Behind Trump’s War With Powell: A Battering Ram

The phrase “battering ram” effectively captures the essence of Donald Trump’s approach in his prolonged and often harsh conflict with Colin Powell. Rather than a nuanced debate or a respectful disagreement between two prominent figures, Trump’s engagement with Powell was characterized by relentless, forceful attacks designed to dismantle Powell’s credibility and authority.

Here’s how Trump’s “war” with Powell functioned as a “battering ram”:

1. Discrediting Through Personal Attacks and Labels:

“RINO” Label: Trump consistently branded Powell a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only). This label served as a powerful ideological weapon, immediately delegitimizing Powell within the conservative base and signaling that his criticisms were not from a “true” Republican perspective but from an unreliable outsider. This was a direct assault on Powell’s standing as a respected voice in the party he had long served.

Dismissal of Accomplishments: Instead of acknowledging Powell’s distinguished career as a four-star general, National Security Advisor, and Secretary of State, Trump often minimized or outright dismissed his achievements. His focus was always on perceived failures, particularly Powell’s presentation to the UN on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

Post-Mortem Disparagement: The most striking example of this “battering ram” approach was Trump’s statement after Powell’s death, where he continued to attack Powell’s legacy and even expressed envy for the positive media coverage Powell received. This showed a desire to deliver a final, damaging blow, even beyond the grave.

2. Undermining Authority and Moral Stance:

Focus on Iraq War: Trump repeatedly hammered on Powell’s role in the Iraq War. While Powell himself later expressed regret for his UN speech, Trump used it not as a point of historical analysis but as a blunt instrument to invalidate any moral or strategic authority Powell might claim. The implication was: “How can you criticize me when you made such a colossal mistake?” This was designed to deflect criticism from himself by attacking the messenger.

Challenging Foundational Principles: Powell’s criticisms often centered on Trump’s perceived disregard for the Constitution, democratic norms, and American institutions. Trump’s counter-attacks, by painting Powell as disloyal or out-of-touch, were an attempt to undermine these foundational principles themselves by discrediting one of their prominent defenders.

3. Silencing Dissent and Consolidating Power:

Message to Other Republicans: Trump’s aggressive stance against Powell sent a clear message to other Republicans who might consider speaking out against him: dissent would be met with fierce, personal, and public reprisal. This served as a deterrent, reinforcing party loyalty and stifling internal opposition.

Reinforcing Populist Narrative: By attacking an establishment figure like Powell, Trump further solidified his image as an anti-establishment outsider fighting against the “swamp.” Powell became a symbol of the old guard that Trump was supposedly battling, reinforcing his populist appeal to voters who felt let down by traditional politicians.

4. Continuous and Unyielding Pressure:

No Retreat: Trump rarely, if ever, backed down from his criticisms of Powell. The attacks were consistent and unyielding, reflecting a strategy of sustained pressure rather than isolated incidents. This constant “pounding” aimed to wear down Powell’s public image and render his voice less impactful.