Inaugural Address--Post #4 of 4 (academic): America Uber Alles

We conclude our look at Trump's inaugural address with the peroration, which focuses on national unity and acquisition, but with an inherently dark tone.

From this moment on, it's going to be America First.

This, next to "carnage" is the most oft-quoted phrase from the speech in the days that followed.  As has been noted by many, "America First" is a phrase loaded with connotations, particularly its use by isolationists in the period between World War I and World War II.  It's a phrase that collected anti-Semitic overtones when Charles Lindbergh's, the chair of the "America First Committee" in the years immediately prior to U.S. entry into WWII, was revealed to to have anti-Jewish beliefs.

Despite that history, it's a phrase Trump used throughout his campaign.

It leads into the concluding section of the speech, one in which nationalist tendencies are couched in monetary terms.  In the excerpts that follow, I will highlight in green all the terms that have economic connotations.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. 

Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

As we have seen at a number of points, Trump's speech in many ways is a sort of "Bizarro World" version of Kennedy's inaugural speech.  In Kennedy's speech, the international threat was quite specific: communism.  The world as a whole was a site of potential contest between the values of freedom and those of totalitarianism, with America pledging to fight for the freedom.  However, in Trump's vision, the world itself--all "other countries"--are potential threats to the United States.  Indeed, they are potential criminals who are "stealing" and "destroying" what is ours.  This hearkens back to the more specific remarks about Mexico that Trump made at the beginning of his campaign.  The metaphor that emerges is of an America under assault by other countries, even those who are, ostensibly, our allies.

I will fight for you with every breath in my body -- and I will never, ever let you down.

As we've seen, humility is not a tool available to Trump.  Here, at a point where one might expect to hear a new president say something along the lines of "While we will certainly face struggles . . ." or "I know I there will be times when I will make decisions you do not agree with . . ." or at least "The power to make the nation great is more in your hands than mine . . .", Trump instead makes a promise that, taken literally, is ludicrous.

America will start winning again, winning like never before.We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

This is hopeful vision, but set against an implicitly dark view of the present.  It's not simply "our best days are ahead of us" (a commonplace in American political rhetoric), but a condemnation of America as it is now, suggesting massive unemployment, porous borders, and poverty (all of which are difficult claims to justify at a point at which unemployment is at a historically low level, there is net negative migration with Mexico, and the United States is unquestionably the wealthiest nation in the world).

We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.

We will get our people off of welfare and back to work -- rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.

We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American.

This passage seems to borrow generally from 1980s-era rhetoric, particularly during the period when growing anxiety over foreign (particularly Japanese) domination of the automobile market was highest.  

However, as was noted in the campaign, Trump is in danger of seeming hypocritical, given his own businesses' penchant for buying foreign steel for construction projects and manufacturing goods outside of the U.S. (perhaps most famously revealed in an interview with David Letterman).

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world -- but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.

 This is a passive version of "America as the defender of freedom" that became such a commonplace in post-War American political rhetoric, and a tacit condemnation of military interventionism.  However, in the next sentence, we get the following:

We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones -- and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

 In an apparent volte-face, Trump says America will lead the "civilized world" against Islamic terrorism, which will be eradicated.  As in the "I will never ever let you down" line, Trump is making a dramatic promise that, almost by definition, cannot be fulfilled.  One might limit the damage of such terrorism or even oversee the destruction of particular groups (e.g.. Isis, Al-Qaeda), but as so many have pointed out since the "war on terrorism" was declared, one cannot eradicate a non-physical entity. As long as anyone, anywhere commits an act of violence in the name of a political cause, terrorism (radically Islamic or otherwise), cannot be eradicated.  However, as has been typical of Trumpian rhetoric, the value seems to be in the willingness to make dramatic promises, with the understanding that they will be forgotten (or there lack of fulfillment forgiven) in the end.

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us, "How good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity."
We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.

This is a passage that I have seen discussed far less than other parts of the speech, but which strikes me as among the most totalitarian-tinged moments in the speech.  "Total allegiance" to the nation is called for, which is consubstantial with loyalty with other individuals.  Loyalty to the country will erase any other divisions.  This is eerily reminiscent of the following line from the "Proclamation to the German Nation" by Adolf Hitler on February 1st, 1933 (the nearest equivalent of an inaugural address in this context, since was the speech given two days after Hitler became Chancellor):

"We of this Government feel responsible for the restoration of orderly life in the nation and for the final elimination of class madness and class struggle. We recognize no classes, we see only the German people, millions of peasants, bourgeois, and workers who will either overcome together the difficulties of these times or be overcome by them."

The quotation from the Bible is a nod to inaugural tradition.  Not only is "God" or "Providence" mentioned in most inaugural addresses, but overt quotations from scripture have become fairly commonplace.  Indeed, Billy Graham is reported to have provided Kennedy a wide selection of Biblical verses from which to choose for incorporation into his inaugural.

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 invoking of the "unstoppable" nature of America carries the connotation of competition or battle, and the overt reference to the military and law enforcement's ability to ensure that we will "always be protected" continues to echo totalitarian themes.

Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.

In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.
We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action -- constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.

The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.

Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.

We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.
We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.

A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.
It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.

 This is again an attempt to constitute the people as a patriotic mass, undifferentiated via the power of nationalistic pride.

And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.
So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:

 This continues to appeal to unity, evoking the lyrics to "America the Beautiful."

You will never be ignored again.

Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.

It is significant that, unlike most of his other public statements (especially those that are unscripted), this speech is lacks the abundance of self-referential language that is often characteristic of Trump's speech.  Indeed, it seems that those who fashioned the speech (a group that might or might not include Trump himself), bent over backwards to limit the self-referential terms as much as possible.  In fact, this inaugural speech is significantly less self-referential than many of those considered canonical in the American political canon.

Here, in the peroration, Trump focuses on "you" language, then changes to "we" language, referring to himself only as part of the collective:

Together, We will make America strong again.

We will make wealthy again.

We will make America proud again.

We will make America safe again.

And yes, together, we will make America great again. Thank you. God bless you.

And God bless America.

 The invocation of God's blessing has become an almost necessary closing of inaugural addresses, at least in the post-war era, and here.

But again, we have an example of why many commentators have noted the "darkness" of Trump's speech.  Even at the point at which he is attempting to be most inspiring, the words implicitly paint a dark picture of the present: we are not wealthy, we are not proud, we are not safe, and we are not great.

Inaugural Address--Post #2 (academic): Ask Not What You Can Do for Your Country

We continue our look at the Trump inaugural speech, picking up after the introduction.

For too long, 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.

Two themes are introduced at this point in the speech.  The first and most important is the dichotomy between "Washington" and "the people."  As Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kathleen Hall Jamieson note in their chapter on inaugural rhetoric in Presidents Creating the Presidency: Deeds Done in Words,  perhaps the first and most important role of a presidential inaugural speech is to "constitute the people"--to say who and what "we the people" are.  It is an act of  unification in the wake of an election.

However, starting with this passage, Trump's speech takes a substantially different (and darker) path.  "The people" are unified not in a common purpose or in devotion to common ideals, but as the victims of the federal government itself--the government that Trump now stands at the head of.

Potential parallels to this might be Andrew Jackson's inaugural address or Reagan's first ("government is the problem").  However, as we will see in future posts, Trump's portrayal of this adversarial relationship is far darker and uncut with optimism in the way the these two speeches were.

Part of the tactics involved are the vague phrases "for too long." and "a small group."  The first phrase allows individual audience members to fill in the specifics of the timeline themselves.  If they felt Washington had "reaped the rewards" specifically during the Obama administration, they could safely assume that this is what Trump meant.  But if they felt it had gone on longer, they could read this meaning into Trump's words.

Similarly, "a small group" allows the audience to fill in their own dramatis personae.  Obama? Democrats? The federal government? Politicians in general? Any and all interpretations are open.  Much like the dreaded "They/Them" of paranoid conspiracy rhetoric, the vagueness of "a small group" allows the audience to both enjoy the frisson of fear that comes from the idea of an unseen-but-all-controlling enemy and disperse this fear by populating this group with their chosen enemies--an all-the-more enjoyable pursuit given that it happens in the context of a savior announcing the defeat of this menace.

A second theme that emerges that will pick up steam as the speech continues is the use of monetary terminology.  Here, we are told that the people have "borne the cost" while not sharing in the "wealth" of the nation.  Such language will grow more common in the latter part of the speech.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

In a series of antitheses, Trump builds on the "us/them" theme.  The unnamed cabal members have won victories and triumphs in which the people did not share.  Again, vagueness is used, this time in alluding to the victims of this conspiracy: struggling families.  This phrase again allows any audience member to place themselves among the victimized--as long as they felt they had somehow "struggled".

On the other hand, the phrase isn't entirely vague.  It is not struggling people, Americans, or citizens. It is specifically struggling families.  This is an attempt to engage the pathos of the audience by suggesting that the ne'er-do-wells in Washington are particularly victimizing domesticity.  (It also brings up association with "family values"--a phrase that gained traction in conservative rhetoric in the 1980s.).

We also have the use of the language of ownership: our country, our nation's capital, our land; their victories, their triumphs. This will continue throughout the rest of the speech.

That all changes -- starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

Inaugural addresses traditionally involve some presidential take on the "it's not about me; it's all for you." Often, this takes the form of the president saying that the people ultimately have more power than he does.  In this case, however, Trump suggest that, while the moment "belongs to you" (note the use of an ownership metaphor), it does so precisely because Trump is assuming the presidency.

It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration. And this, the United States of America, is your country.

Trump emphasizes the idea of ownership.  The moment, the day, the celebration, and the nation itself are possessions of "you."

A problematic aspect of this, however, is that it's unclear who "you" refers to here.  At the same time, Trump seems to be attempting to constitute Americans generally as the "you" to whom he refers, but in this context, he also seems to be speaking specifically to his own supporters.  He presumably understands all-too-well that, given his loss by nearly 3,000,000 votes, a minority of Americans are "celebrating."

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

We have an echo of the time-honored tradition of suggesting that party affiliation does not matter now (a tradition that, as we noted, goes as far back as Jefferson).  However, this is done not in the context of unification, but in further defining the nation in Manichean terms, with "the people" triumphing over the unnamed enemies in government.

And again, Trump gives his audience the ability to read themselves into the phrase "forgotten men and women."

Everyone is listening to you now.

This line encapsulates the contradictory aspect of Trump's attempts to "constitute the people"--the first order of business in an inaugural.  Who is "you"?  And who is the "everyone" who is listening to "you" now?

You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before. At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.

The first line of this passage is an obvious case of hyperbole.  Of more interest is the final line.  It is as close as Trump comes to articulating a governing philosophy (another essential component of an inaugural address, according to Campbell and Jamieson). For one, in his view "the nation" is not consubstantial with its citizens.  The nation is a construction that exists independently of the citizenry, and it is created to serve them.

This might seem like a commonplace, but it turns a central component of many inaugural addresses--a call to citizens to action--on its head.  Indeed, it is an almost complete reversal of the most famous line in one of the most famous inaugurals in history:"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

In the vision of citizenship that emerges from Trump's rhetoric, asking what your country can do for you is what all citizens ought to be doing.