Trump’s parade provokes much fretting about nothing

As a president who has divided his country in an unprecedented way, Donald Trump is no doubt used to the barrage of criticism that comes his way. Nevertheless, he might still have been caught by surprise when he found himself being jeered and lambasted by critics just because he voiced his desire to hold a military parade. His directive to the Pentagon to draft options for a Bastille Day-inspired military spectacle became a target for scorn on Wednesday, with his critics deriding the idea as self-aggrandizement, even though Trump said the intention is to “highlight the service and sacrifice of the military”.

It is hard to see what all the fuss is about. It is hardly out of character for him to want to stage a military parade. Nor would it be the first time that a military parade has been held in the United States. In 1991, tanks and troops paraded through Washington to celebrate victory in the Gulf War, and few seemed too bothered.

Critics argue that a parade would be a waste of money as it would cost millions of dollars. But that amount is peanuts compared to the more than $600 billion the US spends on its military each year.

The attempts by his opponents to paint the military parade with ideological touches, by claiming they are exclusively for “authoritarian” countries, are even more far-fetched. The Bastille Day parade, which obviously made a big impression on Trump when he was visiting Paris last July, is intended to symbolize the unity, values and national spirit of France.

In a word, the controversy surrounding Trump’s parade plan is a typical case of opposition for opposition’s sake. It is not the military parade that Trump’s critics hate, but rather the fact that it will give him a moment to bask in the spotlight.

The military parade itself will be less “crazy and insane”, as Trump’s enemies have called it, than the divide over serious social issues that range from immigration policies to medical care.

Trump wants to hold the military display partly to “have a unifying moment for the country”, to show that he can bring everyone together in celebration of a strong and proud America. Yet the fierce attacks against his proposal once again expose how hard it will be to heal the wounds of a fragmented society in the “divided states of America”.

He might not have intended it when he used identity politics to win the election, but by doing so he has only rubbed salt deeper into the wounds.