[This article is only published in today's headlines and is refused to reprint]

The White House spokesman tore his face in public: Where Trump and Putin will meet and who will decide? Ask your mom.

¡°Your mom did.¡±

On October 16, local time, White House press secretary Caroline Levitt answered the Huffington Post question about "why the US Russian leader chose to hold a summit in Budapest" in just three simple words.

Later, White House Communications Director Steven Zhang added another knife, with a shorter word "Your mom."

A question and answer on foreign policy that was supposed to be serious suddenly turned into a battle of words on the streets. White House spokesman Taylor Rogers later defended Villette confidently: "Those who asked the questions were not real journalists, but Democratic activists.(Villette)'s response was very appropriate."

In one word, Wileat, with just one word, broke the Trump administration¡¯s statement public relations logic: disobedient media is not worthy of respect; unfriendly questions are only worthy of humiliation.

The incident was not the emotional out-of-control of the individual officials of the Trump administration, but a continuation of the consistent ¡°strategic brutality¡± of its team.

At the press conference of "Group Chat Leak Door" in March this year, she repeatedly attacked the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic Monthly, calling him an "anti-Trump sunspot"; In the immigration policy debate in April this year, she even directly angrily denounced the reporter who asked questions, saying, "I am ashamed of you".

The core of Levitt's communication strategy is to avoid substantive inquiries by denying the questioner's identity as a journalist. At the same time, show the basic market a tough stance of "daring to challenge political correctness". And it can also cover up policy discussions with dramatic conflicts and take the initiative in discourse.

The White House's crude response triggered a clear-cut response in American society.

Conservative positions cheered, and media such as Fox News praised this joke on ¡°left media¡± as a justified counterattack to the hypocritical elite.

The liberal media was shocked, and the Beast Daily criticized Verlet¡¯s remarks as ¡°extremely childish¡± and ¡°unbelievable¡±.

The majority of Americans reacted more divided, with supporters saying ¡°Finally someone dares to tell the truth,¡± while opponents mourned ¡°America¡¯s democratic rituals are dead.¡±

But this division may be exactly what the White House wanted. In an era of political polarization, brutality is no longer a disorder, but a symbol of identity. By contempting the common hatred of political correctness, Weilett can help Trump's embrace strengthen their group sense of belonging.

From the international community, the shock caused by the incident far exceeded that of the United States.

European diplomats privately said that the White House downgraded diplomatic communication to a "market scolding war", which made people deeply question the reliability of the United States.

Russia and other countries also have reason to believe that traditional diplomatic rules may no longer apply in the face of a U.S. government that uses brutality as a weapon.

If even the guardians of the so-called "beacon of democracy" begin to manipulate vulgar language personally, then the export of values that the United States is proud of will naturally appear pale and powerless.

To a certain extent, the officials in Villette's generation of Trump's team used only three simple words to destroy the foundation that it took countless generations of the U.S. government to build.

The White House¡¯s strategy is very clear, since it can¡¯t convince you in fact, it overwhelms you in the atmosphere. This is today¡¯s American politics, foreign policy has become a real-life topic, compared to the content itself, how to say the amazing death is the topic that Wileaths care more.

It is a symbol of the extent to which a superpower¡¯s public policy is sinking.

Villette's personal attack, which is "your mother", may please the basics in the short term, but in the long run, it is paying a huge price: internally, it poisons the space for public discussion and makes rational dialogue impossible; externally, it has destroyed the international image of the United States, chilling allies and secretly rejoicing opponents.

That question about Budapest was ultimately unanswered, but the answer may no longer be important, and if even the White House were proud of its rudeness, then the country¡¯s politics, probably, would have gone on the way of no return.