[Please Note: This post is long, but I believe it is worth the read because it pulls the curtain back on Trump’s rhetoric in a way that unveils how he understands himself as President]
I did not have a chance to watch live coverage of the 45th President of the United States being sworn in. I was in a meeting. So, when I had a chance last night, I gave Trump’s speech a read. While I was at it, for comparison, I also read the inaugural addresses of former presidents Reagan, Clinton, Obama and all the Bushes.
As you may anticipate, there appear to be formal elements to an inaugural address. Each does not stand on its own. Like compulsory elements in gymnastics there are things that every incoming President does in an inaugural address.
(1) Thanks the Platform Party
(2) Thanks the outgoing President and family for their service and for a smooth transition
(3) Affirms the peaceful transfer of power in the United States
(4) Envisions an America with issues that needs to be addressed, usually related to the economy
(5) Affirms that American unity can provide the strength and resolve to overcome these challenges
(6) Imagines America’s ongoing relationship to the international community
(7) Affirms the ameliorating impact of the President’s vision for America
Knowing these seven formal elements common to at least these recent inaugural addresses can help elucidate the unique emphases of the inaugural address of the 45th President of the United States. While he meets each criterion, he does some surprising things relative to the form that provide immediate insight into the tone he established for his Presidency.
(1) Check
Trump nailed the first element in his routine and thanked the platform party by name. Looking back at the other inaugural addresses since Reagan, it was strange to see the names. Vice President Quayle? I had forgotten about that.
(2) No Thanks, Obama
While Trump thanked the Obamas for a “magnificent” transition, Trump followed President Reagan, breaking form by not thanking the outgoing President for his service to the nation. This formal break indicates at once Trump’s acknowledgement of the importance of the “peaceful transfer of power” in America, but his disdain for the Obama Presidency. In light of the presidential orders that soon followed the inauguration, the rhetorical intent here was clear. His Presidency will mark a clear break – and in fact a dramatic reversal – from the prior administration in much the same way as Reagan’s.
(3) Yep
“Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power.” Generally this is one of the first words spoken by an incoming President in his address. Not this time. Trump’s opening words were a blend of elements (4) and (5), which is interesting. He raced to the problematic state of America and to an affirmation of its repair, almost as if this was the most imperative thing for his address and his presidency.
(4) America: A Nation in Complete Shambles
Other Presidents point to a few, specific hardships that are out of step with the promise of America for its people. The outlaying of these issues sets the stage for their vision for America under their direction. This is a natural rhetorical move. First, frame an issue America faces. Then, follow with promises of resolution. The move is essential because it speaks to the speaker’s relevance and mission as President. Even George H.W. Bush speaks to a few issues Americans face in his “we are in a great time of peace and prosperity” themed inaugural address. Barack Obama, who arguably took office in the worst economic and political conditions America faced since the time of Ronald Reagan’s address certainly spoke to the challenges before America, but they were not the overtone of his address.
None of the recent inaugural addresses depict America in such a negative state as Trump. Trump breaks form with what I believe is a terribly exaggerated portrait that suggests America has completely lost its way. Trump opens with a statement that makes it seem as if America somehow collapsed: “We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.” He then continues to pile on a strongly negative portrait of the “state of the Union” centered primarily around the issues of joblessness (created by a technologically-driven economic shift to a post-manufacturing economy), poverty, education, immigration and international trade.
In one, stark refrain he characterizes America at its worst; “Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.” These social indicators of America being out of step with its promises to its people are not unique, but Trump paints a starker picture than others in his address.
In a complete break from form, Trump then sets an alarming tone for America’s elected officials. He uniformly characterizes them as an elite class who are at the least are out of touch with people and, at most, have been oppressing them for their own gain. “For too long,” he says, “a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.” First, this is a very interesting rhetorical play made by a businessman who has throughout his career demonstrably been a part of that problem. Second, the rhetorical move is alarming. Trump imagines himself as a Savior for the people. The anti-elite who is a champion of the people over against the establishment. In a turn of phrases that smacks of demagoguery, he declares that all of this “American carnage stops right here and right now.” Such appeal to the personal authority of the President to declare such a change is unheard of in these other inaugural addresses. No other address takes such a direct, authoritarian and demeaning tone.
Even though Ronald Reagan pictured a great transition from one way of economic thinking to another in his address, his vision of America was never as dark as the one projected by Trump. In sum, Trump performs this element in his address, taking it to an extreme so as to appear as the champion of the “forgotten,” as the Savior who will return the nation to its people.
(5) We Bleed Red…and White and Blue
Because of the populist appeal in Trump’s address he is strong – much stronger compared to others – on his confidence in the American people to band together and overcome the social and economic disaster he depicts. He spends much more time on this theme in his address than others in recent memory. In fact, Trump speaks to this concern at the top of his address: “Together, we will determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come. We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.” The “we” speaks to the unity essential to “get the job done.” What is interesting is his step beyond our ability to address our own issues, but the extension to “determine the course of…the world.” While others speak to the potential of the American people to impact affairs at home – Bush’s “thousand points of light” comes to mind – nobody else feigns to imagine that America will determine the future course of the world. This is a bold claim that impacts element (6) in his address.
Trump continues the theme of American unity and empowerment with a second audacious claim: ”We are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the people.” This is a rhetorical move that moves beyond what is real, shifting the ideological ground of his address to some other plane. Even in spite of the genuine challenges Trump addresses, “we the people” never lost power in Washington, D.C. Unlike other systems of government, every representative in D.C. is in office because s/he was fairly elected. So, the rhetorical move here positions Trump as the one who has the authority and power to represent the people as the State. It is he who is the one who has come to give it back to them, on the basis of his political vision for America. He strengthens this rhetorical appeal when he says, “January 20, 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.”
It is at this point in Trump’s exercise that I have to cry foul. No other inaugural address dares march on this terrain. Other addresses lead with the presupposition that America is unique and remains so because of our electorate and the expression of the will of the people. Trump’s rhetoric at this point is fraught with problems historically. Whether intentionally or unwittingly, his rhetoric resonates with the likes of (seriously) Hitler and other socialist leaders. Consider this historically: This is how socialist dictators talk when they come to power. “I am the great champion,” they say, in essence, “for you, the people, over against all of these other politicians who are not for you, but for themselves.” This sort of rhetoric, which is also evident in other portions of his address, radically differs in tone and content from other recent inaugural addresses. The import appears to be that Trump represents the people and will restore their hopes as we work together to restore the nation. I’m hearing strains of Evita.
Beyond these elements and continued use of “we” throughout his speech, Trump spoke to the unity of all Americans in several other ways. The most visceral, however, was his claim that, “whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.” This image headlined the appeal throughout his address to a renewed sense of patriotism that will result from our unity as Americans. He imagines an America that will realize a new sense of national pride that “will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.” Prior inaugural addresses certainly speak about having pride in America, but Trump again breaks form with the tone he sets on this theme. Unlike any other modern President, he uses the word “patriotism” almost in a religious sense, the phrase “total allegiance to the United States of America,” and on several occasions “protection” to seemingly characterize a policy of American isolationism and exceptionalism.
The strength of his language as he executes this element of his address reflect a jingoistic (really…it is a loaded term but here, adequate where otherwise language fails) sense of unquestioning patriotism that seems to be required for the new national consciousness. Phrases like, “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice,” and, “through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other,” only solidify Trump’s rhetoric on this point. The stark contrast between Trump and others on this point marks a substantial break from the vision of Presidents from the recent past and, frankly, should create some cautious skepticism of his political intentions that follow his vision.
(6) Sorry, Everybody, We’re Taking Care of Ourselves
The general tone of inaugural addresses on this point from Reagan to Obama are that America will work within the international community to assist those who share our democratic ideals. Even Reagan and Obama, who faced direct threats to America at the time of their speeches, spoke strongly against powers that sought to thwart America but were conciliatory toward America’s existing and future international partnerships. We hear this traditional, conciliatory tone in Trump’s address in his promise to “seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world” without “impos[ing] our way of life on anyone.” In both sentiments he executes this compulsory element perfectly.
However, Trump has more to say on this theme and on nearly every point he breaks radically from form. In its most egregious violation, Trump vows to “unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.” In no other inaugural address since Reagan has a direct threat been uttered. Even Obama, who inherited active operations against Islamic terrorist organizations from Bush, did not issue so direct a threat, rather affirming that, “those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents,” will face the formidable spirit of the American people, “and we will defeat you.” In Obama’s address there is a conditional. In Trump’s there is no condition, only the rhetoric of action.
Trump’s address also breaks from form with its unadulterated promise of American protectionism, isolationism and exceptionalism. Reagan speaks most directly to economic reforms in his address and the sense throughout is that America will shift its priorities internally but that it will remain engaged in the international economy as part of the process. In the same vein, others speak to the American economy, but always within the perspective of a larger global amelioration wherein American economic growth would take place internationally and we and our partners would enrich one another and experience growth together. Trump makes an about face captured poignantly in the refrain, “From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.” With apologies to our international partners, Trump announces that every nation has a right to its own self-interest, and that for the United States that will be the first order of business in regard to international commerce, immigration, and taxation. “We will follow two simple rules,” he thunders, “Buy American and Hire American.”
This not-so-new American stance (we are already perceived internationally as highly self-interested and exceptionalistsic in our affairs) will be guaranteed and protected by our military strength. Other addresses thank military service people on active duty for defending and protecting our freedoms. So this reliance on American military power to ensure our international standing is not new. However, the difference is between the tone of thankfulness and the assertion of military power. Trump says: “When America is united, America is totally unstoppable. There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected. We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.” The religious overtone aside, America can unite and move forward without fear because it is protected externally by our military and internally by law enforcement. God oversees, in Trump’s rhetoric, but the police and combined military power ensure America’s success. Again, this assertive militaristic tone is new in recent memory.
On this element, Trump’s rhetoric is nearly unprecedented. Both the strength and trajectory of his rhetoric here are certainly cause for international concern in regard to the economy and international security. They certainly also raise concerns at home, since “we the people” must decide if this is, in fact America. And if it is not the America we either imagine or desire, this rhetoric must not be allowed to be actualized.
(7) America will be Great…Again?
it is the task of the inaugural address to instill confidence in the will of the American people that elected a particular President. Such confidence comes with the perceived ability of the people to trust that this President will deliver on his promises. Every inaugural address sets forth a grand vision for what America will become because of the impact of the new presidency. For Reagan it was an economic resurgence, for Clinton it was economic resurgence, for Obama it was economic resurgence, and for Trump (surprise) the promise is one of economic resurgence. Across these four addresses, the theme is eseentially same (although the cultural conditions differed), but as we have seen in our prior analysis for Trump the approach is a radical break rhetorically and practically.
Trump closes his address optimistically, as each President does, turning his address again to the forgotten and disenfranchised – those who statistically put him in the White House. His promises to them: “You will never be ignored again” and He will represent them as President as “we” re-establish American strength (economic and military), wealth (economic), pride (economic) and safety (military). This, Trump asserts, will make America great again, playing on the rhetorical assumption (but actual?) that America has fallen from greatness. Was Trump successful in establishing this confidence? Is Washington, D.C. as dysfunctional as Trump imagines? Is America actually in as much of a shambles as Trump asserts? If the answer the last two questions for the hearer is, “Yes,” then maybe Trump’s address was a success. But if Trump’s perception does not mesh with reality; that is, if his fundamental premise is false or his vision is an overreach, then I’m not confident in its a success. As is always the case with inaugural addresses, only time will tell.
In Sum
Dr. Kathleen Hall Jameson, Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said, “The President takes the oath of office but becomes the President rhetorically through the inaugural address.” If that is the case, in Donald Trump we are dealing with a completely different sort of President. His rhetoric diverts from the apparent inaugural tradition. Even the structure of his address was much more of a rally speech than a synthesized presentation characteristic of presidents since Reagan. Trump’s address structurally was a set of organized sound bytes, lacking the coherence and internal rationality of his predecessors.
That he speaks differently than the Presidents before him may not be a surprise. But the trajectories of his rhetoric when he breaks from form may be not only surprising but also disconcerting for some (me included). What emerges from his inaugural address is a political vision marked by rhetoric akin to socialist dictators of recent memory, an nearly exclusively nationalistic vision for America, and an appeal to an inviolable patriotism all based on a dark assessment of America. Is this the President that Trump will become? That remains to be seen. If so, I am deeply concerned. Here’s to the hope that Trump’s actions rise above his rhetoric.