Trump’s message in State of the Union unlikely to exist beyond the soundbites
Elliot Gonnella
Antelope Staff
I will give a full disclosure upfront, I did not watch the State of the Union address last week when it was televised. I caught highlights the day after, and I worked with that. So, I am not going to pick apart everything that was said by either Trump or the various responses of congressmen.
Nor will I be focusing on the outright falsehoods or truths mixed with exaggeration that were given during his speech. A few examples included his false claim that Green Card applicants don’t have any requirements to meet, and his claim that wage growth is rising under him (when in truth Obama’s presidency had seen greater numbers). That would take hours frankly neither of us has.
Instead, I will be focusing on something I think will be the most relevant all things considered. This was not Trump giving the State of the Union. He said the words, used the same mannerisms as Trump, but it was not his speech.
Rather it was the words of the speech writer.
Now I know full well that many politicians have a dedicated speechwriter or team that helps them convey their message in a coherent and compact message. I am not going to wear the hat of a naive fool who thinks that speeches we often receive by politicians are of their own pure creation. I know that they have a lot to do, and if they can delegate that task for someone to focus on that job, more power to them.
My main complaint with Trump’s State of the Union is that those words coming out of his mouth are not his and they do not back up his previous actions. I knew that this speech would be Trump trying to play the role of the moderate and try to paint himself as a bipartisan that is being attacked by some invisible enemy, using an argument appealing to emotion and feigned humility.
As soon as the speech over, I could hear everyone holding their breath to wait for the usual tirade the following morning. Shortly after the morning news hours, Trump took to Twitter to attack his enemies and brag about his viewings, inflating the numbers as usual.
Trump seems to be under the impression that words and repeating them over and over changes the world to fit in with those words. This goes beyond the usual exaggeration or outright lying one would come to expect from the presidency. Words are not verbal wands that you wave around, causing the world to suddenly fix itself. If that was the case, I would be a published novel author now without any overriding concern for money. It is a nice fantasy, but just saying it does not make it reality.
Trump’s supporters were, I am sure, expecting something of a message very similar to the one received last Tuesday. It is also a message they were not going to heed in the first place. Look at the past two years as to how Trump has treated his supporters, how he agitated them to chant one word slogans when he mentioned something offhandedly. That learned behavior is not going to be undone just by saying something. With an almost religious indoctrination into a cult of personality with a “not one inch of ground be given to the enemy” mentality, the supporters in public office and public place will not take the message of bipartisan and compromise that Trump’s speech writer hinted at between boasts.
At the end of the day, it was a speech that was supposed to adhere to some ideal and formality for formality sake. I have few doubts that if that were not the case, the seating would be filled with supporters chanting some slogan that is as foolish as it is simple, and Trump would be the ringmaster that he is.
What should we take away from that speech? Besides the number of similes to the word strong, I do not think that there is anything worthy of note. Trump tried to be something he is not, and even that person barely existed for twelve hours.
Like most State of the Union addresses, it is best to see if this is the face the president wears all 364 other nights of the year.
If they do, then at the very least you can praise them for consistency. If not, well, then you have Trump.
At the end of the day, it was a speech that was supposed to adhere to some ideal and formality for formality sake. I have few doubts that if that were not the case, the seating would be filled with supporters chanting some slogan that is as foolish as it is simple, and Trump would be the ringmaster that he is.
What should we take away from that speech? Besides the number of similes to the word strong, I do not think that there is anything worthy of note. Trump tried to be something he is not, and even that person barely existed for twelve hours. Like most State of the Union addresses, it is best to see if this is the face the president wears all 364 other nights of the year. If they do, then at the very least you can praise them for consistency. If not, well, then you have Trump.