Trump and Vance's belligerent treatment of Ukraine's Zelensky

PEACE through STRENGTH

Weakness Isolation

The meeting between Zelensky and Trump/Vance was despicable, unpresidential, and embarrassing but the worst of it is what it symbolizes. Without changing course, that meeting symbolizes the end of the era of democracy, the end of US exceptionalism, and the end of US leadership in the world. To be clear - Trump can be reluctant to spend the money on Ukraine, but his display of disrespect, dismissal, and transactional politics toward Zelensky sends a message to the world that the US can’t be trusted, and that our President has no principles other than his own ego. It makes the United States far less safe in the world. Like the United States' vote in the UN last week, this aligns us with Russia and North Korea and puts us in conflict with all of the allies that supported us throughout WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, the Cold War, Kuwait, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. This is not peace through strength. Our country will be immeasurably less safe because we will not have the trust or support of our former allies. This is weakness through isolation.

The Full Meeting Setup

Much of the reporting of the 49 minute meeting is being picked through and the parsing is distorting the full picture. An examination of the meeting as a whole paints a more accurate and disturbing picture. Upon his arrival, Trump greeted Zelensky and remarked about the outfit he was wearing. Presidents are very aware of soundbites and media, especially Trump. With the cameras rolling, Trump did NOT say, "Glad you are here," "Looking forward to getting a deal done," or even a simple "Welcome." Instead, the first thing Trump said to Zelensky was, "You're all dressed up." And then Trump turned to the media and repeated that line to emphasize and be sure that he had been heard, "He's all dressed up today!"  As we know now, that was an important point of emphasis for what would occur later.

The greeting that Trump used to set up Zelensky is one part of the day that was not widely covered in the analysis of the meeting.  The other important part was the minutes before Vance and Trump turned the meeting into a a spectacle. Here are the last 30 minutes of the meeting where the important analysis should begin.

Press-ing Problem

A second part of the background not being covered is the fact that the White House invited the Press into the Oval Office to film the meeting and ask questions without a signed deal. This is a red flag from the beginning. The White House should not have arranged the meeting as a press conference if there was not a deal in place.

If having press there at all was problematic, then who the White House allowed in was arguably an ambush. In the clip they take a question from Brian Glenn, the boyfriend of Marjorie Taylor Greene. Glenn is considered "press" from Real America's Voice, which is described as,

a right-wing to far-right^[1][2][3] streaming, cable and satellite television channel founded in 2020 and owned by Robert J. Sigg.^[4][5] The network and online presences have promoted right-wing and far-right conspiracy theories, including COVID-19 misinformation, 2020 election conspiracies, and QAnon.^[6][7] 

Note that Glenn was allowed access to this exclusive press pool despite the questionable organization he works for, but the long time professional news organizations of Associated Press and Reuters were NOT allowed in.  And Glenn's question shows his lack of professionalism and either ignorance or worse, his complicity in the ambush.  Glenn asks Zelensky, "Why don't you wear a suit? Do you own a suit?"

Right as that happens, you can hear loud, obvious laughter which shows the lack of seriousness of the question, and at the 24 sec mark, you can see Trump smirk about it too. And then at the 4:30 mark you can see Trump make light of the exchange and even wink at Glenn (4:54)!  For the record, I do not think that this is a serious question and it does not deserve any answer.  However, Zelensky is leading his country through an invasion by Russia in which Russia has not only killed a hundred thousand Ukrainians but also committed war crimes (Amnesty International, United Nations 2022, Human Rights Watch, United Nations 2023, Foreign Policy).  This man has far greater concerns than his outfit.  Not only that, but history is on Zelensky's side.  Here is Winston Churchill visiting the White House during World War II dressed similarly to Zelensky to show his brotherhood with the soldiers fighting the war.

And if that were not enough, just last week Elon Musk was in the Oval Office wearing a baseball cap and a T-shirt with a joke on it.

From Russia Without Love

Next, Zelensky spends several minutes explaining that Russia has consistently (20+ times) violated agreements so there needs to be a security guarantee in case Russia violates the agreement that he is there to discuss. 

Then at 19:49 a reporter from Polish press explains that many people in Poland are  worried about Russia's aggression too but they are also troubled about the way that the United States has seemed to abandon it's role as a force for Democracy in the world because the Trump administration seems to be changing the diplomacy that has defined US policy toward Europe for the last 100 years.

Trump responds to the Polish reporter that he wants to have a relationship with both Putin and Zelensky "in order to make a deal." (Despite this claim, not long after this Trump ends the meeting and kicks Zelensky out of the White House showing very little commitment to making a deal).  Then JD Vance interjects to try to help Trump out by saying that he wants to give diplomacy a try.  

Zelensky politely says, "Can I ask you?" (22:01), and Zelensky goes on to reiterate what he had already explained earlier - that he signed bilateral agreements with Russia already and Russia violated them and continued killing Ukrainians. And so, Zelensky politely asks, "What kind of diplomacy are you talking about? What do you mean?" It was earnest, calm, polite and respectful.  This is the clip that is being ignored.  In fact all of the above is relevant but is not being televised or shared.

Instead, what is most often being shown is what happens next.  In response to Zelensky's question, JD Vance, at 23:48, turns his response to the earnest respectful question into an attack on Zelensky. Vance says, "I think it is disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media."

But, Trump allowed the media to be there.

Then, Vance accuses Zelensky of "attacking the administration" that is trying to help them.  

Zelensky never "attacked the administration."  He only explained what Russia has done and asked a polite question about what diplomacy would work without guaranteeing security. 

Then when Zelensky says that war in Ukraine will be felt across the Atlantic in the US, Trump seizes on Vance's attack and angrily says, "Don't tell us what we're going to feel" and Trump goes on to rant and berate Zelensky.

This was a belligerent attack because Zelensky was speaking calmly, and did not ask for the media to be there, and most of all was speaking the truth. As reported more than a year ago in The Hill, "History shows that no ceasefire or treaty with Russia can be trusted."  And as explained by the GIS, the war in Ukraine really does matter to the US. Besides disrupting enormous trade in Europe and setting a precedent for China to invade Taiwan,  

A cursory look at history shows that when there is conflict in Europe, the U.S. often gets drawn in, no matter how isolationist the sentiment in America at the time. From World War I to the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, the U.S. frequently ends up fighting Europe’s battles, whether it likes it or not.

Then Trump repeats the idea that Zelensky is being disrespectful. And Vance jumps back into the fray saying, "Have you said thank you once?"

Zelensky says yes and as numerous news outlets (CNN, Economic Times, Sky News) have explained, he has thanked the United States at least 33 times.  But Vance clarifies, "No, in this entire meeting have you said thank you once?"

Why would Zelensky thank the US in this meeting for something that hasn't even been discussed or agreed upon? Instead, as is often the case, this was another Trump administration projection; Trump and Vance were the ones who were litigating Zelensky in front of the media.  Trump and Vance invited the media to attend. Trump and Vance turned the conversation disrespectful.  They then abruptly ended the press conference and a short while later dismissed Zelensky from the White House.

Fallout

Regardless of Trump and Vance's intentions, the fallout of the meeting is clear.  Thomas Friedman explains in NYT's This Never Happened Before that, 

It is hard to express what a break this is in American foreign policy. We stood on the side of liberty and those fighting for it around the world. There are times the isolationist forces in our population have held us back and had to be persuaded. There have been times when — in support of the larger cause of liberty — against dangerous foes like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, we had to align ourselves temporarily with dictators.
But I can’t think of a single time when an American president declared that the democratically elected leader of a country preserving liberty was a “dictator” who started the war with his neighbor — when it was the vicious neighboring dictator who actually started the war....This is a total perversion of U.S. foreign policy practiced by every president since World War I. My fellow Americans, we are in completely uncharted waters, led by a president, who — well, I cannot believe he is a Russian agent, but he sure plays one on TV.

Friedman is not the only one to voice concerns.  Headlines around the world show how much of a seismic shift this was and how much it concerns everyone except those watching Fox News or Russian State TV (if there's a difference).  Here is reaction from, dare I say, [gulp] our former allies around the world:

And here are headlines from papers in Europe:

In the private sector, Norway's petroleum giant Haltbakk Bunkers has declared it will no longer help the US Navy.

Historical Perspective

2019

While the American media has largely ignored it, The Guardian reminded us (before the meeting) that just six years ago Trump was impeached for extorting Zelensky by demanding Zelensky do Trump "a favor" and open a phony investigation into Hunter Biden in order to obtain aid that was already appropriated by Congress.   

1990s

It should be noted that one of the reasons that Ukraine is in a weaker place to defend itself is because of the United States.  After the fall of the USSR, Ukraine briefly had the 3rd largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.  However, as NPR explains, the US and the UK (and Russia by the way), convinced Ukraine to give up the weapons with the understanding that they would provide security for Ukraine.

1930s

Dr. Seuss warned about the dangers of turning a blind eye to European aggressions - like today, for the sake of "America First,"

CNN's Inside the 139 Minutes that Upended the US-Ukraine Alliance

The National Posts's Full transcript: What was said in heated Trump, Zelenskyy and Vance argument in the Oval Office

2.07mwf Family as Agent of Socialization

 As students enter, please review this NY Magazine piece about Carolyn Dweck's book, Mindset.

Today's Lesson:

What are the ways that family influences individuals? 

What are the ways that family is changing in the U.S.?

How does this research compare to your family?

Family, The Most Influential Agent of Socialization: Family Nurture shapes our Nature

Because family shapes our self-concept first, before we are even conscious of it, that nurture affects our brain growth. That nurture literally makes our brain (nature) grown.  So, family is the most important agent of socialization.  Human brain development happens most rapidly and greatly in the first few years after birth.  This UNICEF website (2016) explains what experts have concluded about brain development.  Dr. Suzana Herculano-Houzel explains the latest conclusions in this 5 min video.  The point is that much growth and development happens in the earliest years of human life so our first caregivers have an enormous impact on who we become.

Longitudinal research from Yabiku, Axinn and Thorton (1999) American Journal of Sociology) explains that the way that families are structured/integrated with one another when a child is young, affects their self-esteem when they are adults. This influence occurs even if we are not aware of it or we do not intend for it. That type of influence is called latent influence.  

Besides latent messages, sociologists also study direct lessons, manifest lessons, that are consciously taught.  An anecdotal example from my own life is about my dad smoking.

Manifest - "Don't smoke."

Latent - Stand this way.

And another example is when I was in college and considering what jobs to do afterwards.  Besides teaching, I considered both the Chicago Police and FBI - both jobs that my parents did.  But they never influenced me to do those jobs in a manifest lesson, instead it was more latent - I heard them talk about those jobs and it swayed me to consider them.   

Google Form for today's lesson.

Answer individually  
1.  What are some ways that you are similar to your family? Is this latent or manifest?  Why?

How is Dweck's research an example of family's influence on "self"?

Carol Dweck explains how parents, and eventually schools, both work to create a fixed mindset that actually prevents learning.  See the first chapter of her book here.

This Atlantic article the latest update to Dweck's research which shows that praise cannot be empty.  It must be directed in specific nuanced ways to promote growth.

This NPR review of the book includes an excerpt and an interview.

This NY Magazine article explains how to apply Dweck's research to parenting and talking to kids.

Brain Pickings review of Dweck's Research provides a thorough explanation and a few quotes from the book.

Dweck explains her work on this TED Talk

And she explains how we can teach a growth mindset in this talk from Stanford U.

Farnam Street blog explains the two mindsets.

Read more about Dweck’s book at this post and also see me tell a story about how her book affected my life.

Cross-Cultural Example of Family and Production of Culture and the Self
Life Lessons from Chinese Culture from NPR shows how families influence kids to accept aspects of their culture. What are the hidden messages in the storybooks we read to our kids? That's a question that may occur to parents as their children dive into the new books that arrived over the holidays.
And it's a question that inspired a team of researchers to set up a study. Specifically, they wondered how the lessons varied from storybooks of one country to another.

 

2.  Explain how you have been shaped by parents to have either a "growth mindset" or a "fixed mindset"?  

Family Environment and Self-Esteem

From Krauss, S., Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2020). Family environment and self-esteem development: A longitudinal study from age 10 to 16. Journal of personality and social psychology, 119(2), 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000263

This research supports the idea that family nurture such as warmth, monitoring, and security all affect children's "self" and their self-esteem.  

The Changing Structure of Family

Kraus and Robin's research above punctuates what Dweck found: Contingent praise and and attributional feedback can have a positive affect while noncontingent praise can hurt a child's self esteem.

The Changing Nature of Family

3.  If I told you that I live with my family, who would you assume I mean?

4.  What are some other ways to define family different than above?

My family and I dressed up as the family from Despicable Me one Halloween.  This was one of my favorite costumes but it also is an interesting example of the changing family in the U.S.  Most often, when Americans think of "family" they think of the nuclear family - two heterosexual partners, married and their children.  Although this is an ideal in many Americans' minds, sociologists question whether or not it was ever a reality.  Most family researchers will trace this back to the post-WWII era when these types of families seemed to peak.  However, the romanticized notion may be from media that created an ideal image of this family even if the reality was much different then and certainly is now.

One sociologist who researched the American family extensively using historical methods is Stephanie Coontz who writes,

Leave It to Beaver was not a documentary, a man’s home has never been his castle, the ‘male breadwinner marriage’ is the least traditional family in history, and rape and sexual assault were far higher in the 1970s than they are today. In The Way We Never Were, acclaimed historian Stephanie Coontz provides a myth-shattering examination of two centuries of the American family, sweeping away misconceptions about the past that cloud current debates about domestic life. The 1950s do not present a workable model of how to conduct our personal lives today, Coontz argues, and neither does any other era from our cultural past. This revised edition includes a new introduction and epilogue, looking at what has and has not changed since the original publication in 1992, and exploring how the clash between growing gender equality and rising economic inequality is reshaping family life, marriage, and male-female relationships in our modern era.

Here is a review of Coontz's book from the New Republic.

Here is a review of her work on Goodreads.

Family Structure in the U.S. is Changing

From the PEW Research Center, Trends Shaping the US (2017):

Americans’ lives at home are changing. Following a decades-long trend, just half of U.S. adults were married in 2015, down from 70% in 1950. As marriage has declined, the number in cohabiting relationships (living with an unmarried partner) rose 29% between 2007 and 2016, from 14 million to 18 million. The increase was especially large among those ages 50 and older: 75% in the same period. The “gray divorce” rate – divorces among those 50 and older – roughly doubled between 1990 and 2015.
Also, a record number of Americans (nearly 61 million in 2014) were living in multigenerational households, that is, households that include two or more adult generations or grandparents and grandchildren. Growing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. helps explain some of the rise in multigenerational living. The Asian and Hispanic populations overall are growing more rapidly than the white population, and those groups are more likely than whites to live in multigenerational family households.

 

Here is a graph from Phil Cohen showing different types of households by decade 1900-2017:

5.  What is one conclusion that can you make from the graph?

Americans are more accepting of the changing structures than they have ever been. From the Pew:

As family structures change in U.S., a growing share of Americans say it makes no difference
The American family is changing in many ways: Cohabitation is on the rise, more adults are delaying or forgoing marriage, a growing share of children are living with an unmarried parent, and same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states.  Amid these changes, three-in-ten U.S. adults think it’s a good thing that there is growing variety in the types of family arrangements people live in, while about half as many (16%) say this is a bad thing. The largest share (45%) don’t think it makes a difference, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2019.

Where couples meet has changed over time

Here is longitudinal data from Stanford showing the changing places where couples have met over time:

6.  If you are in a relationship, how does this compare to where you met? 

If your parents were a couple in a relationship, where did they meet?

And this video on Youtube shows the change over time:

American and Cohabitation

From the PEW, 

Trends in Divorce

From Phil Cohen

(Legal marriage age is determined by state laws see here for more and the graphic below)

6.  What demographic is most likely to divorce according to the graphs above?  What other conclusions can make from the graphs above?

Where Americans live as adults is connected to Family as well

From The NY Times Upshot (2015), based on a U Mich study:

Americans and Interracial Marriage

From PEW: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/

7.  Who is most likely to intermarry?  Is this surprising to you - why/why not? 

8.  Hypothesize why these groups may intermarry more.

 

2.06mwf The “Self” and Agents of Socialization

 Action Item for our Next Lesson:

Read chapter 1 from Carolyn Deck's book, Mindset.

Today's Lesson: The Self and Agents of Socialization

• What is the sociological concept of "the self"?
• What are some theories about how do we develop it?  
• What are "agents of socialization"?

To begin today's lesson, open the Twenty Statements Test and fill in 20 responses to the question, "Who am I?" Do this quickly, without thinking too much about it.  Simply complete the the statement with the first 20 answers that come to mind.  Here is the Google Form for the lesson.

Try to fill in all 20 statements about yourself.   Work quickly and individually.

After you have answered 20 statements about yourself, proceed:

The "self"

The Twenty Statements Test is a survey that has been used in various studies for over 50 years. (Note: this lesson is based on Rusty Schnellinger's lesson) The test is a qualitative measurement of how people think about themselves, or who they are as a person.   This conscious understanding of who we are as individuals is an example of what sociologists call a "self."  Similar to metacognition and how people think about thinking, a "self" is how individuals consciously think about who they are as an individual.  

Coding your responses.
When conducting qualitative data analysis, sometimes sociologists will code the responses to make sense of the data.  Code your responses to the Twenty Statements Test:

A mode responses: Physical characteristics.   

Ex. I am blonde, I am short, I am strong.

B mode responses: Socially defined statuses that associate you relative to a group.   

Ex. I am a student, I am Catholic, I am a quarterback, I am a daughter, I am a store clerk.

C mode responses:  Personal traits, styles of behavior or emotional states.  

Ex. I am a happy person, I am competitive, I am loud. I am tired.

D mode responses: General, more abstract or existential responses.   

Ex. I am me, I am part of the universe, I am human, I am alive.

After you code your responses, answer the following questions on your notes page:

1.  Individually:  Which type of response did you have the most of?  How many? Is that surprising or does that seem right to you?

Culture And your Sense of Self

2. Without reading any further, use your sociological imagination to hypothesize how these responses might have changed over time.  If you did this test in a different time, say 70 years ago, or in a different place, how might the different culture shape your responses to these?   

After you hypothesize about the question above, continue reading:

Peter Kaufman explains in the book A Sociology Experiment (2019) that researchers did find a change over time in the test responses and it concerned them:

In summary, this is one example that culture shapes how we think about what is important and what we value; culture may influence us to think about our "self" in certain ways.  

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy

3.  Choose one of your responses that is a mode B response.  

a. Which one did you choose? 

b.  How do you express yourself to fit into this response?  In other words, how do you dress, talk and act in order to be like _______ (B mode response)?  What are the things that you do in order to be that role?

Discussion:  What were some examples for your answer to number two? For number two, this is exemplifying a sociological theory called Dramaturgy by Erving Goffman. Goffman wrote The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life which theorized that people present themselves to the world based on their ideas about their "self". They create an image of how they want to be perceived. It is like being in a play, or a drama - when you go on stage you are dressed up to play your role, you have your lines and your costume etc... Goffman's theory in the form of an extended metaphor is known as dramaturgy. In Goffman's theory, every time we go into a social situation we are presenting ourselves to the world - playing a role such as sister, friend, teammate, student, girlfriend, coworker, etc... In all of these roles we talk a certain way, act a certain way and even dress a certain way.

One example might be if you answered, I am a student.  You may feel that you have your own style but I bet that you can find similarities to other students here at Loyola.  And you have learned to sit in the desk, raise your hand, show up to class, answer questions and do all the things that students do.

Agents of socialization

4.  Regarding your answer to number 3b above, what are some of the places that you have learned to talk/dress/act like this?  For example if you wrote I am a student. Where did you learn how to be a student? Where did you learn all the behaviors/habits/actions that a student does?

Discussion: Examples of where?

All the places where we learn how to act out this role are examples of what sociologists call agents of socialization, or, the most important groups that shape an individual's sense of self. (especially: family, school, peers/friends, media).  For example, if you answered I am a student, I bet learning that role happened even before you went to school.  You may have watched kids shows or cartoons about kids going off to school and what they do there.  Kids read books about the first day of school and what students do all day.  Parents tell stories about when they went to school.  And if you have older siblings, cousins or neighbors, you learn by watching and talking to them about their school experiences. Then, teachers themselves tell you what they expect from you.  A great deal of elementary school is learning how to do school.  Classmates also socialize us by sharing their habits preferences for studying and school supplies etc...  In other words, you didn't just show up and decide what kind of student you wanted to be, you were socialized by different agents throughout your life. 

Charles Horton Cooley's Looking Glass Self

5a.  Also thinking about your answer to 3b, can you think of a time when one of the ways you expressed yourself was received positively by another person or group? Who was it? How did they react? What did they say?

For example, if I answered I am a student and one of the ways I express that is by participating in class and commenting on readings, I can specifically recall a few different teachers of mine telling me that it was a pleasure having me in class to discuss the readings and challenge them on somethings while helping to generate class discussion.  

5b.  Can you think of a time when one of ways you expressed yourself was received negatively by another person or group? Who was it? How did they react? What did they say?

These are examples of Charles Horton Cooley’s theory called the “Looking Glass”.  By “Looking Glass” he is referring to a mirror.  His theory is that we learn to act a certain way because of our interactions with others and how they react to us.  Their reaction to us is like looking into a mirror that reflects back on us.  We learn from others' reactions to us how we are perceived in the world and this shapes our sense of self.

In Sum

We are influenced from the moment we are born (even before) by important groups around us including culture which we are born into.  The process by which we are shape by these social groups is called socialization.  This process not only helps us to survive but it also develops a self or our conscious way of thinking about who we are as an individual.  These most important groups that socialize us are called agents of socialization.

Please don't forget to read chapter 1 from Carolyn Deck's book, Mindset for our next lesson.