the idiomatic “drive to distraction” and its variants when the concept of “mad” is used in its colloquial sense).

1350–1400: From the Middle English, from the Medieval Latin distracten (to turn or draw (a person, the mind) aside or away from any object; divert (the attention) from any point toward another point), from the Latin distrahō (to pull apart), the construct being dis- + trahō (to pull), from distractus (drawn apart), past participle of distrahere (to draw apart), the construct being dis- + trahere (to draw).  The dis prefix was from the Middle English dis-, from the Old French des from the Latin dis, from the proto-Italic dwis, from the primitive Indo-European dwís and cognate with the Ancient Greek δίς (dís) and the Sanskrit द्विस् (dvis).  It was applied variously as an intensifier of words with negative valence and to render the senses “incorrect”, “to fail (to)”, “not” & “against”.  In Modern English, the rules applying to the dis prefix vary and when attached to a verbal root, prefixes often change the first vowel (whether initial or preceded by a consonant/consonant cluster) of that verb. These phonological changes took place in Latin and usually do not apply to words created (as in Modern Latin) from Latin components since the language was classified as “dead”.  The combination of prefix and following vowel did not always yield the same change and these changes in vowels are not necessarily particular to being prefixed with dis (ie other prefixes sometimes cause the same vowel change (con; ex)).  Distract, distracting & distracted are verbs & adjectives, distractionism, distractibility, distraction, distractedness, distracter & distractee are nouns, distractable, distractible, distractionary, distractive & distractful are adjectives and distractedly & distractingly are adverbs; the common noun plural is distractions.

Diversions are where one finds them.

The sense of “to throw into a state of mind in which one knows not how to act; cause distraction in; confuse by diverse or opposing considerations” has been in use by at least the 1580s.  Obviously related (and emerging a decade-odd later) was the stronger sense of “disorder the reason of, render frantic or mad”, once in common use and preserved (in rather diluted form) in the idiomatic phrase “driven to distraction”.  The literal senses of “pull apart in different directions and separate; cut into parts or sections” were in use from the late sixteenth century but are now functionally extinct.  The adjective distracted dates from the 1570s in the sense of “perplexed, harassed, or bewildered by opposing considerations” and came directly from the verb distract; from the 1580s it gained the meaning “disordered in intellect, frantic, mad”.  The noun distraction came from the mid-fifteenth century distraccioun (the drawing away of the mind from one point or course to another or others), from the Latin distractionem (a pulling apart, separating), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of distrahere (draw in different directions).  The sense of a “drawing of the mind in different directions, mental confusion or bewilderment” dates from the 1590s, and the meaning “violent mental disturbance, excitement simulating madness (in driven to distraction etc) was known from the turn of the century.  The meaning “a thing or fact that causes mental diversion or bewilderment” was in use by at least 1615 but, like other related forms, it probably was long in oral use.  The special use of distraction in medicine was used to describe “traction so exerted as to separate surfaces normally opposed”; it is long archaic.  The old idea of “distraction” meaning “crazy or insane” survives in the idiomatic phrases “drive to distraction”, “driven to distraction” and “crazy or insane” are now used in the colloquial, non-clinical sense meaning “a bit stressed or discombobulated”.  Usually, the phrases are used by those being so annoyed by someone or something they cannot focus on the task at hand.

Of Dr Faustus

Title page of the 1620 edition of the ‘B’ text of Doctor Faustus (first published in 1616 as The Tragicall History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus).

English playwright, poet and translator Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593) was the enfant terrible of the Elizabethan age (1558–1603) and the circumstances surrounding his murder at a youthful 29 death has long attracted speculation.  Marlow’s most famous work was The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus (clipped usually to “Doctor Faustus”), a tragedy (some critics class it as a morality play) first staged around 1594.  Kind of the ultimate cautionary tale, it was based on German stories about an eminent scholar who sells (for eternity) his soul to the devil in exchange for 24 years magical powers.  The plot is charmingly simple: it follows Dr Faustus down the magical path lad for him by the demon Mephistopheles to his ultimate downfall as he fails to repent before his damnation.  An entertaining work, Marlow’s play also has the virtue of brevity unlike Goethe’s (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749–1832) sprawling Faust in two parts; Goethe’s Faust may be the author’s magnum opus and the finest achievement in German literature but it is very long.

Faust and Mephistopheles (1869), oil on canvas by Alfred Louis Vigny Jacomin (1842-1913).

What enabled Mephistopheles to tempt Faustus was that the doctor, who regarded himself an expert of just about every aspect of science and philosophy, had become enchanted by the idea of necromancy, something not easily explored in the temporal world.  Dating from the late twelfth century, necromancy was from the Middle English nigromancye, from the Old French nigromancie, from the Medieval Latin nigromantia, from the Classical Latin necromantia, from the Ancient Greek νεκρομαντεία (nekromanteía), the construct being νεκρός (nekrós) (dead) + μαντεία (manteía) (divination).  The spelling in the Medieval Latin with the element niger (black) was influenced by the notion of this being a “black (in the sense of “dark”) art; the modern spelling had emerged by the mid sixteenth century.  Necromancy, as understood by Faustus, meant the sorcery associated with raising or reanimating the dead and the Devil uniquely was well placed to provide instruction but there would be a price to be paid.  One of the devices Marlow has Mephistopheles (and sometimes the Devil himself) use to divert Faustus’s thoughts from anything which might bring about his repentance and save his soul are “distractions”.  The distractions are presented as essentially theatrical spectacles in the form of sensual pleasures, promises of power and trivial entertainments, all designed to ensure spiritual distraction; it was something like Faustus’s Elizabethan TikTok feed.

Distractions played a part: Al Gore (b 1948; VPOTUS 1993-2001 & NPOTUS 2000, left) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; NPOTUS 2016, right).

The distractions take many forms but their principle purpose is to divert Faustus from thinking about or speaking of Christ and heaven, thus the famous rebuke: “Thou shouldst not think of God.”  What Lucifer does is stage a pagent of the Seven Deadly Sins, a masque-like parade of Pride, Covetousness, Wrath, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth, and Lechery to amuse and seduce Faustus away from repentance.  As one might expect of weak, mortal man, Faustus delights in the spectacle: “O, this feeds my soul!”; well the Devil knew his customer.  Also provided are texts teaching transformations, conjuring, and occult knowledge, intellectual distractions appealing to Faustus’s vanity and appetite for mastery of new and unexplored subjects.  This is however a play written for the stage and it has a beginning, middle and end with much of the middle devoted to diversions: invisible tricks played on the pope (said to be very popular with contemporary audiences), conjuring spirits for emperors and nobles, practical jokes, feasts, and displays of magical power.  What Marlowe does is show Faustus squandering his grand bargain on shallow amusements rather than profound knowledge; comparisons have been made between what was promised would be the role of the “Information Super Highway” (dating from the time when “Al Gore invented the Internet”) and TikTok feeds.

Helen of Troy (1898), oil on canvas by Evelyn De Morgan (1855–1919).  Helen has for millennia been depicted by painters and sculptors and historians of art have used the images to track changes in Western ideal of female beauty.  

Near the end, when an Old Man urges Faustus sincerely to repent, Mephistopheles counters with Helen of Troy as an erotic and aesthetic temptation, Faustus responding with the famous: “Was this the face that launch’d a thousand ships…?”  Helen represented the ultimate sensual distraction from salvation; as the Devil and advertising agencies understand: sex sells.  As a psychological study, Marlow’s work is a clever piece of the way manipulation can work, certainly with a victim as vain and self-absorbed as Faustus who Mephistopheles can convince repentance has become impossible, trapping him in a twilight zone between fear of the consequences of his actions and his irresistible urge to taste the distractions offered.  For those attracted by the comparisons with the internet, a major theme of the play is the notion of distraction, Faustus almost never allowed (or willing, depending on the reading), to sustain serious contemplation of repentance, Marlowe presenting damnation not as an open rebellion against God, but a gradual surrender of attention to spectacle, appetite, vanity and diversion. 

Of Marjorie Taylor Greene and flying saucers

Marjorie Taylor Greene with assault rifle, campaign material, 2020.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG, b 1974; US Representative (congressperson) (Republican-Georgia 2021-2026)) parlayed a career as a conspiracy theorist (evils of Islam, anti-Semitism, white genocide / replacement, Pizzagate, QAnon, etc (although she later disavowed her acceptance of what QAnon promotes)) into a seat in the US House of Representatives.  Once very much a Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) fan-girl and a devotee of the his MAGA (Make America Great Again) cult, during the second Trump presidency she made a remarkable volte-face, accusing him of betraying the “America First” movement, criticizing his policies (both domestic and foreign) and reluctance to release files related to convicted paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019).  With apologies to William Congreve (1670–1729) who included the original line in his tragedy The Mourning Bride (1697): “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a MAGA woman scorned.” and Mr Trump responded to this treachery by attacking her in a post on his ever-entertaining Truth Social platform, vowing to have her “primaried” (denied a place on the Republican ticket for the mid-term congressional elections in November 2026).  As recent Republican primaries have demonstrated, Mr Trump continues to hold the party in his thrall and MTG might have expected to suffer the same fate.  Accordingly, she resigned her seat so Mr Trump can treat that as a victory although she became what Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963 & POTUS 1963-1969) called “outside the tent” (his argument being often it was preferable to have malcontents “inside the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in”).

Marjorie Taylor Greene in happier times.

Outside the tent, the scorned MTG renewed her attacks.  Most displeased at US military action against Iran, she called for the cabinet to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the constitution and remove the president from office (on the grounds of physical or mental incapacity) and, in a rhetorical flourish, suggested the Republican Party should be “burned to the ground.”  That was good but she also provided a critique of the administration’s tactic of “rolling out distractions”, calling the Pentagon’s release of “UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) files” as “look at the shiny object”, propaganda, placed in the public domain to divert public attention from matters such a high gas (petrol) prices, inflation and foreign military operations.  She dismissed the “UFO files” (the Pentagon prefers the nerdier UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena)) as revealing “nothing” and said the release was a mere strategic diversion, the administration knowing news outlets would think it a “sexy” topic that would displace gas and egg prices from the headlines and hopefully encourage the usual suspects in the public arena to start arguing about flying saucers.  Her core point was instead of publishing “UFO files” containing nothing substantive, the administration should fully disclose the Epstein files with no redactions beyond what was necessary to “protect the victims”.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, post MAGA.

President Trump said he’d directed the Pentagon to make available on their website 161 (with more to come) files “related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs)", because of “the tremendous interest shown”.  Of course, as MTG pointed out, there is also “tremendous interest” in what’s as yet unseen in the Epstein files.  What MTG claimed was the public’s “tremendous interest” is seeing “names named” in the Epstein files was in conflict with the equally “tremendous interest” Mr Trump told her his “friends” had in the information remaining suppressed.  According to her, Mr Trump asked her to remove her support from releasing the Epstein files because placing them in the public domain would “expose and hurt ‘good people’ he knew at Mar-a-Lago”.  That clash of interests hasn’t gone away so while it can’t be predicted whether it will involve the White House’s new ballroom or some other “shiny object”, more distractions may be expected.

Of political distraction

In political science, “distraction” is used in two ways.  The first sense describes forces or events which operate to divert a government’s attention from the matters on which they intended to focus.  Sometimes, this can happen because external events impose themselves or it can be a product of the attention of those in government being drawn to “other matters”.  The most amusing of these are personal vendettas which can assume a life of their own but they can involve just about anything.  The more interesting “political distractions” are those governments, parties or individual politicians “manufacture” to divert public attention away from damaging scandals, corruption, policy failures or unpopular legislation.  As one might imagine, given those imperatives, politicians often feel the need to distract the press and public for the public from thinking or talking about their many failings.  The orthodox approach among political scientists is to list diversions in six categories:

(1) Toss a dead cat on the table.  This describes the tactic of suddenly introducing an outrageous, shocking or highly controversial topic into the public arena, something designed to force the media and public to become interested in the new matter and forget or at least neglect whatever damaging discussion was dominating news cycle.  Aspects of the “culture wars” are dependable dead felines which is why matters such as trans-women’s participation in women’s sport do seem often to “crop up” when a politician’s poll-numbers are looking dire.

(2) Take out the trash.  The polite term for TotT is “Strategic Timing” which describes announcing policies likely to be unpopular policies or controversial executive orders on days when public attention is guaranteed to be fixed elsewhere, such as during big sporting events or during major holidays.  The trick to a successful execution of TotT is just to do it without leaving a “paper trail” (which can now be electronic).  That was a mistake made a certain bureaucrat in the UK government who, within minutes of the second jet hitting New York’s World Trade Center on 9/11 (11 September, 2001), sent a memorandum to her department head suggesting “It's now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.”  What was meant by that was that the coverage of the terrorist attacks would “swamp” just about everything else, meaning the government wouldn’t have to try to “defend the indefensible”.

(3) Tail Wagging the Dog: In political science this tactic is glossed as “Diversionary Foreign Policy” and refers to governments initiating or escalating foreign conflicts, border tensions, or military action to create the “rally 'round the flag” effect and divert attention from domestic matters which are proving tiresome.  Cases studies of “wagging the dog” are numerous but in the case of nations inclined often to embark upon foreign military actions, it can be difficult to be sure a certain venture is an example or just “business as usual” foreign policy doctrine in action.  When, in August 1998, Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001) ordered a missile strike on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, that was claimed by the White House to be based on “solid intelligence” the facility was (1) connected with Osama bin Laden’s (1957-2011) al-Qaeda terrorist group (1957-2011) and was “manufacturing or storing the VX nerve agent”.  Although a successful military operation (ie the factory was destroyed with a low civilian casualty toll), the administration was forced subsequently to concede the intelligence was “not as solid as first portrayed”.  In Sudan, the locals had few doubts about the president’s motivation, the Monica Lewinsky (b 1973) scandal at the time dominating the US news cycle.

Distracting: English model Penny Lane (b 1991), Miami Swim Week, June 2026.  Her "catwalk strut" in a black, cut-out monokini with a matrix of thin, horizontal straps slashing across the midriff was the sensation of the show. 

(4) Scapegoating.  Although it’s the always reliable “blame the Jews” which is the standard template for scapegoating, the formula is adaptable to circumstances which can extend from religion & ethnicity (the way the Jews are exploited containing elements of both) to occupational categories, social class, political alignment and more.  Scapegoating can be a handy device of distraction when managing disquiet over issues such as unemployment, failing infrastructure, the spread of disease, crime, urban congestion, economic difficulties, rising prices or the weather (it really has been done).  Of late, the perfect scapegoats have been “illegal migrants” (often clipped to “illegals”), now in ample supply.

(5) Culture Wars.  Culture wars long pre-date Antiquity but in their modern sense were really a creation of the left, political parties (labour, socialist etc) which, even though for decades rarely being in power, were able in many places to become the central dynamic of the political process by “setting the agenda” some of their ideas becoming the dominant orthodoxy.  However, the right stumbled upon culture wars after the re-orientation of Western economies to the neo-Liberal model which tended to damage the interests of the working class.  What distractions like the culture wars (abortion, guns, right to drive huge pick-up trucks etc) offered to the right was the intoxicating prospect of persuading the working class to vote contrary to their own economic interest.  Threats to a way of life (trans people, climate change theories etc) have been added as culture war theatres as they proved to have traction.

(6) Flooding the Zone.  In the pre-digital age, this was called “drowning them in paperwork” which, although a mixed metaphor, conveyed well the notion of providing so much data it was impossible effectively to process.  In the age of social media, the technique has had to be adjusted because there are now some who will ignore the distraction and relentlessly focus of a single issue of interest but it does still work, advances in AI (artificial intelligence) meaning it’s now possible to release huge tranches of “redacted documents”.  At the micro level, the principle can be used by issuing literally dozens of executive orders (some of which the administration may have no intention of effecting and exist only as “sacrificial devices” in order to divert attention from a certain order.  Of course, just as AI can be a shield, it can also be a weapon, journalists and others now able to apply a Bot to a tranche, enabling in a short time the sort of analysis which would take a team of humans months or even years.

The ultimate usual suspect: Noam Chomsky's thoughts on distraction

In full flight: Noam Chomsky (left) discussing something with Jeffrey Epstein (right) while flying somewhere on a private jet.  Professor Chomsky is believed “deeply to regret” his association with Epstein, a man he once described as a “highly valued friend”.   The image was released by the US DoJ (Department of Justice).

Linguistics theorist & public intellectual Professor Noam Chomsky (b 1928) has for decades been something of an institution of the left, his critique of the policies of the US government in most aspects unchanging yet still attracting interest with each iteration, despite much of the mainstream media in the US maintaining what was, in effect, a ban on him appearing.  Unlike his work in structural linguistics, the complexities of which were understood by a relative few, Chomsky’s political writings were more accessible, something which some criticism from political scientists and those specializing in international relations who found his “elegant reductionism” just a form of simplification for mass-market appeal; political scientists much prefer the arcane.  Chomsky regards the tactics of distraction as tools in the strategy of manipulation and regards the art and science of distraction as the most significant of the ten vectors of manipulation practiced by the “political class” (political operatives and the news media).

(1) The strategy of distraction.  The primary element of social control is the tool of distraction, used to divert public attention issues and changes determined by political and economic elites; the most common tactic is the “flood”: “flooding” people with continuous distractions and insignificant information.  Distraction strategy is also essential to limit or even prevent public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics: “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance.  Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think.”

(2) Create problems, then offer solutions.  This method is also called “problem–reaction-solution.”  It creates a problem, a “situation” that will induce some reaction in the audience and, in time, will see them demanding a “solution”.  Examples include allowing urban violence to spread or intensify (if necessary, agents of the state can even arrange the attacks), then responding to demands for “security” by passing laws allowing a harsh crackdown and restrictions on social rights.  Such a tactic can augment a manufactured “economic crisis”, one of the solutions being a reduction in spending on public services, even to the point of their widespread disestablishment.

(3) Gradualism.  The “gradual strategy” is a form of the “thin end of the wedge” and is a way of eventually achieving something which would have been unacceptable had there been an attempt to implement the change is “one hit”.  What’s done is that measures are applied gradually over years or even decades, the public acting like the tale of the frog in the pot of water being slowly brought to the boil.  That famous example turned out not to be how frogs react to gradually increasing water temperature but, in the West, it’s something like the way the radically new socio-economic conditions of neo-liberalism were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s.  Had the architects attempted to impose at once what proved to be the eventual outcome, the public would likely not have accepted the change.

(4) Deferment.  This is a “long game” tactic, the theory being a way to have the public accept an unpopular policy is to present it as “painful but necessary”, the psychology behind that being the notion it’s more palatable to accept a future sacrifice than an immediate slaughter.  Intriguingly, deferment is said to be effective because there is much to suggest there’s a general public belief “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice suggested will finally be avoided.  That may sound surprising but the findings are said to be “solid” and mean people “get used to” the inevitability of the change and, “with a sense of resignation”, will accept things.

(5) Infantilism.  The theory (adopted also in many forms of advertising) is that if information is presented in a way one might to a child of twelve, (in other words as if addressing an adult with a mentally deficiency), the recipient will digest it with the lack of critical sense typical in a child of that age.  Not all political scientists are convinced this approach works in matters of public policy but its success in the marketing of at least certain products is acknowledged.

(6) Emotional appeals work better than anything analytic.  The idea is that stressing the emotional aspect of something can be effective because it tends to induce a “short-circuiting” of a recipient’s capacity for rational analysis, and finally to the critical sense of the individual.

(7) Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity.  The object is to make the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement.  Most obviously, this is achieved by keeping the quality of education provided to the lower social classes at a most mediocre level, ensuring a wide “ignorance gap” exists between them and the hegemonic class.  Instead of knowledge, the lower classes are given diversions such as reality TV and an endless diet of football matches.

(8) Self-identification of the lower classes with ignorance.  Apparently, this wasn’t something anticipated by the theorists but among sub-sets of the marginalized class, what evolved was a kind of “cult of ignorance” in which being uneducated and vulgar is fashionable and a form of class solidarity, toxic masculinity said by some sociologists to be a modern manifestation.

(9) Strengthen a sense of self-blame.  By definition, if individuals blame themselves for their misfortunes, they won’t blame the government and expect solutions to be provided although, impressionistically, it would seem demands often are made of governments regardless of a misfortune’s cause.  Still, if individual blames themselves, (failure of effort or ability), the hope is instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual descends into an acquiescent insensibility and hopefully a state of depression which tends to inhibit getting out of bed, let getting ideas about staging a revolution.

(10) Knowledge is power.  Just because something is a cliché doesn’t mean it’s not true and in recent decades there does seem to have been a growing gap between knowledge in public hands and that owned and operated by the power elite.  The system of control has developed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically meaning mechanisms of control can now be more targeted.  There were optimistic types who believed placing AI (artificial intelligence) capabilities in the hands of the masses might redress this imbalance but there seem little to suggest the technology is doing anything other than strengthening the existing hegemony.

Congress

Congress (pronounced kong-gris, kuhn-gres, kuhng-gris or khung-gres)

(1) The national legislative body of the US, a continuous institution consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives (initial capital).

(2) This body as it exists for a period of two years during which it has the same membership (other than replacements by necessity).  By convention, Congresses sequentially are numbered.

(3) A session of this body.

(4) The national legislative body of a nation (used especially in republics and it has been used also of political parties or movements (such as the South African liberation movement the ANC (African National Congress, founded in 1912) and India’s INC (the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885 during the British Raj)).

(5) A formal meeting or assembly of representatives for the discussion, arrangement, or promotion of some matter of common interest (in this context often a synonym of academy, society, convention, council or conference).  Use of congress in this sense is not restricted to governmental or other official bodies, associations, special interest groups and sporting organizations routinely using the term.

(6) The act of coming together; an encounter; meeting.

(7) An association, especially one composed of representatives of various organizations (often used interchangeably with conference, society or association).

(8) Familiar relations; dealings or intercourse.

(9) Sexual intercourse; coitus.

(10) The collective noun for a group of baboons (something which can delight those observing the antics of those in the US Congress).

(11) To assemble together (ie to meet in a congress).

1350–1400 From the Middle English congres & congress (body of attendants, following (the meaning in the fifteenth century extending to “meeting of armed formations” while the sense of “a coming together of people, a meeting of individuals” emerged in the 1520s), from the Latin congressus (both “a friendly meeting” & “a hostile encounter”), past participle of congredi (to meet with; to fight with), an assimilated form, the construct being con- (in the sense of “with, together”), + gradi (to walk, step), from gradus (a step (from the primitive Indo-European root ghredh- (to walk, go)).  The adjective congressional (of or pertaining to a congress) was an adaptation from the Latin congressionem and the most common use now is the sense of “of or pertaining to the US Congress”, dating from 1776.  As something new, in the UK it was initially treated as “a barbarous Americanism” but as early as 1816 it was pointed out in England that the Congress (the highest legislative body in the US) had been formed in defiance of the UK and the nation’s citizens were hardly likely to wait on ascent from London before forming and using the adjectival derivative.  Congress is a noun & verb, congressional & congressive are adjectives and congressionally is an adverb; the noun plural is congresses.

The use of “congress” to describe “sexual intercourse; coitus” dates from the 1580s but, except in historic references or as a deliberate archaism, use tends now to be as a euphemism.  There was however once a handy distinction (heard from pulpits and in legal proceedings) between the naked noun and “marital congress (sexual intercourse as performed by two people enjoying benefit of marriage), the latter quite respectable (if not much discussed), the former not always, especially if adulterous.  The special adjective uncongressed was coined in the science of genetics to describe “unaligned chromosomes”, a phenomenon presumably about as bad as it sounds.  By contrast, a marriage in which “sexual intercourse; coitus” was held not to have transpired was said to be “unconsummated”, something often unfortunate for one or both parties but useful because it was grounds upon which a bishop might declare an otherwise legally marriage annulled.  That had the advantage of creating the legal fiction the ceremony had “never happened” with the couple able to return to church to marry new partners, something historically not always possible for divorcees (although for those rich enough there were sometimes “word-arounds” that could persuade an appropriately compensated bishop).  In centuries gone by, being “married before the eyes of God” was no small thing with important legal and social implications.

Making a fine legal point, one apparently open to interpretation.

Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; FLOTUS 1993-2001 & US secretary of state 2009-2013, left) watching attentively as her husband Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001) assured the nation “I did not have sexual relations with that woman… Miss Lewinsky.” (White House intern Monica Lewinsky (b 1973)), the White House, January 1998.  A trained lawyer and former Arkansas attorney-general, Mr Clinton may have been tempted to say “I did not have congress with that woman… Miss Lewinsky.”  At least arguably that could have be held to be “truthful” because “congress” generally is understood as coitus (penetrative sexual intercourse) where as “sexual relations” casts a wider net.  Whether such sophistry would have saved him from impeachment seems unlikely and nothing was going to save him from the wrath of crooked Hillary.  Unfortunately, in subsequent legal proceedings, we never got to hear Mr Clinton's deconstruction of “congress” but we did learn what the word “is” means and that his definition of “sexual relations” extended to “giving” oral sex but excluded “receiving” oral sex.  The latter distinction surprised a few but at least now we know.

“Congress grass” is a synonym for “famine weed” (Parthenium hysterophorus), a highly invasive plant noted for its devastating impact on agriculture, food security, and native ecosystems. The undesirable plant gained the name “famine weed” from the way aggressively it would colonize farmland and pastures, replacing nutritious native flora and releasing allelopathic chemicals that severely would stunt the growth of crops and grasses, leading to sharp declines in agricultural yields, famines associated with heavily infested regions.  In India, during the 1950s, the plant came derisively to be damned with the moniker “Congress grass” after the accidental introduction of the species by seeds in contaminated US wheat, imported during a national food shortage.  The name references not the US Congress but the INC (Indian National Congress, usually clipped to “the Congress”), in control of the national government that had arranged the importation.  Native to Central America, Parthenium hysterophorus is listed as invasive also in Australia and a number of African nations.

The specific sense of congress as “a meeting of delegates, formal meeting of persons having a representational character” was in use by at least the 1670s and in 1775 became the name for the national legislative body of the American states (with an initial upper case) which became the USA, the word chosen from a number of suggestions (legislative assembly, parliament etc).  The three sittings of the “Continental Congress” (representing the 13 American colonies seeking independence from imperial rule) were convened in 1774, 1775-1776 & 1776-1781.  The Congress of the Confederation (formally the United States in Congress Assembled) was the national governing body of the US between March 1781 and March 1789; established by the Articles of Confederation, it served as a transitional government between the Second Continental Congress and the modern US Congress which first sat on 4 March, 1789.

The US Capitol Building where the Congress sits, the House of Representatives housed in the south wing, the Senate in the north.  The original building was completed in 1800 and the final engineering sign-off of the dome structure came in 1867.  The last major structural changes were undertaken in 1962.

The US Congress is the is the legislative branch of the federal government, declared constitutionally “co-equal” with the executive and legislative branches although that’s a philosophical stance rather than a functional description, the Congress uniquely able to pass federal laws (in legal theory the occasionally infamous “Executive Orders” issued by POTUSs as unilateral actions under powers granted by Article II of the Constitution or federal law(s) are valid only to the extent they are constitutional and comply with federal law).  The Congress is divided into two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives both of which are now elected by a popular vote; each state having two senators, the Senate has 100 members while in the House of Representatives there are 435, size of a state’s population determining its allocation.  Within each state, it is the legislature which has the power to determine electoral boundaries and over the years these processes have given rise to a rich vocabulary including “gerrymander”, “re-districting” & “electoral malapportionment”, the the memorable judicial maxim “legislators represent people, not trees and acres” handed down in a judgment by Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891–1974; Chief Justice of the US 1953-1969) in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)).  The way the Democrats and Republicans draw lines on maps to maximize the benefit of their respective parties and disadvantage their opponents has always been entertaining but, because the exercise ultimately is one of math, what will be interesting is (1) how the process will be perfected when optimized by the use of AI (artificial intelligence) and (2) how the courts (ultimately the USSC (US Supreme Court)) will rule on the lawfulness of increasingly exaggerated distortions.

Constitutionally, the formal title for someone holding a seat in the House of Representatives is “Representative” which makes sense but “Congressman”, although originally a term of derision, became common.  “Representative” remains the preferred term in formal writing (certainly official government documents) and when addressing a member, the convention being “Representative Name” although “The Honorable Name” is in certain contexts used.  “Congressman” & “Congresswoman” are however deeply entrenched in US English and seem to be the most popular forms used by the public and much of the media.  The first congresswoman was Jeannette Rankin (1880–1973), a women's rights advocate, in 1916 elected as a Republican in Montana for a single term (she served a second in 1941-1943); she remains the only woman ever elected to Congress from Montana.  The gender-neutral “Congressperson” belongs to the “modern” class of words (which predate the mainstreaming of wokism) including “chairperson”, “salesperson” etc.  It has been accepted by dictionaries and style guides with some media organizations recommending use although it’s said rarely to be heard in oral use.  Representatives are elected for two-year terms and senators for six so in the congressional elections conducted every two years; all 435 seats in the House are contested along with about a third of the Senate.

One who would have been grateful “congressperson” wasn’t in general use in the early 1960s would have been the singer-songwriter Bob Dylan (b 1941) who released The Times They Are a-Changin' as the title-track of his 1964 album, “Come senators, congressmen” appearing as the first line of the third verse and suiting the rhythm of the work in a way “Come senators, congresspersons” wouldn’t have worked.

Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don't stand in the doorway

Don't block up the hall

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who has stalled

The battle outside ragin'

Will soon shake your windows

And rattle your walls

For the times they are a-changin'

Although The Times They Are a-Changin' now is regarded as a classic Dylan song and one of his standards, while internationally it enjoyed some success as a single, it was never released in that form in the US, included only on the original eponymous album and subsequent compilations.  Like much of Dylan’s work, there were several influences including biblical echos from Mark and Ecclesiastes.

Official portrait of George Santos while he was entitled to be styled “Representative the honorable George Santos”.

The first (openly) LGBTQQIAAOP Republican elected to Congress as a freshman (one's first elected presence there, a use borrowed from universities where it describes first-year students), George Anthony Devolder Santos (b 1988) entered Congress in the 2022 mid-term elections, taking the seat of New York's 3^rd congressional district.  Although he seems to have passed untroubled through the Republican Party’s candidate vetting process, after his election a number of media outlets investigated and found his public persona was almost wholly untrue and contained many dubious or blatantly false claims about, inter alia, his mother, personal biography, education, criminal record, work history, financial status, ancestry, ethnicity, sexual orientation & religion.  When confronted, Mr Santos did admit to lying about certain matters, was vague about some and ducked and weaved to avoid discussing others, especially the fraud charges in Brazil he evaded by fleeing the country.  Although a life-long Roman Catholic, Mr Santos on a number of occasions claimed to be Jewish, even fabricating stories about his family suffering losses during the Holocaust.  Later, after the lies were exposed, he told a newspaper “I never claimed to be Jewish.  I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish.”  In the right circumstances, delivered on-stage by a Jewish comedian, it might have been a good punch-line.

George Santos: The Congress's loss was OnlyFans' gain but unfortunately the new career didn't last because of an excessive number of “fan solicitations”.

Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee and a federal indictment, the House of Representatives in 2023 voted 311–114 to expel Mr Santos, meaning he gained the dubious distinction of being the first member of Congress to have been expelled without having previously been convicted of a crime or having supported the Confederacy (the pro-slavery southern states opposed to the Union forces in the US Civil War (1861-1865)).  In other historic footnotes, he became the sixth member of the House to be expelled and the first Republican.  Subsequently, Mr Santos pled guilty to identity theft & wire fraud and in April 2025 was sentenced to a prison term of 87 months.  However, in October that year, after spending only some three months behind bars, Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) commuted his sentence, cancelling all unpaid fines and restitution, one of the reasons cited being Mr Santos's solid voting record in Congress (100% Republican).  There was a time when such a pardon would have attracted much comment but such has been Mr Trump’s use of his power to issue pardons, few now seem exceptional or even noteworthy.  The power to pardon (inherited from Kings of England who no longer discharge it as a personal right) is unusual in being the only power in the US Constitution not subject to “checks & balances”; it is a personal presidential prerogative.  Noting that, political scientists and legal scholars are looking forward to the pardons announced on the last day of Mr Trump’s term on the basis: “We ain’t seen nothing yet”.  Members of the House of Representatives typically are addressed as "the honorable" in formal use but this is a courtesy title and not a requirement.  It's a matter left to individual members and as far as is known, Mr Santos has not yet indicated whether he wishes people to continue to address him as “the honorable George Santos” but clearly he has a fan base.  In 2024, Mr Santos opened an OnlyFans page (US29.99 per month) but after only a few weeks he was forced to “abandon the platform due to the high volume of fan solicitations”.

Congressman Randy Fine (b 1974; Representative for Florida's 6^th congressional district since April 2025) in red MAGA (Make America Great Again) hat (left) and a rooster with a large red coxcomb (the fleshy red pate of a rooster, left).

The long familiar “congressman” actually started as a term of derision before entering mainstream use as a neutral descriptor, a milder form being the later plural noun “congressfolk”.  Because voters (and others) so often find cause to be critical of those in Congress, a rich vocabulary of variants has over the years appeared, “congressfolk” yielding “congressdope” while independently coined terms included “congresscritter” and congressjerk while the offensive, ethnic slur “congresscoon” was a label applied to the first black congressmen (the presence of whom in the Congress many whites found appalling and not just those south of the Mason-Dixon Line).  To this day, phrases such as “those fuckwits in Congress” or “the stupid Congress” are part of US vernacular English although literary standards have declined since 1780 when one wrote: “Ye coxcomb Congressmen, declaimers keen, Brisk puppets of the Philadelphia scene.”  

Even within the political class the word can be weaponized.  Although in passing over 900 bills the 80^th Congress (1947-1949) was hardly inert, it didn’t do everything the administration wanted so, on the campaign trail in 1948, the ever-combative Harry S. Truman (1884–1972; POTUS 1945-1953) dubbed it the “Do Nothing Congress” although the nickname was something of a “tar by association” tactic against his Republican opponent (Thomas E. Dewey (1902-1971) in the presidential election as much as it was against the legislators.  Most of the world fixates on presidential politics because of the drama and the cults of personality but domestically, it’s in the legislatures that lobbyists do their work and that’s where they make “campaign contributions” in exchange for getting the legislation which most benefits the corporations employing them.  “The business of America is business” was how former president Calvin Coolidge (1872–1933; POTUS 1923-1929) summed it up.  It’s not wholly dissimilar to the development of the English constitution; it took centuries to evolve but essentially, in exchange for getting the money he needed to fight his wars, the king approved the laws the politicians wished to pass.  In the US, the dynamic relationship is between politicians & corporations, mediated by the lobbyists and between the two sides, there's much interchanging of personnel which is why the system is sometimes described by political scientists as “incestuous”.  The dynamic of the system does of course shift; sometimes those in Congress have dominated the president and sometimes he has dominated them so in that sense Trump 2.0 (Mr Trump's second administration) is just a phase the system is going through.

The reformed Lindsay Lohan.  Congress hasn't much mended its ways.

Others have found inventive ways to color their critique of the Congress.  In March 2011, delivering an address to the annual Washington Conference of the Institute of International Bankers, Richard W. Fisher (b 1949; president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank (the “Dallas Fed”) 2005-2015), spent some time discussing the fiscal policy (ie the dynamics of government spending vs revenue (taxation and such)) of the US Congress, his concern that for long-term investment to be secured, investors must have “…confidence in the long-term prospects of where they invest.  In my judgment, it will be hard to secure that needed comfort until Congress makes clear it will refrain from the errant fiscal ways of the past, changes the way it taxes and spends and regulates, and places the nation demonstrably, and unalterably, on a path of fiscal rectitude.”  To illustrate his point in an immediately accessible way, Mr Fisher added that the country had “…suffered for too long from ‘Lindsay Lohan’ Congresses.  Like Ms. Lohan, the American Congress is a beautiful creation, blessed with enormous talent. But it has been waylaid by addiction—in the case of the Congress to spending and debt—and by a proclivity for shoplifting—in the case of the Congress to pocketing for their immediate gratification the economic future of our children and grandchildren and our grandchildren’s children.”  It may have been a bit of a “mean boy” way of putting it but doubtlessly his point was well understood by his audience, Ms Lohan then in her “troubled starlet” phase.  However, while Ms Lohan became an admirably reformed creature, the US Congress (which alone has the authority to authorize every dollar raised, borrowed and spent by the federal government) remains something of a fabulous beast, the national debt now some US$38 trillion and growing.

Senator Rebecca Ann Felton (1835–1930, left) and Senator Mitch McConnell (b 1942; US senator (Republican-Kentucky) since 1985; leader of the Senate Republican Conference 2007-2025, right).  The spooky resemblance between Senator Fulton (who in 1922 served for one day as a senator (Democratic-Georgia), appointed as a political manoeuvre) and Senator McConnell has led some to suggest he might be her reincarnated.  Some not so acquainted with history assumed the photograph of Senator Felton was Mitch McConnell in drag.

Members of the Senate, regardless of gender, are styled as “Senator” even though the Senate is a part of the Congress.  Although it has become common to describe the Senate and House respectively as “upper house” and “lower house” (reflecting the UK practice of so-describing the House of Lords and House of Commons), many political scientists claim that’s misleading and the two houses should be regarded as co-equal wings of the congress, each fulfilling a distinct function but not in a hierarchical structure.  They’re correct in asserting the use sits awkwardly with later constitutional development but the terminology is, in the US context, ancient, dating from at least the first federal Congress in 1789 when the Senate routinely was described as the “upper” chamber and the House the “lower”, simply reflecting the British parliamentary vocabulary with with those involved were familiar.

Federal Hall, New York City, circa 1950.

The framers of the US constitution did not use the terms “upper” and “lower”, something in keeping with spirit of an age that was the not exactly egalitarian but it certainly reflected their deliberately (if imperfectly) democratic, anti-aristocratic intentions.  The conceptual analogy can however be pursued, the Senate being smaller, the members granted longer terms with election originally being indirect by state legislatures while the house was directly elected (although the franchise was far from one of universal suffrage).  However, whatever the constitutional niceties, that arrangement did neatly map onto the bicameral model familiar in the UK and Europe where upper and lower chambers often were seen although surveys of early American political writing seems to hint there might have been some reluctance to use the traditional “upper” & “lower”, the Senate instead referred to as a “more select” or “more elevated” body; while many in the US political class were elitist, there was a reluctance to make that explicit.  That in 1789 members of the two houses first sat with senators assembling in a room on the first floor while representatives convened downstairs is a charming anecdote but is regarded by historians as a piece of architectural determinism, the downstairs room in New York’s Federal Hall being large enough for all the representatives, the less multitudinous senators able to fit upstairs.  Still, although the use “upper” & “lower” was already deeply embedded in the Anglo-American constitutional lexicon before Congress first met in the upstairs-downstairs arrangement, some did note the coincidence and it’s not impossible use of the terminology at least briefly was reinforced.  The room-allocation certainly didn’t create the use.

However, by the early nineteenth century, “upper house” and “lower house” routinely appeared as neutral descriptive terms in newspapers, parliamentary manuals, and political commentary, used of the Congress as well as state legislatures.  Modern political scientists have analysed the texts and concluded the use was merely of convenience as verbal shorthand because the terms were so well understood; it was in no way an attempt to “put meaning into the words of the constitution”.  Although there were obvious structural similarities with the UK parliament, the social and political history was different but while the powers of the House of Lords greatly were curtailed by the Parliament Acts (1911 & 1949), the US Senate became one of democracy’s more powerful “second chambers” in that it has a power of veto over executive appointments (judges, ambassadors, members of the cabinet etc) and no POTUS may have a treaty with a foreign entity ratified without the concurrence of the Senate.  Along with the Australian Senate (routinely and uncontroversially styled as an “upper house”) which has the power to force governments from office, the US Senate is one of the democratic world’s more powerful, the term in the jargon of political science being “strong bicameralism.”

Kim Jong-Un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)) since 2011) leads the bowing ceremony before the portraits of Kim Il-Sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK, 1948-1994, left) and Kim Jong-Il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK, 1994-2011, right), 9^th Congress of the WPK (Workers' Party of Korea), April 25 House of Culture, Pyongyang, 19-25 February 2026.  Unanimously, delegates paid tribute to the Supreme Leader and declared it the “best congress ever”.

In political use, although a “party congress” and “party caucus” both involve the party’s members meeting together, they are almost always different institutions.  By convention, a party congress is a large formal gathering of the membership or selected delegates.  These tend in scope to be national or regional and concerned with matters such as policy platforms, leadership and the endorsement of candidates although in recent decades they have become carefully managed (and scripted), set-piece events designed to demonstrate (or, for public purposes, to emulate) unity.  Held periodically and being now highly structured, they fulfil a ceremonial as well as practical purpose although functionally, most are now wholly unnecessary; dating from a time before modern communications when the only way for things to be “thrashed out” was for members to assemble to debate and vote, most “decisions” announced at party congresses have been worked out well in advance with the debates and announcements just “window-dressing” and a type of “brand identity”.  Most are now far removed from the origin in European, socialist or communist traditions but in authoritarian systems like those in the PRC (People’s Republic of China) or DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)), the visual choreography is tighter even than that imposed by political machines in the West.

A party caucus inherently is a smaller gathering because almost always it’s restricted to elected or appointed members within a legislature or other (sometimes nominally) deliberative body.  The exact practice differs between (and sometimes even within) countries but, as a general principle, in parliamentary systems a caucus describes all elected legislators from one party meeting privately to discuss matters such as strategy, leadership coordination, or internal discipline.  The terms “party congress” and “party room” are thus usually interchangeable although there are instances where “caucus” has for historic reasons become so associated with one party that others avoid the label.  An obvious example is the ALP (Australian Labor Party (or as some prefer, Agitprop, Lies & Propaganda)) where use of “caucus” is entrenched so other parties tend to use “party meeting”, “party room” etc.  Similarly, in the US, while the congressional Democrats collectively are a “caucus” (sharing the noun with baboons which seems a nice touch), the Republicans are a “conference”.  Membership can be “loose”, the self-described “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders (b 1941; senior US senator (Independent, Vermont) since 2007) having long “caucused with the Democrats”.  In the US, “caucus” was adopted for certain versions of “primary contests” in which candidates are selected (in other places the process might be called “pre-selection”).

Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2009-2017 & POTUS 2021-2025) and his wife, Dr Jill Biden (b 1951) at a campaign stop during the Iowa Caucuses, Council Bluffs, Iowa, 30 November, 2019.

In the US, caucuses are now less common and the party machines would be delighted were they wholly to go extinct because, unlike primaries which are conducted at locations which are easily managed, caucuses are from the “horse & buggy” era and are geographically spread, often taking places in people’s houses.  For candidates, it can be a logistical nightmare but so culturally entrenched are the famous “Iowa Caucuses” which “kick off” the four-yearly cycle of presidential elections that whatever happens elsewhere, Iowa won’t be for turning.  In the US, there are also “sub-set caucuses” such as the “Congressional Black Caucus” and, upon formation in 1971, it was envisaged as a “non-party” gathering at which Democrats, Republicans and others could assemble to discuss matters of especial interest to the African-American community.  Remarkably, from time to time, Republicans have attended meetings.  The proliferation of caucuses within the Democratic Party has increased and there are caucuses labelled as “Jewish”, “Progressive”, “Muslim”, “women’s”, “African American”, “Education”, “Hispanic”, “Veterans”, “LGBTQ+”, “Pride”, “Stonewall”, Asian American & Pacific Islander”, “Native” and “Senior”; there may be more because the modern Democratic Party is a fissiparous beast.  

Watercolor of a Viennese ball.  So frequent were the balls at the Congress of Vienna, the Prince de Ligne famously observed “Le Congrès dance beaucoup, mais il ne marche pas” (Congress dances much, but it doesn't walk).

There are many aspects to the relationship between the US and PRC and following the May 2026 meeting in Beijing between Xi Jinping (b 1953; General Secretary of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and paramount leader of the PRC since 2012) and Donald Trump, analysts covered most of them.  There was much on trade, tariffs, military actions (calling events such as invasions “wars” has become unfashionable) in the Middle East or Ukraine, AI (artificial intelligence), oil, the renegade province of Taiwan and more.  What was however most striking about President Xi’s narrative was his observation the PRC and US had much more to gain from “cooperation” than “conflict”.  What Mr Xi seemed to be suggesting was different from earlier concepts which had at times characterized the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union; he wasn’t advocating a revival of “peaceful co-existence” or “détente” but something like a genuine, if unofficial, partnership based on mutual interest.  Although it’s speculative, it seems likely President Xi admires the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) when the ruling elites met over some nine months to construct a post-Napoleonic Europe divided between the great powers, a structure in which (1) the ruling class would be spared another unpleasantness like the French Revolution (1789) and (2) a perpetual balance of power would be maintained, ensuring peace.  That in the two centuries since, the Congress has attached much criticism, largely for imposing a stultifying air of reaction on the continent, does not render the structure irrational nor detract from the rationale and some historians have come to regard the congress more fondly; while it’s not true the consequence was a exactly century of peace in Europe, it created a framework which meant a goodly number of decades notably less blood-soaked than what came before and certainly what followed after 1914.

In geopolitics, for authoritarian leaders to suggest “cooperation” with those more liberal is not new.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) in 1940, not best pleased at being at war with the British (the nation he regarded still as Germany’s natural ally), offered London what to many in the British establishment seemed a tempting deal, given the army had just been forced into an hasty and ignominious retreat from the beaches of Dunkirk.  As Hitler imagined the globe under his new order in which the German Empire would extend from the English Channel to the Urals, one feature which fitted in nicely was the British Empire and in return for offering his obviously potent military to assist in its defence, all he wanted from the British was an end to hostilities and “non-interference” in a Europe now under German occupation or hegemony.  The British had their own reasons for rejecting that kind offer but, after the tide of the war had turned, they heard something similar (and possibly about as sincere) from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953).  At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, the British and Americans first heard comrade Stalin’s idea that the ideal arrangement for the upcoming post-war world was that the Soviets wouldn’t interfere in the way the countries in the Western sphere of influence were handled and in return he expected no interference in the Soviet sphere (basically those nations unfortunate enough to end up behind what came to be called the Iron Curtain).

Deals being done: The Congress of Vienna (1819), engraving by Jean-Baptiste Isabey (1767–1855).

However, the circumstances of 2026 differ greatly from the world of 1815 and what could be achieved at the Congress of Vienna by Lord Castlereagh (1769–1822; UK foreign secretary 1812-1822) and Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859; Foreign Minister of the Austrian Empire 1809-1848 & Chancellor 1821-1848) was a function of what was unique about that time and place.  The so-called Concert System (known also as the Vienna System in a nod to the epoch-making congress) in which the spheres of influence of Europe’s five great powers (Austria, France, Prussia, Russia and the UK) were effectively formalized with mechanisms created to resolve disputes by means other than armed conflict, while a model which could be mapped onto the geopolitical map of 2026 is of course an implausible resurrection because things are different.  Still, Mr Xi is a diligent student of history and is aware how much more productive can be great-power cooperation than conflict, outcome of the latter sometimes as bad for the “winners” as the “losers”.  What he’ll have noticed is Donald Trump genuinely is unique among post-war presidents in that he avowedly has no interest in “spreading democracy” around the globe, content if other countries, whatever their political arrangements buy US goods and services; he cares not at all whether or not they buy the US Constitution.

As Mr Xi could have told him, that’s a sensible position to take because a system which suits one national culture may wholly be incompatible with others and what’s remarkable is not that the US, debatably for the first time since the 1920s, now has a “pragmatic president” but that it took so long for them to get one.  What most distinguished US foreign policy since 1945 was the way it was affected by the much-discussed national characteristic of “exceptionalism”, a collective confidence that proved an asset in a venture like sending men to walk on the moon but in foreign policy has on occasions led the Americans astray.  Essentially, the problem is the idealistic American belief that every problem can be overcome (exemplified by the Pentagon’s standard doctrine of “overwhelming force”) whereas less ambitious realists understand some problems are insoluble and need just endlessly to be “managed”, witness the way the British for so long ran the Raj with a relative handful of troops and administrators.

Horse trading at the Yalta Conference, February 1945, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, POTUS 1933-1945, left), comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953, centre) and Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955, right).

The cartoon was by Ernest Howard "E.H." Shepard (1879–1976) and appeared in Punch some days after the conference communiqués were published.  In the UK it was titled The Pellmell of the European Puzzle but, in many other markets, that was changed to The European Hotch-Potch because “pell-mell” was thought obscure.  Pellmell (also as pell-mell) traditionally was used in the sense of “hasty and uncontrolled” so it was at least half-right to apply the term to what was done at Yalta.  Pellmell was from the French pêle-mêle, from the Old French pesle-mesle, reputedly a rhyme based on the stem of mesler (to mix, meddle).  Unlike the Congress of Vienna which absorbed some nine leisurely months between September 1814-June 1815, the Yalta Conference was done in little more than a week but although there were many dinners, there were no balls and no dancing.  So intractable was the position of comrade Stalin on matters of consequence to him, had it lasted nine months it's doubtful the outcomes would greatly have differed.   

President Xi (left) and President Trump (right).  While structuralists might disagree, behaviorists would likely find more similarities than differences.     

While something like a “Congress of Singapore” with global or even extensive regional ambitions would be overreach, it’s not difficult to imagine Mr Xi and Mr Trump at a table demonstrating the “art of the deal(s)”, each sacrificing the odd pawn to secure an uncontested rook or knight (or even a bishop).  The pawns of course might object to being “shuffled around” but as Mr Xi would explain to them: “twas ever thus” and their people will much prefer the fruits of an increasing co-prosperity to abstractions like democracy and the chimera of free speech.  Mr Trump’s background was in the world of corporations and deals rather than politics (as he one admitted, he “bought” politicians as required and was impressed by how cheap they were) so he can relate to someone like Mr Xi who functions as the CEO of a corporate state, more than he can presidents or prime ministers juggling the competing interests upon which they depend.  Like Mr Trump who wants as little as possible to do with the internal affairs of America’s customers (ie other countries), Mr Xi has no wish to waste effort or resources in the pointless business of attempting to impose Beijing’s way of running the PRC on others; good relations and mutually beneficial trade ties are much more sensible goals.  In Mr Xi and Mr Trump, not since a couple of horse-traders like comrade Stalin and Winston Churchill were running their countries have two great powers been headed by a pair more suited to “doing deals”.  While problems like Kashmir and Palestine will need “endless management”, in other places, there is scope for a couple of realists to “cooperate” and because Mr Trump (mostly) has purged the US system of tiresome idealists, for the first time in living memory, at least slight progress may be possible.  As at Yalta, there might be victims but where deals are there to be done, someone always has to pay the price.