Corinthian

Corinthian (kuh-rin-thee-uhn)

(1) Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Corinth, the ancient Greek city-state.

(2) An native, inhabitant or resident of Corinth, and its suburbs.

(3) Something with origins in Corinthia.

(4) One of the five styles of classical architecture in Ancient Greece (the others being Doric, Composite, Tuscan & Ionic).

(5) Something ornate and elaborate; something luxurious or extravagantly trimmed

(6) In literacy criticism, an ornate style (an alternative to describing such writing as "rococo" or "baroque" but distinct from "purple").

(7) Someone given to living luxuriously; dissolute.

(8) A worldly, fashionable person, accepted in society although thought by some to be raffish.

(9) An amateur sportsman; an accomplished amateur athlete (archaic).

(10) A sailboat owner who helms his or her own boat in competitive racing.

(11) A phony descriptor of a type of leather used by Chrysler Corporation in the US during the 1970s.

1350–1400: From the Middle English Corinthi(es) (the men of Corinth) from the Latin Corinthiī from the Greek Korínthioi.  The sense “of or pertaining to Corinth" (the ancient Greek city-state) is from the 1590s and gradually, it replaced the mid-fifteenth adjective Corynthoise.  The sense as a classification in what was becoming a formalised architectural order is from the 1650s.  The noun meaning literally "inhabitant of Corinth" dates from the 1520s; Corinthies was attested from the late fourteenth century.  During Antiquity, other Greek cities regarded the inhabitants of Corinth as a bit gauche, noting their preference for ornate, almost ostentatious architecture and their notorious fondness for luxury and licentiousness.  There was intellectual snobbery among the Athenians too, the Corinthians thought too interested in commerce and profit and not sufficiently devoted to thought and learning.  Corinthian the noun and adjective thus, in various slang or colloquial senses in English, came to be associated with extravagance, sin and conspicuous consumption, especially in the decades after the 1820s.  Corinthian is a noun & adjective, Corinthianism is a noun and Corinthianize, Corinthianizing & Corinthianized are verbs; the noun plural is Corinthians.

The dapper Franz von Papen while serving as Germany's ambassador to Turkey (1939-1944).

In a nod to Paul's writings in the New Testament, the verb Corinthianize came to mean “to be licentious or sexually immoral” while the companion noun Corinthianism described licentious or sexually immoral behaviour.  Softened a little, by the eighteenth century, “a Corinthian” could be used also of a chap a bit raffish but verging on socially respectable and welcomed in at least some polite circles.  Presumably by association, the word came to be used also of sporting events (originally horse racing and yachting) which were restricted to “gentleman amateurs”.  Thus the old rogue Franz von Papen (1879-1969; Chancellor of Germany 1932 & vice chancellor 1933-1934), an accomplished amateur jockey, could have been called “a Corinthian” and the sly fox demonstrated his defensive skills when he gained one of three acquittals handed down the IMT (International Military Tribunal) during the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946).  Although unrelated to the verdict, the journalists accredited to the trial voted him “best-dressed defendant”.

A tattoo Lindsay Lohan tattoo (inked in 2013), inspired by 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.

In scripture, the implications of that association were later reflected in the New Testament, most memorably in Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 1).  The second letter is thought to have been written circa 56 AD, shortly after he penned the first and was addressed to the Christian community in city of Corinth, a major trading centre which, although by then noted for its rich artistic and philosophic traditions, was a place also of vice and depravity.  It was this last aspect that compelled Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church and in it he sharply rebuked them for permitting immoral practices in the community.  In response, the Corinthians had cracked-down on some of the worst excesses and Paul wrote his second letter to congratulate them on their reforms and even commended forgiving sinners and welcoming them back to the flock.  Harsh though his words could be, Paul’s preference is always restoration, not punishment.  The letter then discusses some sometimes neglected characteristics of the Christian church such as generosity to others and devotes some time to defending himself against attacks on his ministry, reminding the Corinthians both of his own poverty and the harsh reality of what it meant to be a minister of Christ in the Roman empire: beatings, imprisonment, hunger, and the constant threat of death.  In the King James Version (KJV; 1611) 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 read:

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Most quoted now are modern translations which are more accessible such as the International Bible Society's (now Biblica) New International Version (NIV; 1978):

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

In Paul’s prescriptive way, verses 4-7 details the workings of love in three steps.  There are firstly the positive aspects of love being patient and kind but then elaborated are the eight negatives love must never be: not jealous, boastful, arrogant, rude, irritable or resentful, nor does it insist upon its own way or gloat at wrong.  Finally, Paul notes the five positive ways in which love reacts, joining in rejoicing at truth, supports, believes, hopes and endures all things.  Verse 8 returns to the theme of superiority of love but explicates the contrast between love and spiritual gifts as the contrast between permanence and transience; spiritual gifts which are incomplete will pass when wholeness comes whereas love will not.  The contrast is thus between the perfect and imperfect.

United States Supreme Court Building (1935), looking towards the West Pediment.

The Corinthian style of architecture was one of the five classical orders created in Ancient Greece.  Similar in many ways to the Ionic, the points of difference were (1) the unusually slender proportions, (2) the deep capital with its round bell, decorated with acanthus leaves and a square abacus with concave sides.  The Corinthian capital typically has two distinct rows of acanthus leaves above which appear eight fluted sheaths, from each of which spring two scrolls (helices), one of which curls beneath a corner of the abacus as half of a volute while the other curls beneath the centre of the abacus.  The marble pillars used on the east and west pediments of the United States Supreme Court Building, constructed between 1932-1935, are a fine example of the Corinthian style.

United States Supreme Court Building, East Pediment.

Much less known than the more frequently photographed West Pediment, the East Pediment of the Supreme Court Building is at the rear of the structure and is much admired by architects because of the elegance of the thirteen symmetrically balanced allegorical figures in the sculptural group designed by Hermon A MacNeil (1866–1947).  The ornate details in the two rows of acanthus leaves are the defining characteristic of the Corinthian pillar.

Manuel Esteve Guerrero (1905-1976) in Corinthian helmet, 1938.  The casual pose, cigarette in hand, a cloak (resembling a Greek chlamys) slung over one shoulder, indicates the image was for “non-professional” use.

Manuel Esteve Guerrero had begun his academic studies at the University of Granada studying law but such was his interest in archaeology he switched disciplines, taking a degree in philosophy and literature, specializing in art history.  After working for some years as a teacher at the Padre Luis Coloma Institute, he was in 1931 appointed director of the Jerez Municipal Library (1873) when he remained until retirement in 1975, his most controversial duty in the role the period in the 1930s & 1940s when he was vested with responsibility for enforcing the strict censorship policies imposed by the newly established fascist regime Generalissimo Francisco Franco (1892-1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975).  That would have been no small task because, under the caudillo, the index of proscribed texts was long.  As librarian, he was also, ex officio, municipal archaeologist and in 1938 his team made the remarkable discovery of a well-preserved Corinthian helmet, unearthed some 20 kilometres (12 miles) from the mouth of the Guadalete River, near the now-decommissioned irrigation dam known as La Corta, close to El Portal in the municipality of Jerez.  The significance of the artefact (widely publicized on both sides of the Atlantic as “Discovery of a Greek Helmet in the Guadalete”) was the confirmation of the long-suspected Greek presence in Andalusia during the seventh & sixth centuries BC.

Publicity shot for Chrysler Corporation's 1974 Imperial LeBaron Four-Door Hardtop, trimmed in chestnut tufted leather.

The hide in the 1974 Imperials wasn't described as “rich Corinthian leather” which was (mostly) exclusive to the Cordoba (1975-1983) until late 1975 when not only did the Imperial's brochures mention "genuine Corinthian leather (available at extra cost)" but for the first time since 1954 the range was referred to as the "Chrysler Imperial", a harbinger the brand was about to be retired.  Imperial's advertising copy noted of the brochure photograph above: “...while the passenger restraint system with starter interlock is not shown, it is standard on all Imperials.”; the marketing types didn't like seat-belts messing up their photos.  While all of the big three (GM, Ford & Chrysler) had tufted interiors in some lines, it was Chrysler which displayed the most commitment to the motif.  Although Chrysler mostly used the term “rich Corinthian leather” in the sales material for the Cordoba, after it appear in the brochures for the last (for a while) Imperial, it became common to refer thus to the leather in any of the corporation's cars of the era.  Some did with a sense of irony while some innocent souls actually believed it.  Manufacturers do like words which might evoke a "certain something" and in the 1970s Rolls-Royce advertised their timber veneer as "Circassian walnut cut from century-old trees" which was a correct term for Juglans regia (a species of walnut) but the stuff was more typically called "English walnut" or "common walnut".  Neither would have been though suitable and for Rolls-Royce to use "common" about any of their products would have been unthinkable.

1975 Imperial LeBaron Four Door Hardtop.

"Rich Corinthian leather" was a term coined by the Bozell advertising agency in 1975 to describe the tufted upholstery available as an alternative to the standard velour in the Chrysler Cordoba, the hides in corporation's products trimmed with the same leather produced by the Radel Leather Manufacturing Company of New Jersey described only as "leather" (except for the reference in certain advertising for the 1975 Imperial, then in its last days).  The "Corinthian" tag was chosen because something special was needed for the Cordoba, the first "small" (in the context of the company's mid 1970s line-up) Chrysler ever offered in the US and the name was thought successfully to convey the association with something rare, of high quality, luxurious and, doubtlessly, "European".  Religiosity in the US somewhat more entrenched than elsewhere in the West, it’s likely many were well-acquainted with the books of the New Testament book but for those less pious, Corinthian was one of those words which somehow carried the desired connotations, even among those with no idea of the links.  Perhaps it was because it sounded European that some assumed the leather came from Spain, Italy or some such place where many words end in vowels.  Richard Nixon (1913-1994; POTUS 1969-1974) noted that linguistic phenomenon when he discussed the circumstances in which Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; POTUS 1953-1961) was compelled to dismiss his chief of staff (Sherman Adams (1899-1986)), who had accepted as a gift, inter alia, a vicuña coat.  Nixon observed that while there was no doubt most Americans had no idea whether vicuña was animal, vegetable or mineral, just the perceived mystique was enough to convince them it was something expensive and therefore corrupting.

1976 Chrysler Cordoba advertisement.  When released as a 1975 model, Chrysler heralded the Cordoba as "the new small Chrysler".  The word "small" is relative, the significance being the departure from the corporation's long-standing policy of the Chrysler brand not appearing on anything except "full-sized cars" but economic reality was biting the 1970s and the big cars were in their last days.  Then (as now), to most of the rest of the world, the Cordoba seemed pretty big and at the time the appeal in the US was real, even those not greatly concerned about the increase in the price of gas (petrol) fretting about the prospect of shortages. 

Whether the association with the Cordoba's “rich Corinthian leather” generated many sales in Chrysler's other divisions (Plymouth, Dodge & Imperial) isn’t known but the the phrase certainly gained a remarkable traction amid the cacophony of exaggeration and puffery which sustains modern capitalism.  The Cordoba was introduced in 1975 as a "down-sized" model for consumers suddenly interested in fuel economy in the post oil-crisis world and the manufacturers knew those who felt compelled to buy smaller cars didn’t necessarily want them to be any less luxurious and that became the theme for the promotional campaign, led this time on television and fronted by a celebrity spokesperson, the actor Ricardo Montalbán (1920-2009).  Born in Mexico of Spanish descent, Montalbán looked distinguished and spoke in cultivated English with just enough of a Spanish accent to make plausible the link of “Corinthian leather” with cattle on the plains of Spain.  Mr Montalbán only ever spoke of "Corinthian leather" or "rich Corinthian leather" but in the print advertising "Corinthian leather" & "fine Corinthian leather" (sometimes with a plural "leathers" also appeared.  Despite that, the industry myth remains his TV advertisements all included "fine Corinthian leather".  

In the advertising, Mr Montalbán spoke of “the thickly-cushioned luxury of seats, available even in rich Corinthian leather” and although sometimes he’d call it “soft” instead, all people seemed to remember was the leather was Corinthian.  So successful was the campaign that Chrysler decided to make the Corinthian label exclusive to the Cordoba and when Mr Montalbán was later assigned to advertise other Chryslers, in the same mellifluous tone, he commended only the “rich leather".  Later, when interviewed on late night television, cheerfully he admitted that the term meant nothing but that wasn't quite true: it meant whatever people who heard it wanted it to mean and that made it a perfect word for advertising.  The agency definitely were proud of their appropriation and when the 1977 Cordoba's steering wheel gained a leather covering, this was celebrated in the brochure with: "...hand-stitched Corinthian leather-covered rim-tilt steering wheel.  Marvelous."

1970 Ford Mustang Boss 429 (left) in Grabber Blue (J) with “comfortweave” interior in Corinthian White (EW) interior and 1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429 (right) in Wimbledon White (M) with black interior (all 1969 Boss 429s were trimmed in black (DAA)).

Before Chrysler decided “Corinthian leather” was a thing, Ford had conjured up “Corinthian white”, using the description for both a paint code and the vinyl used for interior trim.  Ford’s Corinthian White was very close to their long used “Wimbledon White”, the latter slightly less stark and closer to an “eggshell white” although far from a “cream”.  The difference is apparent only if two vehicles are parked side-by-side and restoration houses say Corinthian White can be re-created by paint suppliers which achieve the effect by adding a small amount of a certain shade of blue to the mix.

The Rolls-Royce Camargue

Although it’s never been confirmed by the factory, one source claims that a consequence of Chrysler's agency in 1974 coming up with “rich Corinthian leather” was that Rolls-Royce was forced to abandon the idea of calling their new model the Corinthian, adopting instead Camargue, (a region on the Mediterranean coast in the south of France).  For Rolls-Royce, Camargue was probably a better choice, tying in with their existing Corniche two-door saloon (which many might have called a coupé) and convertible (by the 1970s factory (mostly) had ceased to use the historic terms FHC (Fixed-Head coupé) and DHC (Drop-Head Coupé (DHC) although there was in 2007 a nostalgic, one-off revival for the Phantom Drophead Coupé).  The French word corniche has certain technical meanings in geology and architecture but Roll-Royce used it in the sense of “a coastal road, especially one cut into the face of a cliff”, specifically using the imagery of the Grande Corniche on the French Riviera, just north of the principality of Monaco.  The factory had first used the Corniche name in 1939 for a prototype light-weight, high-performance car which could match the pace of the big, supercharged, straight-eight Mercedes-Benz able to explore Germany’s newly built autobahns at sustained high speeds never before possible.  The car was damaged during testing in France and was abandoned there after the outbreak of hostilities, only to be destroyed in a bombing raid although whether the Luftwaffe (the German air force) or the RAF (the UK's Royal Air Force) was responsible isn’t known.

1968 Bentley T1 Coupé Speciale by Pininfarina (chassis CBH4033).  After this, it wasn't as if the factory wasn't aware of how Italians thought a Rolls-Royce or Bentley coupé should look and the Speciale should have been a warning heeded although, to be fair, it was more accomplished than the Camargue.  Modernists, the Italians replaced the Circassian walnut veneer with black leather.

So whether it was a minor ripple of chaos theory or the factory always intended to continue allusions to continental geography, in 1975 the Camargue was released with few technical innovations of interest other than the automatic, split-level climate control system which was an industry first and said alone to cost about as much to produce as a middle-class buyer might spend on a whole vehicle.  Other footnotes included it being the first Rolls-Royce designed and produced (except for the odd carry-over component) using metric measurements and the first with the famous grill inclined at (for mid-century Rolls-Royce), a rakish 7^o rather than the perfectly vertical aspect always before used.   Now noticeably lower and wider, the grill still was built using a variant of the technique the architects of Antiquity employed to create the optical illusion of the columns appearing, to the naked eye, to be of identical dimensions although it wasn't exactly the old math of entasis which made a viewer perceive a slightly curved Corinthian pillar as perfectly perpendicular.

The Pantheon Temple, Rome (left) and 1985 Rolls-Royce Camargue (right).

The Pantheon's Latin inscription M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT really isn't all that poetic and reads like a note the draftsman might have put on the blueprint (had there then been blueprints): it translates as "Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, made [this building] when consul for the third time", crediting the Roman statesman & general, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (circa 63 BC–12 BC) who in 27 BC commissioned the construction during his third consulship.  The Pantheon that stands today was rebuilt by Emperor Hadrian (Publius Aelius Hadrianus, 76–138; Roman emperor 117-138) circa 126 AD after the original structure suffered severe damage in a blaze. Hadrian choosing to retain Agrippa's inscription as a tribute (not all the emperors were narcissists).  Since AD 609, the Pantheon has been a Roman-Catholic church and is known as the Basilica Santa Maria ad Martyres (Basilica of St. Mary and the Martyrs).

Despite the popular perception, what Rolls-Royce describes as their "Pantheon grill" doesn't feature a classic entasis (slight swelling in the middle of a column to counteract the illusion of concavity) but the design does incorporate a similar visual effect: There is a (very) slight curvature which in the factory's vernacular is known as the "waftline".  Although there are, understandably, many references to the grill being the "Parthenon grill" (and there is a well-reviewed Greek restaurant in Murfreesboro, Tennessee called the Parthenon Grille), the factory has never used the term and say the designed was inspired by "Rome’s imposing Pantheon temple", a structure "...purposefully built with wider middle sections so the human eye perceives each long pillar to be completely straight."  What the architects of Antiquity did was use use an optical illusion as a "corrective" to achieve perfect visual symmetry and the Rolls-Royce engineers replicated the approach, the grill's columns wider towards the edges.  The waftline is used elsewhere, notably the gentle, upswept sweep along the sill-line which Rolls-Royce says "creates a powerful, poised stance and makes the car appear to be moving when stationary...", creating the impression of "calm perfect motion and accelerating quickly without fuss".  They clearly like the word "waft" because they coined the neologism "waftability" which is said to be "the essence of the brand".

1973 Rolls-Royce Corniche Saloon (left) and 1975 Rolls-Royce Camargue (right).

In 1975 however, it wasn't the almost imperceptible rake of the grill or the adoption of metric measurements which attracted most comment when the Camargue made its debut.  What was most discussed was (1) it being the world’s most expensive production car and (2) the appearance.  At that end of the market, the 30%-odd cost premium against the mechanically similar Corniche wasn’t going to produce the same effects in the elasticity of demand as would be noted lower in automotive pecking order, indeed, the Veblen effect can operate to make the more expensive product more desirable.  The consensus was the Corniche, although by then a decade-old shape, was better balanced and more elegant so for success to ensue, Rolls-Royce really were counting on Veblen to exert its pull.

Lancia Florida II (1957, left), Fiat 130 Coupé (1971, centre) & Rolls-Royce Camargue (1975, right).  The origin of the shape is most discernible in Pininfarina’s Lancia Florida, a different approach to the big coupé than would be taken in the 1950s by the Americans.  The later Fiat 130 coupé was one of those aesthetic triumphs which proved a commercial failure while the Camargue is thought a failure on all grounds although, for those who prize some degree of exclusivity, it remains a genuine rarity.  As it was, between 1975-1986, only 531 Camargues were sold (including a one-off Bentley version which was a "special order") while the Corniche lasted from 1971 until 1995, 6,823 leaving the factory including 561 Bentleys, the latter now much sought.  In a sense, the Camargue was ahead of its time because Rolls-Royce in the twenty-first century began offering some quite ugly cars and they have sold well, the Veblen effect working well.  

Unfortunately, the Camargue, while it did what it did no worse than a Corniche saloon, while doing it, it looked ungainly.  Styled by the revered Italian studio Pinninfarina, the look was derided as dated, derivative and clumsy and it’s this which has usually been thought to account for production barely topping 500 over the decade-odd it remained available.  In the years since, some tried to improve things and a number have been made into convertibles, an expensive exercise which actually made things worse, the roof-line one of the few pleasing aspects.  One buyer though was sufficiently impressed to commission a one-off Bentley version, one of the few instances of a model which genuinely can be claimed to be unique. The same designer at Carrozzeria Pininfarina who signed off on the Camargue was also responsible for the earlier Fiat 130 coupé, something in the same vein but on a smaller scale and the Fiat is a rectilinear masterpiece.

Platform by Mercedes-Benz, coachwork by Pininfarina.  1956 300 SC (left), 1963 230 SL (centre) & 1969 300 SEL 6.3 (right).

Whether the knife-edged severity of the 130 coupé could successfully have been up-scaled to the dimensions Rolls-Royce required is debatable but Pininfarina had lying around a styling exercise done years earlier, based on a Mercedes-Benz 300 SEL 6.3 and it was this which seems to have inspired the Camargue.  The Italian studio’s interest in Mercedes-Benz had in preceding decades produced some admired designs although the occasional plans for limited production runs were never realized.  In 1955, a coupé based on the 300b saloon had been shown, followed a year later by a 300 SC which most thought better executed, and certainly more contemporary, than the Germans' own effort.  The best though was probably the 1963 230 SL which lost both the distinctive pagoda roof and some of leanness for which the delicate lines are most remembered but it was thought a successful interpretation.  Mercedes-Benz should of course have produced a two-door 300 SE 6.3 because the W111/W112 two door body (1961-1971) was their finest achievement but the planet lost nothing by Pininfarina's take on the idea being rightly ignored.  In retrospect Rolls-Royce probably wished they too had "failed to proceed" and when the time came to do another big coupé, the job was done in-house, the Bentley Continental (1991-2003) an outstanding design and neither Rolls-Royce nor Bentley have since matched the timeless lines.

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.