President Trump: putting “America first”
“Well, now we know,” said Janet Daley in The Daily Telegraph. Before last Friday’s inauguration, there had been speculation that “Donald Trump the Ranting Candidate” would – in that moment – be transformed into Trump the Statesman. The ceremony is, after all, supposed to be a “solemn” occasion – not a victory party, but a “proud commemoration of the peaceful transition of power that has persisted since the founding of the Republic”. But there was no miracle in Washington on that rainy afternoon, said The Observer. Swaggering into power, Donald Trump rejected “good manners, national healing and consensual politics – and opted for division”.
Inaugural speeches are usually uplifting, said Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian: they’re supposed to bind wounds, restore hope. Once again, Trump tore up the rule book. In his 1,433 words, he slammed his predecessor’s record and – doubling down on his message of economic nationalism – conjured up a dystopian vision of America in which rusting “factories are scattered like tombstones across the landscape”. He spoke of cities destroyed by crime and drugs, failing schools, “stolen” jobs, and “forgotten” people. “This American carnage stops right here,” he thundered, jabbing his finger. Having promised to transfer power to “the American people”, he tore into the Washington establishment sitting alongside him, accusing it of “reaping the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost”. And for the foreign dignitaries in attendance, he had this stark message: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first”. Embracing a slogan adopted by the isolationists and anti-semites who wanted to keep the US out of WWII, he warned that there will be no more defending “other nations’ borders”. Every decision – from trade to immigration – “will be made to benefit American workers and American families”. His only foreign commitment was to wipe “radical Islamic terrorism… from the face of the Earth”.
To the Trump supporters who’d flocked to Washington, this was like Christmas, said Tim Stanley in The Daily Telegraph. They hadn’t been happy about the messages they’d heard earlier that day. When the Democrat Chuck Schumer started talking about inclusivity, he was jeered. Trump’s speech was more like it. The liberals may have hoped for some comfort – but “not one American voted for Trump on the basis that he would heal the country. They voted for him to get things done – things that they understand are controversial but believe are necessary”. They don’t want Washington reformed; they want it stamped on. Trump would have been lying if he had “claimed to speak for everyone”. He comes to office with the lowest approval rating of any president in modern history. He takes over a country in which a sizeable number of voters hate him – and the feeling “is mutual”.
“An impulsive braggart and bigot is now in control of the world’s most powerful military and economy,” said Gary Younge in The Guardian. “The hands that once grabbed the pussy now have access to the nuclear launch codes.” Many Americans are “terrified”. The day after his inauguration, their concern was made clear when in cities across the US – and in 59 other countries – women (and men) took to the streets to show their disgust for the new president’s apparent misogyny, said The Sunday Telegraph, as well as his stance on abortion, immigration and the environment. In Washington, where up to half a million people took part in the Women’s March (far more than turned up the day before), one group handed out knitted “Pussy Hats”, creating a sea of pink. We were accused of “virtue signalling”, said Suzanne Moore in The Guardian. We were told that it was too soon; that the march was pointless. But the people who would take away women’s rights have made their anger and frustration felt. We must do the same.
Still, if the aim is to stop Trump winning a second term, there is a better way, said Daniel Hannan in the International Business Times. Trump’s supporters heard his comments about women and minorities on the campaign trail; they may not have liked them, but they still voted for him. So rather than, say, getting worked up about how few Latinos he has in his cabinet, the Left should focus on a weakness that his supporters might be swayed by – “namely his apparent inability to distinguish between public office and commercial interest”. The former might give a warmer glow of self-righteousness, but the latter could actually work.
“Inaugural speeches are usually uplifting: they’re supposed to restore hope. Trump tore up the rule book”