Ed Wasserman is a 52-year resident of Iowa and a professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at The University of Iowa. The views expressed in his piece are his own and do not in any way reflect those of his employer.

Donald Trump has often been credited with being a supremely slick sloganeer. Indeed, who among us is unfamiliar with such memorable monikers as: Little Marco Rubio, Ron DeSanctimonious (DeSantis), Lyin’ Ted Cruz, Nikki “Birdbrain” Haley, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, “Shifty” Adam Schiff, “Wacky” Jacky Rosen, and Laffin’ Kamala Harris? All of these scornful sobriquets concisely convey Trump’s deep disdain for his many political rivals.

Yet, long before Trump, another Republican office-bearer garnered high marks for his cutting political invective. Spiro T. Agnew served as the 39^th Vice President of the United States from January 20, 1969 to October 10, 1973, when he was forced to resign after pleading ‘no contest’ to a felony charge of tax evasion.

Expertly aided by White House speechwriters Pat Buchanan and William Safire, Agnew delivered a series of strident speeches in 1969 and 1970 attacking the Nixon administration’s many enemies, both perceived and real.

Ed Wasserman is a 52-year resident of Iowa and a professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at The University of Iowa. The views expressed in his piece are his own and do not in any way reflect those of his employer.

Observers often puzzle over the chummy connection between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. What links these two leaders to one another? Largely ignored among several possibilities is their common political philosophy.

In a column for the New York Times in February, Carlos Lozada sharply criticized Donald Trump’s ostensible lack of political philosophy: “The difficulty with Trumpism is Trump himself, who renders any coherent ism impossible.” His assessment echoes the widespread belief that Trump is utterly unschooled in geopolitical history or philosophy. Although few would disagree with Trump’s scholarly naïveté, I fear his political acumen may have been seriously underestimated.