An Ugly Speech

Trump claims a mandate from his narrow victory without reaching beyond his core supporters.

We’ll write and talk about more later, but for now we all have some comments on the inaugural speech itself.

[Jonathan here:]

We knew what we were going to get from Donald Trump’s inaugural address, and wow did we get it.

Normal inaugural addresses are inclusive. Trump? There was little or nothing in this speech for anyone but his strongest supporters. The framing of it was, as is always the case with Trump, outright insulting to everyone else: The nation has been absolutely horrible for the last four years, in his telling, with not even a hint that its leaders have been trying to do their best even if they differ on what to do.

That will certainly be true from reading the speech; it was even more the case in the delivery. There was a fair amount of poetry inserted by the speechwriters into his standard rhetoric, some of which was more inclusive than the bragging, grievance-reciting, trans-bashing, Panama-invading prose. But Trump simply can’t handle reading a written speech. As always, he switched to a bored monotone for the parts that were supposed to soar, making it very clear (or at least seem clear) that he’s only being inclusive because he has to.

(And no, it doesn’t help that he still hasn’t learned the basic presidency skill of reading from a teleprompter. He still slumps his whole body to stare at one screen, then eventually re-positions to stare at the other; skilled politicians can read from it while seeming to be looking out to the audience. It takes practice; George W. Bush couldn’t do it when he was elected, but he learned pretty quickly. Trump? Nope.)

This ugly speech will be forgotten rapidly. But if there was anything there to even give him a bit of a honeymoon approval bump, I sure didn’t see it.

[Here’s Julia:]

Inaugural addresses are usually a bit more ceremonial, so modern presidents have tended to be pretty reticent about talking about elections in them. They have sometimes used them to frame their agendas, but rarely (in inaugurals or elsewhere) use the word mandate, which just invites people to argue with you. Trump used it in his address, which hasn’t happened in some time:

Here’s Herbert Hoover, outlining his policy agenda in mandate terms:

“It appears to me that the more important further mandates from the recent election were the maintenance of the integrity of the Constitution; the vigorous enforcement of the laws; the continuance of economy in public expenditure; the continued regulation of business to prevent domination in the community; the denial of ownership or operation of business by the Government in competition with its citizens; the avoidance of policies which would involve us in the controversies of foreign nations; the more effective reorganization of the departments of the Federal Government; the expansion of public works; and the promotion of welfare activities affecting education and the home.”

FDR, 1933: We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

Reagan, 1985: We must never again abuse the trust of working men and women by sending their earnings on a futile chase after the spiraling demands of a bloated Federal Establishment. You elected us in 1980 to end this prescription for disaster, and I don't believe you reelected us in 1984 to reverse course.

In 1993, Bill Clinton more vividly described his 43% victory: The American people have summoned the change we celebrate today. You have raised your voices in an unmistakable chorus. You have cast your votes in historic numbers.

What made Trump’s address especially distinct was that he talked about the vote in specific terms, like he was on a CNN election analysis panel. Going over how many swing states you won or how you performed in various demographics is generally seen as beneath the dignity of these addresses. Trump not only linked this to his agenda – as past presidents have done – but also to the idea of a zero-sum culture war victory, announcing that the renaming of Denali Mountain and the Gulf of Mexico and that the U.S. government would recognize only two genders, as well as a number of anti-immigration statements, and a pointed statement about colorblindness and meritocracy that I’ll be addressing at greater length in my book conclusion today.

Trump’s mandate claiming represents a departure from any pretense of presidential modesty about election returns, and a continuation of the central role of elections, creeping into governance and taking over other considerations. We can probably expect to see more of that.

[and here’s David:]

Whatever the reason or intent, moving the inauguration indoors had the symbolic effect of remaking the transfer of power, from a public celebration of representative democracy to an exclusive ritual of the ruling elites. Trump-supporting Scott Jennings of CNN was unintentionally on the money when he praised the setting as “regal.” Those elites, some of whose paid $1 million for the privilege of attending, were overwhelmingly white, male, able-bodied, and privileged enough to be unconcerned by any potential downsides to the new regime’s approach.

Trump’s inauguration speech was very much directed toward such supporters. Despite claims that unity would be a major theme, the speech was a typical Trump litany of gripes about the left, praises for his unique ability to fix things, and recitation of plans that can at best be called controversial.

The delivery of the speech—also affected by the shift from mass outdoor address to 600-seat venue—was as perfunctory as the content. The tone was vey much ‘let’s get this over with so we can go behind closed doors and play with our government power.’

The closest the speech came to lofty rhetoric came in the Mission To Mars section, which could hardly be taken seriously knowing that it’s an absurd, unrealistic plan adopted solely at the behest of Trump sugar daddy Elon Musk.

Perhaps the most perfectly Trumpian inclusion was the renaming of Dinali back to Mount McKinley. This is a change nobody wants, least of all Alaskans who have never acknowledged the McKinley moniker and whose elected officials, regardless of party, have strongly supported federal use of Dinali. (To my knowledge, the only people who ever advocated for it to remain McKinley were Ohio Republicans; perhaps this was a JD Vance victory.) Trump’s proclamation was accompanied by no recognition of the Native Americans or others who might be hurt or offended by the change; they are among the losers who do not merit mention in the Trump view of America. And, for good measure, Trump’s speech included a flagrant invention, that McKinley was a great businessman, and a horrid retrograde reassessment of the success of McKinley’s economic policies, and the general well-being of Americans more than a century ago.

Wiping Dinali off the map is hardly among the most important of Trump’s Day One orders and policies. Frankly, there will be so many, and such widespread reason for outrage, many of the changes will go largely unnoticed. But be sure there are those hurt and offended nevertheless.