President’s bravado plays to the mob

Well, now we know. If there was any doubt about whether Donald Trump The Ranting Candidate was going to give way to a new incarnation – Donald Trump The Statesmanlike President – we got our definitive answer on Friday.

It should have been clear from the startling signals that accompanied his entrance: the clenched fists, the thumbs-up, and the waves to the faithful that are normally eschewed by even the most crowd-pleasing presidents elect for this solemn ceremony.

Until that moment, there had been a lot of persuasive criticism of the decision by 69 Democratic Congress members to boycott his inauguration. This was not a celebration of the winning candidate, but of the great institution of the presidency. But Trump blew that out of the water, with the bravado and bellicosity that got him where he is today.

What followed was a 16-minute oration that spanned breathtaking hubris (‘‘We will unite the civilised world against Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the earth’’), to accusations of Washington politicians stealing the power that belongs to all Americans.

The extraordinary promises of miracles to come – not only will he (sorry, the people) eradicate Islamic terrorism but, at the same time, put an end to this ‘‘American carnage’’ of crime, drugs, and gangs. He did not, needless to say, explain how any of this would be accomplished. But the lack of detailed policy could be excusable: an inaugural address is expected to be a mission statement not a legislative programme.

So ‘‘we’’ will unite the civilised world against Islamic terrorism. Does Trump mean that anyone who opposes such terrorism will be deemed to be civilised and thus an ally? Does that include, say, Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad who have committed war crimes? And this ‘‘American carnage’’: his remarks imply it is worsening when, in fact, murder and violent crime have been falling in most parts of the country. Even in cities like Chicago where they have increased, how on earth does he propose to fulfil his promise that they will end ‘‘right now’’? Does he really believe he can accomplish this by his own omnipotence? And if he can’t, what happens then?

Having raised the hopes of a now-inflamed populace, how will he lower their expectations? Admitting failure is tantamount in his frame of reference to being a ‘‘loser’’. Perhaps that’s why he implies these things will be accomplished by the newly empowered ‘‘people’’. So when he fails to deliver, he can blame them.

But if stoking up anger and wild hopes of instant remedy weren’t dangerous enough, the attacks on the entire governing establishment seemed designed to incite mass civil disorder. He suggested that the Washington political class had deliberately enriched itself at the expense of the people.

There was a significant sentence, framed in violent terms: ‘‘The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and redistributed around the world’’.

Apart from the nationalist paranoia, this seems to suggest Trump has no understanding of how electoral democracy works. He told the crowd this (inauguration) was ‘‘your moment’’. It wasn’t about ‘‘which party controls government but whether government is controlled by the people’’.

But in an elective democracy, and under the rules of the constitution which he had just vowed to preserve and protect, the people decide who will control the government by sending their chosen representatives to serve in its legislative and executive branches. How else are they to exercise this mysterious power which he wants to return to them?

To suggest that the entire governing class is corrupt and utterly uninterested in the welfare of ‘‘the people’’ is a cheap way to win support from a mob but it offers nothing in the way of a solution – even if it were true. Because he is using this argument to form a bond only between himself and his followers – excluding any party or political structures – he is ruling out the idea of an elective solution.

Trump speaks of putting American workers first in terms that are clearly designed to be a warning to the rest of the world. Oddly, there was less talk about excluding foreigners than we might have expected. No mention of the wall across the Mexico border, or banning Muslims: just a passing remark about the folly of defending other countries’ borders when we should have defended our own.

What happens now? If a populist leader is elected, and he uses constitutional mechanisms to make the population feel more in touch with the power which resides with them, that can revitalise democratic institutions. Maybe that is what will happen under a Trump presidency.

But at the moment of entering office, Trump is giving out a clear message to his countrymen: you are the greatest people on earth and I am the embodiment of your will. Where have I heard that before?