By Edwin Cooney
President Donald John Trump’s much anticipated inauguration and inaugural address has finally come and gone. Whatever the president’s purpose or the public’s reaction to his speech may be appears to be almost trivial at least on the surface.
Presidential inaugurations occur at the outset of an administration and usually contain more rhetoric than substance. Still, more than most realize, they do reflect the new or re-elected president’s sense of priorities and purposes.
Had I been a supporter of candidate Trump, I probably would have felt reinforced and perhaps reinvigorated by his sixteen minute inaugural address. First, the new president scolded at least four former presidents, although they were sitting right behind him on the platform. He accused them of reaping the rewards of government or governing while the people bore the costs. From there, he proceeded to restate his supporters’ grievances, small and large, real and perceived. What I’ve found fascinating about President Trump and the Republican Party throughout this campaign is how often they present their constituency as “victims” after so many campaigns during which they’ve criticized liberal politicians for the same thing. So often, Republicans criticize Democrats for creating “nanny states” in response to the victimhood of their constituents.
On some level, the new president’s opponents were hoping for acknowledgment as legitimate constituents deserving of the love and recognition of the new president for whom they possess considerable contempt! “Please, please love me, Mr. President, even if I can never bring myself to respect you, let alone love you!”
As President Trump acknowledged yesterday, an inaugural marks the peaceful and orderly transfer of executive power. Even more, it’s an opportunity to set a tone of understanding between the new administration and the people, as expressed during a presidential inauguration. Occasionally, the tone of a new administration can affect the substantial quality of its relationship with its people.
This was particularly true in 1861 as Abraham Lincoln carefully prepared his March 4th Inaugural Address. Mr. Lincoln frequently consulted his perspective Secretary of State William Seward in order to forcefully, but nevertheless diplomatically, lay out his policy about slavery and its retention or expansion. He also felt he had to assure the South that it need not fear being assaulted by the government unless it first assailed the federal government. Lincoln’s first inaugural address ultimately didn’t prevent the Civil War but it may well have delayed it.
FDR’s 1933 Inaugural Address enabled him to reassure the public that the government was willing to intervene and stabilize conditions throughout the country even in the face of the banking emergency, increasing unemployment, home foreclosures, and the crisis on farms and the great plains Furthermore, FDR specifically outlined the strategy he would use to combat unemployment.
“Our greatest primary task,” FDR began, “is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the government itself treating that task as we would the emergency of a war, but at the same time through this employment accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize much needed resources…” The president went on to relate how wise recruiting and employment could have a positive effect on everything from unemployment itself to land use which could improve agriculture and the usage of public lands for conservation, transportation and better use of public facilities. FDR went on to assert that the problem of unemployment “…can never be helped…by merely talking about it.”
As Mr. Trump has done throughout the campaign, he provided the public with little if any specifics as to how problems he constantly enumerated could be solved. It is this lack of enumeration that causes me to wonder how much he understands about public issues and the alternatives at hand to overcome either national or international issues.
“Today’s ceremony…has very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington D.C. and giving it back to you - the people,” asserted America’s 45th President. “For too long a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have born the cost. Washington flourished but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and 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 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 20, 2017 will be remembered as the day when the people became the rulers of this nation again!”
Whether this seems credible to you or to me, it’s what our new leader appears to believe. For at least the next two years, he appears to have the political leverage to try and make his vision a reality. If he pulls it off, he’ll accomplish what not even George Washington could accomplish.
Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, despite President Washington’s stern warning, begat political parties. Political parties begat today’s contentiousness. Today’s contentiousness, the product of the culture wars which have gone on since the mid 1970s, “begat” President Donald J. Trump!
For better and worse, the Trump presidency is our creation. The question is: what are we going to do with it or about it?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment