The Art of the Grovel, Flattery as the Currency of Trumpian Diplomacy

The Art of the Grovel, Flattery as the Currency of Trumpian Diplomacy

How World Leaders are Mastering the Unctuous Art of Appeasing a President Who Demands Praise as Tribute

Introduction: The Pantry of Praise at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

In the annals of statecraft, tools of diplomacy have typically included reasoned argument, mutual self-interest, strategic alliances, and occasionally, veiled threats. However, the peculiar political phenomenon of Donald Trump has introduced a new, and perhaps more potent, instrument into the global diplomatic toolkit: unvarnished, unapologetic flattery. As the recent gathering of European leaders at the White House demonstrated, the quickest way to a policy concession in the Trumpian world is not through a well-reasoned dossier of geopolitical facts, but through a well-stocked “pantry” of praise. The image of leaders like Germany’s Christian Merz, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Keir Starmer, and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni “beaming and flattering” to ensure Trump didn’t “throw Ukraine under Putin’s bus” is a stark illustration of a new reality. In this reality, the age-old sin of flattery has been transformed into a necessary diplomatic virtue, a survival mechanism for navigating the ego-driven landscape of American power. This article explores the psychology, history, and alarming efficacy of this phenomenon, examining how sycophancy has become the lingua franca of dealing with an administration that values loyalty and praise above all else.

The spectacle raises profound questions about the degradation of diplomatic discourse and the compromises democratic leaders must make to protect their national interests. When the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, feels compelled to call the President of the United States “daddy” to maintain transatlantic solidarity, it signals a fundamental shift in how power is negotiated and respect is earned—or, more accurately, purchased with empty calories of admiration.

A Historical Pantomime: Flattery’s Long and Slimy Pedigree

While the current scale of diplomatic buttering-up may seem unprecedented, the instinct to flatter power is as old as power itself. The article rightly points out that Trump is far from the first leader to “skate on false praise.” History is replete with courtiers, advisors, and visiting dignitaries who have mastered the art of telling rulers exactly what they wanted to hear.

• Imperial Courts: From the Byzantine Empire to the Forbidden City, courtly life was a meticulously choreographed ballet of flattery. Courtiers vied for influence not through merit alone, but through their ability to compose poems extolling the emperor’s virtue or to attribute military victories to his divine strategic genius, often from the comfort of the palace.

• The Shakespearean Stage: Shakespeare’s plays are masterclasses in the uses and perils of flattery. Characters like Oswald in King Lear (“I shall not eat, my lord, till I have delivered your letter”) embody the obsequious courtier, while the tragedy of Julius Caesar is propelled by the flattery of the conspirators, who praise Caesar to his face only to betray him.

• Literary Archetypes: Charles Dickens gave the world the quintessential sycophant in David Copperfield‘s Uriah Heep, with his incessant hand-wringing and declarations of being “ever so ‘umble.” His sliminess is a perfect illustration of why flattery is so often off-putting; its insincerity is palpable.

The psychological mechanism is simple yet powerful. As the 18th-century poet Oliver Goldsmith observed in The Deserted Village, the village schoolmaster was surrounded by those who laughed at all his jokes, “with counterfeited glee.” Flattery works because it taps into a fundamental human desire for validation and respect. However, as psychologists note, most people possess an internal alarm that rings when praise feels excessive or manipulative, leading to discomfort and distrust. The flatterer is often held in contempt, seen as weak and dishonest.

What truly sets the Trumpian era apart is not the existence of flattery, but the recipient’s unlimited appetite for it. Most historical figures, while susceptible, would eventually grow weary of overt sycophancy or would value critical counsel. Trump’s declaration to a group of African leaders—”This is great. We could do this all day long”—reveals a leader who does not just tolerate flattery but actively craves and encourages it as a form of tribute. This transforms the dynamic from a subtle diplomatic dance into a blatant transaction.

The White House Pantry: A Case Study in Modern Buttering

The recent meeting between Trump and European leaders provides a textbook case of this new diplomacy in action. The stakes could not have been higher: the future of Western support for Ukraine, the cohesion of NATO, and the stability of the global order.

Faced with a mercurial American president who has repeatedly expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin and skepticism about the Atlantic Alliance, the European leaders arrived with a strategy not of confrontation, but of cooption. Their mission was not to convince Trump through logic but to disarm him through praise. They understood that to get what they needed—a commitment to not abandon Ukraine—they had to first give Trump what he needed: public affirmation of his strength, his deal-making prowess, and his centrality on the world stage.

This performance, while perhaps effective in the short term, carries significant costs:

1. The Erosion of Authentic Alliance: An alliance built on flattery is not built on shared values or mutual respect. It is a transactional relationship where support is contingent on a constant stream of ego-stroking. This undermines the very foundation of trust that NATO and other Western institutions require to function effectively.

2. The Empowerment of Authoritarian Styles: When democratic leaders engage in the same fawning behavior expected by authoritarian rulers, they normalize it. They send a message that this is how one deals with power, blurring the line between democratic partnership and autocratic fealty.

3. The Diminishment of Serious Discourse: Complex issues like European security, nuclear deterrence, and economic policy are reduced to a contest of who can offer the most extravagant compliment. This prevents the serious, nuanced debate that these grave issues demand.

The fact that this strategy was employed not by minor supplicants but by the leaders of the world’s major democracies is a testament to the perceived potency of this approach and the unique character of the current American presidency.

The Psychology of the Flatterer and the Flattered

To understand why this works, one must delve into the dysfunctional relationship between the sycophant and the narcissist.

The Flatterer’s Calculus (The European Leaders):
For the flatterer, the act is one of cold, strategic calculation. It is motivated not by genuine admiration but by fear, necessity, or ambition. The European leaders’ flattery was a rational, if distasteful, response to an irrational situation. Their countries’ security was potentially on the line, and they judged that swallowing their pride was a small price to pay for maintaining US support. They are modern-day versions of the courtiers who told Henry VIII he was right to break with Rome, not because they believed it, but because they valued their heads.

The Flattered’s Receptivity (Trump):
For the recipient, the psychology is more complex. A healthy ego can distinguish between genuine praise and manipulative flattery. However, a narcissistic personality, characterized by a fragile self-esteem that requires constant external validation, lacks this filter. For Trump, flattery is not seen as insincere; it is seen as accurate, a justified acknowledgment of his greatness. This is why he can receive Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s absurd endorsement for a Nobel Peace Prize with a “wow” instead of a “whoa.” His appetite is “unlimited” because the internal void it is filling is bottomless.

This dynamic, as the article notes, often invites contempt. The flatterer, in their desperation, often loses the respect of the very person they are trying to impress. The act of subservience can be perceived as weakness, making the flatterer seem less like a valuable partner and more like a useful tool. It only works when the recipient is, in the words of the article, “willing to be deceived,” like the Evil Queen in Snow White who desperately wanted the mirror to confirm she was the fairest of them all.

The Moral and Strategic Cost of Complimentary Foreign Policy

While the short-term gains of flattery-based diplomacy might be clear—averted tariffs, continued military aid—the long-term costs are profound and corrosive.

• Loss of Moral Authority: How can European leaders credibly criticize Hungary’s Viktor Orbán or Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for their authoritarian tendencies when they themselves engage in obsequious behavior toward Trump? It undermines their standing as defenders of democratic values.

• Empowerment of Bad Policy: Flattery reinforces a leader’s worst instincts. If every idea is met with praise, there is no mechanism for course correction. Bad policies are allowed to flourish because those in the room are too busy complimenting them to critique them.

• A Damaged International Order: The world order is built on norms, agreements, and a basic level of trust. When relationships are reduced to a series of personal transactions based on ego, that entire structure becomes unstable. Alliances become unpredictable, based on the whims of a single leader’s mood rather than on strategic imperatives.

Conclusion: Beyond the Butter

The spectacle of world leaders filling the “pantry” of the White House with flattery is a symptom of a deeper sickness in the international system. It represents a retreat from principles-based statecraft to a personality-driven politics where strength is mistaken for bluster and loyalty is measured in compliments.

The great challenge for America’s allies is to find a way to navigate this reality without completely sacrificing their dignity and the integrity of the international system. This may require a more nuanced approach: offering praise where it is genuinely due (for instance, on economic growth) while firmly and privately holding the line on core principles like collective security and democratic values.

Ultimately, a foreign policy powered by flattery is as unsustainable as a diet of pure butter. It may provide a quick burst of energy and warmth, but it clogs the arteries of honest discourse and leads to a catastrophic failure of the system. The hope for the future is that diplomacy can return to a nourishment of substance—of shared interests, mutual respect, and, when necessary, honest disagreement—rather than the empty calories of false praise. The world cannot afford to be run on a diet of butter alone.

5 Q&A

Q1: According to the article, what was the specific goal of the European leaders’ flattery during their White House visit?
A1: Their primary goal was to prevent President Trump from abandoning US support for Ukraine and effectively “throwing Ukraine under Putin’s bus.” They used flattery as a strategic tool to disarm his skepticism about NATO and the war, ensuring continued American commitment to European security by appealing to his ego rather than arguing solely on strategic merits.

Q2: How does the current use of flattery in diplomacy differ from its historical role?
A2: Historically, flattery was a common tool in autocratic courts, but it was often viewed with suspicion and contempt even then. The key difference today is the recipient’s unprecedented appetite. While past rulers might have been susceptible, Trump’s openly stated desire for praise (“we could do this all day long”) and his lack of a filter for insincerity have elevated flattery from a subtle art to a blunt and essential instrument of statecraft, demanded openly and in exchange for policy concessions.

Q3: What is the psychological reason most people are put off by flattery, and why does it work on certain leaders?
A3: Psychologists note that most people feel uncomfortable with flattery because they perceive its insincerity and manipulative intent, triggering distrust. It works on certain leaders, particularly those with narcissistic tendencies, because they have an insatiable need for external validation to shore up a fragile sense of self-worth. They lack the critical filter to distinguish genuine praise from sycophancy, interpreting all admiration as a true reflection of their greatness, making them “willing to be deceived.”

Q4: What are the potential long-term consequences of conducting foreign policy through flattery?
A4: The long-term consequences are severe: (1) Erosion of Authentic Alliances: Trust is replaced by transactional, ego-driven dealings. (2) Loss of Moral Authority: Nations that flatter autocratic styles lose the credibility to promote democracy. (3) Empowerment of Poor Judgment: Without honest criticism, bad policies are reinforced. (4) International Instability: The global order becomes unpredictable, based on personal whims rather than strategic stability.

Q5: How does the article use literary examples to illustrate its point about flattery?
A5: The article uses two powerful literary references. First, it quotes Oliver Goldsmith’s poem to show how false laughter (“counterfeited glee”) has long been used to appease authority figures. Second, it cites Charles Dickens’s character Uriah Heep from David Copperfield as the archetype of the slimy, insincere sycophant (“ever so ‘umble”), whose very name has become synonymous with the repulsive nature of excessive obsequiousness. These examples ground the modern political phenomenon in a long tradition of portraying flattery as a distasteful but enduring aspect of human interaction with power.