The second is that Trump is going to weaken our democratic norms further by refusing to adhere to minimal standards of transparency and conflict-of-interest avoidance that we might expect from our public officials, or perhaps even by tipping into some forms of authoritarian rule.

The third is that Trump might back away from the post-war system of international alliances that he has repeatedly hinted at undermining, through criticism of NATO and praise of Vladimir Putin.

AD

AD

Trump’s inaugural speech offered almost nothing meaningful to assuage any of these fears. Making this more striking still, this comes after Trump lost the popular vote and enters office as the least popular president in decades.

Trump’s speech offered up promises of unvarnished America-first nationalism, both in the international and domestic spheres. Internationally he seemed to vow comprehensive retreat in a manner that will not be very reassuring to anyone who wanted to hear Trump reiterate firm support for our system of alliances or articulate a vision of U.S. international engagement on things like human rights or (no chance of this, obviously) the need to fight global climate change.

Domestically he laid the blame for our economic travails upon two causes: immigration and trade deals. He promised stronger borders (which could mean stepped up deportations, not just a Mexican wall) and protectionism (which appears to mean tariffs). “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs,” Trump said. “Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.”

AD

AD

Trump also vowed some species of increased infrastructure spending. But that could either mean genuine public investitures or some kind of tax break and privatization scheme.

The closest Trump came to addressing any of the fears I discussed above came when he said this, in a reference to inner city residents and victims of economic carnage in the Rust Belt alike:

“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.”

And, later, this:

“We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth. At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.”

The vow to “reinforce old alliances” was too vague to be reassuring. The vow to “unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism” offers no meaningful recognition of the need to reach out to moderate Muslims in order to ally with them against terrorism (indeed, his very formulation, in the view of national security professionals, risks alienating them by casting Islam as the enemy).

AD

And was there any meaningful effort at racial or ethic reconciliation here to speak of? The first quote above is a gesture, and elsewhere Trump did say that all races bleed the same color of blood, but these remain too platitudinous to mean much of anything.

The second quote is strikingly deficient, and worthy of attention. The effort at reconciliation is almost presented as an afterthought, as something that cannot be pursued until “total” national allegiance is rediscovered. Left unstated is who needs to reestablish his or her “total allegiance” and “loyalty to our country” in the quest to attain the elimination of prejudice, or to “rediscover” the imperative of treating each other as equals, or with “loyalty.”

AD