The history books tell us that Donald Trump gave one of the shorter inaugural speeches in presidential history. The symbolism, in length, in content and in style, should not be lost. His brief and plain speech was a third shorter than Obama’s two speeches and lacked the latter’s oratory grace and high rhetoric. It also, notably, included the word “I” only a single time, (and even that was a reference to an action (“The oath of office I take today”) rather than self-promotion), itself a very sharp contrast to Obama’s ever-increasing penchant for self-reference in recent years. In all this, and in the content of the speech itself, Trump casts himself as the antithesis of his predecessor.
The message of Trump’s speech, once the emotionality is stripped away, is one of unabashed protectionism. There are elements of that protectionism with which I agree, in particular the military expenditures to protect other nations – expenditures that allow those other nations to under-spend on their own militaries and to grow dependent on Pax Americana for their security. This under-spending allows those nations to fund their welfare states, and thus represents a massive transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to foreign safety nets. Trump also suggests that he won’t engage in nation-building – another point of my concurrence, and one that’s related to the message on militarism.
But, the militarism angle is probably the extent of my concurrence. Trump’s message is decidedly zero-sum. He declares that every trade that benefits other nations and their people is detrimental to America and to Americans. This is contrary to reality, and ignores the benefits that American consumers receive from cheaper goods and services. People love the simple message of “Buy American,” but when “Buy American” results in less efficient use of resources (i.e. the money you’ve earned), it makes us all a bit poorer.
The big, bold declarations of infrastructure spending pose several questions. Where will the money come from? Will the “roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways” be useful and serve productive purpose, or will they simply be make-work? Will the promise to build “American” actually be an efficient use of tax dollars? Do we actually need all that he proposes?
Another angle of his “protectionist” tone is found in the references to safety, law enforcement and border protection. In this he is playing to the exaggerated stories of lawlessness born out of some social movements and illegal immigration. He’s not wrong on this matter when it comes to the entitled attitudes associated with those social movements, but there’s a jingoistic overtone therein that is at odds with the tenets of liberty.
Indeed, Trump references freedom or liberty just once, with a vague declaration that “We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms.” This doesn’t even qualify as lip-service to liberty, and it is in line with his worrying history of having little to say about individual rights and liberties.
Many of Trump’s detractors have fixated on their belief that he’s going to strip away the rights of women, of gays, of minorities and of other oppressed identity groups. Women’s rights protest marches are planned all over the globe for today, but it seems that they are protesting against a bit of a straw-man. I’m not quite sure what they think Trump is going to do to women or their rights, other than perhaps not forcing employers to pay for their birth control (something’s not exactly a “right” when it involves using force on others). The biggest danger we face, however, lies not in the social realm but in the economic realm. Trump’s presidency looks to become a battle between the stimulative effects of tax cuts, regulation repeals, and downsizing of government vs the depressive effects of tariffs, trade wars, economic protectionism and unnecessary government spending. How that all shakes out is unpredictable, and what the reality of his actions vs his rhetoric will be will determine whether America’s economy improves or suffers under Trump’s hand.
Trump’s inaugural message of “America First” may be inspiring, but its underlying signal of economic illiteracy is worrying. Still, the message matters less than the act. Lets see how Trump actually executes his “America First” promises.
Deeds, not words shall speak me. — John Fletcher
Loading ...
Your statement of President Trump stating America must win in negotiations fails to acknowledge that there are deals that are win/win. Not all parties receive 100% of their stated goals, but both parties come out better still. President Obama made deals where the other party won and we got the shaft. It seemed President Obama was afraid to use leverage.
Get Outlook for iOS
My statement is an opinion that Trump doesn’t perceive negotiations as win-win, but rather as zero-sum. In other words, I believe his mindset is that deals can be improved for us primarily by tipping terms in our favor, rather than by exploring win-win options.
I fully understand your point, but here is where I am coming from. Obama, until just recently, has “given away the farm” as it were. The deals were not profitable for the US in any true sense of the word. The Iran deal gave them everything they wanted just so the Obama administration can say “We got a deal”. All they had to do was threaten not to deal. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the way we ran every deal. Obama did not seem to be willing to use leverage,such as a simple threat of ourselves to walk away from the table, to get better deals for the US.
But I don’t think it mattered to Obama that the US get the best deals possible. He saw, long ago, that the US was an overly rich country, and being a super power, had to be brought down a notch so other countries could rise up and thus create a more egalitarian world. We have to lower our standards of living so Mexico can increase its standards of living. But that also makes the assumption that other countries will be like ours and actually help to improve standards of living. As it is, with all our factories that were being built there, all the commerce being sent there, they are still in dire straits.
ᐧ