Bombast & Bluster

Bombast (pronounced bom-bast)

(1) Speech deemed pompous for the occasion or context; pretentious or grandiloquent language.

(2) Cotton or cotton wool (archaic).

(3) Cotton, or any soft, fibrous material, used as stuffing for garments or upholstery; padding.

1560-1570: A corruption of the earlier bombase (raw cotton), from the Old French bombace (cotton, cotton wadding), from the from the Medieval Latin bombācem, accusative of the Late Latin bombāx (cotton; linteorum aut aliae quaevis quisquiliae (towels or any other rubbish (rags))), a corrupted variant use of bombyx (silk; silkworm (which in Medieval Greek came to mean “cotton”)), from the Ancient Greek βόμβυξ (bómbux) (silkworm) and perhaps connected with both certain oriental words and the Middle Persian pambak (cotton), possibly related to a primitive Indo-European root meaning “to twist, wind”.  From the same source came the Swedish bomull, the Danish bomuld (cotton) and, (via Turkish forms), the Modern Greek mpampaki, the Rumanian bumbac and the Serbo-Croatian pamuk.  The German Baumwolle (cotton) is thought likely to be the Latin word altered by folk-etymology to look like “tree wool”.  Both the Lithuanian bovelna and the Polish bawełna are partial translations from the German.  The earliest known appearance in print of the adjective bombastic was in 1704.  The synonyms include fustian, grandiloquence, purple prose, overblown, pretentious and the now obsolete aureation.  Bombast is a noun, verb & adjective, bombaster & bombastry are nouns, bombastic & bombastical are adjectives and bombastically is an adverb; the noun plural is bombasts.

In English, the word “bombase” was used of raw cotton as early as the 1550s and the sense of “stuffing and padding for clothes or upholstery” would have begun as the verbal shorthand of tailors, seamstresses and artisans making clothing, furniture and such.  Remarkably quickly, the idea of what was done with chairs and garments (padding them out) was co-opted to mean “pompous, empty speech”, that sense in use as early as the 1580s.  The idea was just as cotton (soft, loose, insubstantial) was used to “swell” clothing or upholstery to provide the illusion of something more substantial, so it was used of speech and writing judged as “swollen by extravagant sentiments and expressions which add nothing to the meaning”.  The old press baron Lord Beaverbrook (Max Aitken, 1879-1964) used the term “highfalutin nonsense” whenever he detected bombast in anything his editors were proposing to publish.

Volkswagen Super Beetle Cabriolet by Karmann: 1978 (left) & 1977 (right).  The taillights were dubbed "elephant's feet" and were that large to comply with US regulations which demanded certain dimensions and luminosity from both the rear and side-views.  They proved popular with third-party builders, especially those in "neo-classical" business making bodies using the motifs of the inter-war years.  Some cars are described as "bombastic" (a view one suspects based often on perceptions of the typical owner) but that was never applied to the modest Beetle.  There was though much bombast in the soft-top which to this day remains one of the industry's most impressive.  

Shaming what UK manufacturers offered even in their more expensive ranges, classic Volkswagen Type 1 (Beetle 1938-2003) Cabriolets manufactured between 1949-1980 by coachbuilder Karmann featured a commendably heavy, weatherproof, multi-layered folding soft-top roof.  An intricate construction of structural steel, shaped timber members, vinyl and safety glass, the bombast was a rubberized horsehair (with some later variants).  Close to two inches (50 mm) thick and affording what was by convertible standards outstanding sound insulation and weather-proofing, the factory used a “sandwich” design in which the materials were arrayed in three distinct functional layers: (1) The outer layer originally was a heavy-duty Pinpoint vinyl (a two-ply composite featuring a PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) with a cotton sateen inner backing) although there was for years the option of canvas and Mohair and canvas was used for the later runs.  (2) The bombast was the “insulation padding”, a thick matting originally only of rubberized horsehair although this later was augmented by a reinforcing of coconut fibre and burlap with late build examples switching to a dense, foam rubber. (3) The headliner (inner layer) was a soft-to-touch, full-length inner canopy that hid the mechanism, emulating the look in a closed vehicle; it was made from either perforated vinyl (usually white or off-white) or a cotton-mohair fabric.  Unlike many convertibles in the era (including Rolls-Royce and Mercedes-Benz which used discoloration-prone Perspex), the Karmann cabriolets included a solid frame holding a tempered safety glass window and from 1968 this included a integrated electric defroster wire grid.

Also by extension, “fustian” was used as a synonym, that being a type of cloth that lend garments a “stiff expansive character”, the similarity to “fuss” & “fuss” thought to have added to the appeal.  In English, “fustian” proved adaptable.  Originally, it was a coarse fabric made from cotton and flax but in modern use, while the texture is emulated, it’s now usually made with twilled wool, cotton or a cotton-linen blend.  The nature of the fabric made it suitable for furnishings such as bedspreads and many garments including skirts, coats and jackets and a specific variant with a short pile (almost always in sombre shades) is used still for menswear.  The noun fustian was from the Middle English fustian (of the fabric), from the Old French fustaine & fustaigne (persisting in modern French as futaine), from the Medieval Latin fūstāneum, from the (pannus) fūstāneus or the (tela) fūstānea, thought to be a reference to “Fustat, locality of Cairo” although this is contested.  Fustat (Al-Fustat) became the first Islamic capital of Egypt and its outgrowth was the origin of modern Cairo.  In commerce, the use of fustian (based on the texture rather than the materials) extended to a whole class of fabrics including corduroy and velveteen and there was also the now rarely seen alcoholic concoction so named (also in older guides as “rum fustian”).  That was a hot drink made variously with beer, gin, sherry or white wine (and often probably what conveniently fell to hand) to which was added egg yolk, lemon and spices (doubtlessly there were many variations).  There has been speculation about how the drink picked up the fabric’s name with suggestions including something to do the color or the nature of the mix being “rough”.  Fustianists & fustianism are nouns, fustianize is a verb and fustianed is an adjective; the noun plural is fustianists.

That literary use is thought likely based on fustian fabrics being used to make cushions, pillowcases (ie things associated with “padding or stuffing), the adjectival use in literature an attributive figurative use of the noun; it suggested (usually disapprovingly) words were inflated, pompous or pretentious (ie bombastic) and there was as late as the mid-seventeenth century the parallel sense of “incoherent or unintelligible speech or writing; gibberish, nonsense”.  Literary critics (a most judgmental lot), of course liked to apply “fustian” to anything they deemed “a bit too purple” and probably, at least mentally, kept lists of offenders but poets and authors could be just as bitchy about their literary colleagues, although Alexander Pope’s (1688-1744) Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot (1735) was a tribute to his subject’s many achievements and a memorial of their friendship, prompted by the news the physician John Arbuthnot (circa 1667–1735) was on his death-bed:

The bard whom pilfer'd pastorals renown,
Who turns a Persian tale for half a crown,
Just writes to make his barrenness appear,
And strains, from hard-bound brains, eight lines a year:
He, who still wanting, though he lives on theft,
Steals much, spends little, yet has nothing left:
And he, who now to sense, now nonsense leaning,
Means not, but blunders round about a meaning:
And he, whose fustian's so sublimely bad,
It is not poetry, but prose run mad:

Although the use of “he” does suggest Pope may have had in mind a certain writer, scholars believe he was presenting a sequence of composite caricatures of the kinds of “bad poets” he thought were a plague on the language, their sins including plagiarism, being shameless translators for hire, being so muddle-minded as never to attain meaning and producing lines so inflated (fustian) that they ceased even to be “bad poetry” and became “manic prose”.  As was at the time wise for satirists, Pope often deliberately would avoid explicitly identifying his targets although knowing readers would have seen through the thin disguises; “reading between the lines” as useful then as it is now in certain countries, some even “democracies”.  His views on the use of language are however crustal clear and “sublimely bad” is a fine phrase, suggesting a writer's failures might be so spectacularly ghastly they achieve a kind of perverse grandeur, the notion he would, three years hence, return to in the mock critical treatise Peri Bathous or, Of the Art of Sinking in Poetry (1728).  In that, he assured readers he would “…lead them as it were by the hand… the gentle downhill way to Bathos; the bottom, the end, the central point the non plus ultra [nothing further beyond], of true Modern Poesy!”  Unfortunately, by the twentieth century and beyond, students of the “sublime in the ridiculous” had become victims of “the curse of plenty” but Pope can’t be blamed for that; he did his bit.

The literary term bathos (from the Ancient Greek βάθος (bathos) (depth) is used of types of writing which may include the bombastic.  Bathos is attained when a striving at the sublime, over-reaches and “topples into the absurd”, a classic collection of the bathetic was published in The Stuffed Owl (1930), compiled by the English authors Dominic Bevan “D.B.” Wyndham Lewis (1891–1969) & Charles James Lee (1870–1956).  Lewis should not be confused with the English painter, writer & critic (Percy) Wyndham Lewis (1882-1957), best remembered for his seminal contribution to short-lived Vorticist movement in art that was extinguished by the blast of World War I (1914-1918).  Although the usual suspects from poetaster’s (bad poets) role of infamy appear in The Stuffed Owl including the American Julia Ann Moore (1847–1920) and Scotland’s notoriously inept William McGonagall (1825-1902), Lewis & Lee didn’t defer to reputations or the canon and among the entries were lines by Alfred Lord Tennyson (1809–1892), William Wordsworth (1770–1850), Lord Byron (1788–1824), John Dryden (1631–1700), Robert "Rabbie" Burns (1759–1796) and Robert Browning (1812–1889). Curiously, while the noun bombaster (a bombastic speaker or writer) exists, there’s no such thing as a bombastee (one compelled to listen to read the words of a bombaster).

I Am Charlotte Simmons (20004) by Tom Wolfe (1930–2018), a hefty 688 pages, it "won" the Literary Review's 2004 Bad Sex Award but was said to be a favorite of George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; POTUS 2001-2009) so there was that.

Lewis & Lee took to their work with a light touch.  Rather than condemnation, it was admitted: “Bad verse has its canons, like good verse” and the selection of the “bad” was no less difficult than the challenges in assembling the “best” for a more conventional anthology.  As their argument went, “good” bad Verse has “an eerie, supernal beauty comparable in its accidents with the beauty of good verse” and it was likely as difficult to write a genuinely “good” bad poem as it is to write a good poem.  That was a generous view but there was also an audience for the bad, William McGonagall often engaged to give recitals of his work, always including the infamous The Tay Bridge Disaster (1880), its place in literary history assured by appearing usually in lists of the “worst ever poems”.  That “monetizing of awfulness” happens also in music.  The Portsmouth Sinfonia (1970-1979) was an English orchestra open to “musicians” with neither skill nor training and their idiosyncratic performances were well attended, as were those of Florence Foster Jenkins (1868–1944).  Ms Foster Jenkins (who was first married at 15, the age of consent in Pennsylvania then ten despite it being north of the Mason-Dixon Line) was rich enough to indulge her hobby which was singing Opera and that she did, giving public performances so awful that word spread and most were sold-out.  In literary use, there was also (between 1993-2019) the “Bad Sex Award”, described by organizing committee as “Britain’s most dreaded literary prize”.  Conferred every winter by the London-based Literary Review, it was awarded to the author judged to have penned the worst sex scene published in the previous twelve months.  It was established in 1993 by the magazine’s former editor, Auberon Waugh (1939–2001).

1938 Mercedes-Benz 320 (W142, 1937-1942) Cabriolet B in a factory promotional image.  As well as the upholstery, the folding soft-top contained horse-hair bombast. 

European manufacturers and coach-builders used “cabriolet” to distinguish certain convertibles from the more rakish, sporty roadsters although the English had to be different and decided they were DHCs (drop-head coupés) which meant a convertible version of a FHC (fixed-head coupé).  Cabriolets were for decades a fixture in the catalogues (low-priced vehicles as well as the better-remembered exotics) but in the late 1920s (with typically Teutonic attention to detail), Daimler-Benz codified the naming conventions for cabriolets built by Mercedes-Benz:

Cabriolet A: A cabriolet with two doors and room for two passengers.

Cabriolet B: A cabriolet with two doors and room for four or five passengers, fitted with a rear-quarter window for the rear seat.

Cabriolet C: A cabriolet with two doors and room for four or five passengers with no rear quarter window.

Cabriolet D: A cabriolet with four doors and room for four to six passengers.

Cabriolet F: A cabriolet with four doors, built on an extended wheelbase, usually for state or formal use with room for six or more passengers.

The jump in the factory's designations from "D" to "F" obviously skipped "E" and because that didn't seem the German way of doing things, there was speculation another type of open coachwork had been planned but which was never built because of the outbreak of World War II (1939-1945).  That's not impossible (some records were lost during the war) but the archives for the period have revealed nothing which supports the theory and the sometimes repeated assertion the "Cabriolet F" label was an allusion to "Führer" (the car's most infamous customer) is simply wrong because the designation was first used in the 1920s, prior to the Nazis gaining power and creating the Third Reich (1933-1945).  Quite what would have been the configuration of the allegedly “missing Cabriolet E” is purely speculative and those who have written on the subject have concluded it’d likely have been either (1) a four-door body distinguished only from a Cabriolet D by a longer wheelbase or different side-window treatment or (2) the intended differentiation of a Cabriolet F without the rear-quarter window (as some were built but never uniquely designated).

Bombast, in its original sense, could prove fatal.

Bomb-blasted: the Mercedes-Benz 320 Cabriolet B in which SS-Obergruppenführer (General) Reinhard Heydrich (1904–1942; head of the Reich Security Main Office 1939-1942) was being driven on the day of the assassination attempt.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) had in 1938 appointed Baron Konstantin von Neurath (1873–1956; Foreign Minister of Germany 1932-1938) as Reichsprotektor (a sort of proconsul (from the Latin prōconsul, a shortened form of prō consule (one acting on behalf of the consul))) of occupied Bohemia and Moravia (a region of Czechoslovakia).  Hitler did not make the appointment because of any great regard for the baron’s administrative or diplomatic skills but because (1) he wanted the more obsequious Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945) as his cipher in the Foreign Ministry and (2) he thought von Neurath’s reputation in international circles as a “moderate” would mollify the outrage expressed about the brutish and cynical tactics employed by the Nazis in their takeover of the Czech lands.  To an extend the political window dressing worked, not because von Neurath’s delegated rule was benign but because news of much of what was being done was suppressed and international attention had already turned to events elsewhere as concerns grew over Hitler’s next target.

With the outbreak of World War II, von Neurath’s regime became harsher with an increased rate of imprisonment in concentration camps, more executions and less restrained persecution of Czech Jews (the last measure not wholly without support from sections of Czech society).  However, bloody though it was, what the Reichsprotektor did was mild compared with what was done in other conquered territories (notably Poland and later in the Soviet Union when the Nazis turned to genocide as a “final solution”) and, not best pleased, late in 1941 Hitler appointed SS General Reinhard Heydrich as von Neurath’s nominal deputy although Heydrich assumed full executive authority, leaving the Reichsprotektor as a figurehead, the Nazis assuming his veneer of (relative) respectability remained useful.  Hitler knew the murderous Heydrich would not be troubled by the notions of humanity or residual decency that had constrained von Neurath and he wasn’t disappointed in his latest appointment for within days martial law had been imposed on the protectorate with thousands and arrested and hundreds executed.  When Hitler wanted something done, if possible, he’d allocate the task to the SS.

The SS (ᛋᛋ in Armanen runes; Schutzstaffel (literally “protection squadron” but translated variously as “protection squad”, “security section" etc)) was formed (under different names) in 1923 as a Nazi party squad to provide security at public meetings (then often rowdy and violet affairs) and was later re-purposed as a personal bodyguard for Hitler.  The SS name was adopted in 1925 and during the Third Reich the institution evolved into a vast economic, industrial and military apparatus more than a million strong to the point where some historians (and contemporaries) regarded it as a kind of “state within a state”.  The Waffen-SS (armed SS (ie equipped with military-grade weapons)) existed on a small scale as early as 1933 before Hitler’s agreement was secured to create a formation at divisional strength and growth was gradual even after the outbreak of hostilities in 1939 and it was the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 which triggered the Waffen-SS’s expansion into a multi-national armoured force with over 800,000 men under arms.  As well as the SS’s role in the administration of the many concentration and extermination camps, the Waffen-SS was widely implicated in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Konstantin von Neurath.  At the first Nuremberg Trial (1946-1946) he received a 15 year sentence but was released in 1954 because of ill health, dying within two years.  Had Heydrich lived to be tried, he'd have been hanged.

Just as Heydrich understood Hitler’s language, so the Czechs understood his and rapidly the once troublesome protectorate was pacified.  Heydrich was however there not merely to impose and maintain order but also to ensure the agricultural and industrial capacity efficiently was exploited to benefit the German economy and war machine; rapidly his “carrot & stick” approach produced dividends with production rising and resources re-allocated within the Czech economy towards the needs dictated by Berlin.  Heydrich proved remarkably successful in his role, his “cut the head off the snake” (ie identifying and what would now be called “neutralizing” those likely to be troublesome) approach ending acts of sabotage or other resistance while his increases in the allocation of food and consumer goods to the population resulted in a workforce which, it not exactly “happy”, was at least compliant and productive.  Having witnessed the crackdowns and collective punishments that had characterized the early days of his rule, the Czech population had little taste for resistance, knowing retribution would be swift, brutal and widespread, meaning the place soon became peaceful.  Heydrich however regarded his tactics as a temporary measure and planned with the end of the war to engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing to “Germanize” the whole region.

That goal was known to Czech resistance based in London and for reasons both political and military, wished to do something to encourage acts of disobedience, despite knowing the consequences that would be visited upon the population.  The British authorities did nothing to discourage this view and believed resistance in occupied territories was a vital element in their plan to “set Europe ablaze” with ferment against Nazi rule.  Accordingly, a team of London-based Czech assassins was assembled and smuggled back into Prague with the audacious plan to assassinate Heydrich.  Code-named Operation Anthropoid (a word translated variously as (1) a non-human creature with some of the physical characteristics of a human or (2) a creature with the characteristics of an ape), Heydrich made their task easier because, so assured did he think was his pacification of his domain that routinely he was driven to his office in an un-armored, open-top car with no escort or security detail.

The aftermath.   A 320 Cabriolet B reputed to be this car now sits in a museum in Denmark.

On 27 May, 1942, the two Czech operatives waited at a corner where the Mercedes-Benz cabriolet had to slow to negotiate a tight turn and although mechanical failures meant Operation Anthropoid didn’t go to plan, the wounds which finally killed Heydrich were inflicted by a grenade.  The tossed grenade actually missed ending up in the rear compartment where the target was sat and instead exploded outside, just ahead of the right-side rear wheel.  What happened was shrapnel from the device passed through the cushion of the rear seat and entered Heydrich’s torso and it’s believed it took with it some of the horsehair used as the upholstery’s bombast.  The most common theory to account for his death (nine days after the blast) is the horsehair caused a systemic infection, trigging sepsis and putting his body into shock.  For the Czechs, the consequences were severe with the deaths and deportations in the thousands and never again did the Czechoslovak government-in-exile order such an operation.  In his honor, the programme to exterminate Polish Jews in the General Government district of German-occupied Poland was named Aktion Reinhard (Operation Reinhard) and this was the start of what came to be called “the Holocaust”.  The circumstances of the loss of a man he regarded as “irreplaceable” appalled Hitler who found inexplicable the idea his representative would travel around occupied territory unescorted and in an un-armored, open-top car.  Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz was commissioned to build a run of armoured sedans to be allocated to the Nazi party.  This included the last 20 770Ks (W150, 1938-1943) and 37 two-door 540Ks (W29, 1936-1940) built on the already completed chassis and delivered between 1942-1944.

Bluster (pronounced bluhs-ter)

(1) Noisy, swaggering, empty threats or protests; inflated talk (often in the phrase “bluff and bluster”).

(2) Boisterous noise and violence.

(3) Of the wind, noisy; gusty; tumultuous.

(4) To speak or say loudly or boastfully

(5) To act in a bullying way

(6) To force or attempt to force (a person) into doing something by behaving thus

1520-1530: From the Middle English blusteren (aimlessly to wander about), the modern sense perhaps gained from the Middle Low German blustern & blüstern (to blow violently) (which may be compared with the later Low German blustern & blistern).  The obviously related words were blow and blast and it seems likely there was some connection with the East Frisian blüstern (to bluster), the Old Norse blāstr (blowing, hissing) and the Saterland Frisian bloasje (to blow) & bruusje (to bluster).  In English, the use in the context of the weather had emerged by at least the 1540s and the sense of bluster being “a storm of violent wind” (directly from the circa 1400 verb) was in general use by the 1580s.  The meaning “noisy, boisterous, inflated talk” appeared in print in 1704 but may long have been in oral use.  The adjective blustery dates from the 1730s and seems to be used first of persons in the sense of “noisy, swaggering” and may not have been applied to the weather (rough & stormy) for some decades.  Bluster is a noun & verb, blusterer, blusteration & blustrification are nouns, blustering is a noun, verb & adjective, blustered is a verb, blustersome, blusterous, blustery & blustery are adjectives and blusterously & blusteringly are adverbs; the noun plural is blusters.

Wind-blown: Lindsay Lohan at the beach on a blustery day.

Blustering was in use by the 1510s to imply “someone stormy or tempestuous” and by the 1650s it was applied to “boastful, swaggering people”.  In the (possibly co-authored) Pericles, Prince of Tyre (circa 1608), William Shakespeare (1564–1616) uses blusterous: “Now may your life be mild, for a blusterous birth had never babe!” (Act 3, Scene 1) and of course in Coriolanus and Sir John Falstaff he created archetypes of the loud, swaggering blustering character.  Bluster’s synonyms include boast, brag & rant.  There are a remarkable number of phrases meaning much the same thing as “all bluff and bluster” (full of talk but lacking substance) including: “all bark and no bite”, “all foam, no beer”, “all fur coat and no knickers”, “all garnish and no meat”, “all hat and no cattle, “all icing, no cake”, “all lime and salt, no tequila”, “all mouth and no trousers”, “all shot, no powder”, “all show, no go, “all sizzle and no steak and “all talk and no action”.

Bombast and bluster are much associated with politicians although, if anything, those tendencies are now seen less as the trend from at least the mid-twentieth century has been towards simplicity and repetition (the most effective form clearly believed to be the 3WS (three word slogan)).  In political rhetoric however, bombast and bluster did have a long and sometimes ignoble history and among critics the terms often were used interchangeably because, despite the subtle differences in meaning, very often there’d be elements of both in the one speech.  They are different faults: Bombast refers to inflated, grandiose, pompous language. The criticism is that the speaker's words are overly elaborate or impressive-sounding relative to their actual substance; after listening for a while to some of Winston Churchill’s (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) carefully crafted phrases, Aneurin “Nye” Bevan (1897–1960) responded by saying: “The majesty of his words conceals the poverty of his thoughts.”.  Bluster is different in that it refers to loud, aggressive, boastful, or threatening talk, often with the implication there is more noise than action.  Bluster is a label applied to the speaker's swaggering manner rather than their vocabulary or phraseology.  So, bombast is a thing of style & language while bluster is about tone and attitude but there are many instances of speeches contain both bombast (grandiose language) with bluster (aggressive attitude); the preferred collective term is “hot air”.  That of course reflects the different etymology, bombast (originally “padding or stuffing” in its figurative sense meaning “stuffed excessively with words” while bluster (originally of stormy wind conditions) suggesting “noisy or overbearing speech”.  So, in as few words as possible: bombast is verbal inflation; bluster is verbal intimidation.

Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) at the UN, September 2025.

Mr Trump often is described as “bombastic” but that really is a misuse, albeit a common one among those commenting on politics and politicians.  Whether or not one concurs with his views, Mr Trump usually expresses himself in commendably succinct terms which readily can be understood by most, eschewing the use of long, unusual or obscure words.  It’s an example of how the meaning of bombast has shifted but what critics really mean to say is Mr Trump is inclined to bluster and prone to exaggerate; he does not however “pad out” his sentences with decorative phrases or words inserted mere to prove his erudition.  Instead, his language is direct and simple and while someone like the classically educated Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) sometimes couldn’t resist delighting at least some in his audience with the odd linguistic flourish, Mr Trump likes simple, punchy words and some fragments from his address to the UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) in September 2025 illustrate his approach: “One year ago, our country was in deep trouble.  But today, just eight months into my administration, we're the hottest country anywhere in the world, and there is no other country even close.”; “This is the greatest administration in US history.  We have strongest borders, military and relationships around the world.”; “What is the purpose of the United Nations?  It has such tremendous, tremendous potential.  But it's not even coming close to living up to that potential.  For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly-worded letter and then never follow that letter up.  It's empty words and empty words don't solve war. The only thing that solves war and wars is action.”; “Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements.”; “Europe has to step it up.  They can't be doing what they're doing.  They're buying oil and gas from Russia while they're fighting Russia.  It's embarrassing to them.”; “Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should, too often it's actually creating new problems for us to solve.  The best example is the No. 1 political issue of our time, the crisis of uncontrolled migration. It's uncontrolled. Your countries are being ruined.  Your countries are going to hell.”; “Climate change is the greatest con job ever.  If you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.”  There are grounds on which Mr Trump can be criticized but he uses plain, simple words and his meaning is always clear and that approach may be compared with that of Kamala Harris (b 1964; VPOTUS 2021-2025), his opponent in the 2024 election and it wasn't only Fox News that liked to describe her speech as a “word salad”.  In fairness, what Ms Harris did wouldn’t have met the clinical threshold of what in psychiatry used to be called schizophasia (a severe form of disorganized speech consisting of a confused, unintelligible mixture of seemingly random, unconnected words and phrases; while the words themselves may be grammatically correct, they lack logical or semantic meaning, making the speech impossible for a listener to understand) but it could be a challenge to gain meaning from her words.  At least Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2009-2017 and POTUS 2021-2025) had an excuse for his mumbling and incoherence; he was senile.

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.