Summary: Tens of millions of Americans have heard, read, or watched those on the Left misrepresent what Trump said in his inaugural speech. Here are the opening paragraphs. They are pure populism, with populism’s usual overlap with the progressives’ agenda. The one percent cannot let you see that overlap, which might lead to recreation of the New Deal alliance — the only possible threat to their power.
Read the opening of Donald Trump’s inaugural speech. This is pure populism. This might be, as Paul Krugman said (which I also believe) “Trump plays a populist on TV”. But the Left’s commentators and journalists misrepresented what he said. For an obvious reason: they cannot admit that much of what Trump said is true — and worse, that they agree with him. (See another analysis below, by an anthropologist). Trump could become a great president if he follows through on his inaugural speech.
“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. 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.
“That all changes -– starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you. 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.
“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. Everyone is listening to you now.
“…At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves. These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.
“But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.
“This American carnage stops right here and stops right now {see below}. We are one nation – and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny. The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.
“For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military. We’ve defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own. And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.
“We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon. {This is, of course, quite bogus.}
“One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.
“But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future. We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America First. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families. …”
—————————————-
“Donald Trump vs. Cultural Imperialism“
By Maximilian C. Forte (Prof Anthropology, Concordia U in Montreal)
at Zero Anthropology, 23 January 2017. Reposted with his generous permission.
“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…”
— Donald Trump’s Inaugural Address, 20 January 2017.
“Yet this disavowal of cultural imperialism, in what may well be a first for a presidential inaugural address, is met with rejection and protest by certain quarters, including it seems most US anthropologists. Trump is up against a legacy that taught Americans that their prime directive was to go around the world, take people under their arm, and teach them how to suck eggs.
“…Everyone should instead be “on the same page,” in the terms of liberal universalism which, ironically, has been the ideological basis of the global fascism upheld by the outgoing elites: the fascism that demanded the uniformity and conformity of all who were subjected to the dictates from the all-knowing centre that pretended to know what was best for you. If this is the start of the collapse of that “New World Order” that George H.W. Bush invoked, then there should be much to celebrate.”
Conclusions
Trump’s speech contains the language needed to begin the overthrow of the 1%’s rule in America. Yet neither Right nor Left appears to listen, more interested in their partisan fight for power — which neither can win. Rather than blind support for Trump (based on hope), or total opposition to Trump (based on hate), we could take his words (the opening section shown above) as a statement to which a majority of us can agree. Great coalitions — such as the New Deal — have started with less. Hold Trump to his words. Fight him if he betrays them.
It would be the start of a new day in America. Only a broad alliance can defeat the 1%. They are the winners from the squabbling of our factions.
A note about “carnage” in America
Leftist hacks pretending to be “fact checkers” jumped on Trump’s statement about the “carnarge” in America (e.g., in the WaPo). Their rebuttal was to something he did not say: that the rate of violent crime is falling. Trump said that the rate is too high, which is obviously correct. For example, our homicide rate (the easiest to compare internationally) is far above that of our peers (other developed nations). See this easily sorted Wikipedia list.
For More Information
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about Donald Trump and the new populism, and especially these…
- What the press won’t tell you about Trump and populism — See Walter Russell Mead’s famous essay about Jackson.
- Why the Left is missing the rising populist movement.
- The Right struggles to understand Trump and populism.
- Liberals look at Trump and populism, but see only their prejudices.
- Racism is the dark side of populism. Will it divide and defeat us?
- Populism arises amidst workers abandoned by the Left, seeking allies.
- An anthropologist reminds us why Trump rose & how populism will survive his crash.
- Populism is reshaping the West. Here’s what we can expect to get.
Two books about populism.
Let me see if I’ve got this right…
Liberals: “America is too violent! We have more gun deaths than any other first-world country!”
Trump: “We have too much crime and carnage in our country!”
Liberals: “Nuh-uh! Our violent crime rate is falling, so there!”
So much for principled opposition.
Matthihs,
That nails it. Hypocrisy has become a defining characteristic of the Left.
Trump might not accept the election results — evil. We don’t accept the election results — good.
Unfounded McCarthyite allegations about Russian influence in America evil. Our unfournded allegations about Russian influence in America — good.
Tyrannical surveillance and war crimes by GOP presidents — evil. Assassinations (even of the US citizens) and expansion of govt surveillance — good.
I could continue. It’s a long list.
i don’t think is hypocrisy: is samethings of worst: give away critical thinking to became supporter of a sport team: here in Italy is the same, first was the right in the Mr Berlusconi era, now the left with mr Renzi close the gap. we only have three big team in place of two in the game: the m5s.
Scandiano,
That’s an astute point! Hypocrisy implies an aware and deliberate act. Your analysis is, imo, more accurate.
Hi Scandiano,
Agree with FM on your insight re hypocrisy. As an American, I will not deny my amused (ashamed to say) bewilderment at the ascent of Mr Berlusconi back in the day, yet, it seems we have Mr Berlusconi taken up to 11 with Mr Trump. Are there some insights of the ascent of Mr Berlusconi that we might have missed on this side of the pond that might be illuminated by the ascent of Mr Trump, and are there any things that are really just completely different (e.g., IIRC Mr Berlusconi owned media outlets, whereas Mr Trump merely controlled them by other means (e.g., a fast spinning OODA loop multiplier via twitter, etc.))? And, how sweet is the schadenfreude?
Bill,
Great questions! Thanks for raising them. We can learn much from watching politics of our peer nations.
Hi FM, Mr Forte, and all,
I have not thought deeply about this, but I wonder how much of genuine “populism” is actually determined by attitude and perspective and not just account balances? What got me thinking about the degree to which Mr Trump really is genuinely a populist because of his upbringing, perspective, heritage, (insert a Boydian list of factors here), etc., was considering a recent article in The Atlantic “The Outer-Borough President” by McKay Coppins https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/the-outer-borough-president/514673/ the gist of which is that Mr Trump’s worldview has been shaped by being an outsider from Queens, though making it Manhattan in grand, or at least flashy, style, still is seen as a bridge-and-tunnel person by the elite. I think this idea of fractional belief, or identity (not in the PC identity politics sense, but intellectual, opt in sense) to be fascinating. Politically, I probably identify most as small-L libertarian, but rule of law needs government, a professional and potent military, and a shared set of values, at least as far a rule of law is concerned. So I’m libertarianish, and thus some degree might identify “as” or be identified as aligned with big-L Libertarians. (lather, rinse,repeat Dems/Repubs/etc., etc.,) I believe that Mr Trump may be to some degree populistish in a similar way.
PS I do love this site in particular, because people with different perspectives engage by thinking and analysis, and (generally) don’t drop to ad hominem attacks and nuh uh, uh huh, my way or highway BS. Congratulations on that! And thank you! If this is a stupid post though, shred it, I love to be challenged, see other perspectives, and learn.
PPS Google/Chrome thinks hominem is a misspelling of Eminem. Ah, serendipity!
I have been trying to combat the massive wave of fake news and outraged opinions from the Left and have had a nearly universal but odd set of responses.
Whenever I point out the truth of an allegation to a Leftie, they tend to do some research, find out what I say is true, and then assume that Trump is getting away with a lot of undocumented actions so their outrage is still justified. This is completely opposite of what they would have predicted 6 months ago.
When I point out that they are making a huge unwarranted assumption and they should do more research before committing themselves to this action, their response is universal but weird. They explain that they feel more alive by opposing Trump and he should be impeached even though they cannot name a single reasonable cause for impeachment.
I’ve asked a number of people after that response whether they supported Obama with equal fervor and the universal response is that supporting Obama isn’t nearly as interesting as tearing down Trump. I’ve pointed out several times that they are probably echoing the people on the right whom they have complained about for years. They just shrug and some look apologetic.
I keep thinking back to the general enthusiasm felt by people across Europe when WWI started. At last they could kick off these civilized habits and feel manly by putting those other people back in their places! The results, of course, were far different than the expectations and I suspect the same will be true again.
Pluto,
You’ve gotten much farther than I have. In the San Francisco Bay Area people know Trump is Hitler — and planning to do Hitler-type things. Everybody they know believes this. All their Leftish-info sources say so. It’s a bubble.
In 30+ years in finance I have lived thru bubbles, large and small. The term is psychologically correct. People live in them, isolated from the rest of the world, unreachable.
Bubbles are social constructs of great utility to the leaders of the group, powerful devices for mobilization and control. Look at the fantastic increase in ACLU fund-raising! While the Trump-is-Hitler bubble might prove politically ineffective (we don’t know this as yet), and perhaps even counter-productive (e.g., diminishing the Left’s credibility in US society), it’s immediate advantages to the Left’s leaders might out-weigh these medium- and long-term considerations.
FM & Bill & all.
well here in italy we have a lot of fun when we see Trump propose a contract to voters in the electoral campaign: Berlusconi made the same thing in his first 1994 campaign. (i don’t know if it’s common in USA, is the first time i see) in short the historical political situation, without i don’t think Berlusconi success can be full understand.
italian constitution and political sistem build after WW2 was made centered on a balance on power and a proportional electoral law, in order to make very difficult for a single party to rule alone.
but we have the biggest communist party in the west. so the moderate elite form a center coalition of four party (DC around 35%, PSI 10%, PSDI 3.5%, PRI 3.5%) with the goal to keep PCI (communist party) on the opposition. we have a lot of prime minister but all are supported by the same coalition: the election are only to define relative power inside the four party.
this change in 1976, on general election PCI (communist party) arrive to 34% alone. the four party system keep the majority but the socialist party are determinant: no government can be formed without PSI (excluding coalition of DC with PCI; in fact leader of DC, Aldo Moro, was killed for support this solution). the political story of Berlusconi start here.
the new leader of PSI, Craxi, in order to bolster relative strength, start to ask illegal money to businessman (Berlusconi on first line), using the found on electoral campaign. in short all party start to make the same (with exception of PCI). in 1991 after fall of URSS, the PCI dissolve and most of the members go to the new social democratic PDS. in 1992 the corruption system was discovered and all traditional party lose credibility. DC dissolve, Craxi escaped on exile in Tunisia to avoid jail. (sorry for english mistakes, you are free to correct, tomorrow the second part.of Berlusconi saga if you want)