So, America First, huh?

Where do real people fit into this plan? Is the hierarchy established yet? Who are we talking about when he say’s America: America the ideal, America the land, the laws, the constitution, the buffoon in charge, or does Mr. Trump have any of this mapped out yet? If his purpose is to include all people then great, but if he means only selected people then he should just say so as he did while running for office. Otherwise, why the change in tone? His generic word ‘people’ may not include me; I am gay.

The central idea of his speech is to “re-build the country” and to “restore its promise for all of our people.” Not all people, our people. Who are “our people” exactly? Trump has given us the duty to be skeptical of his words due to his previous behavior. He does not call out any specific category nor mention any subgroups. The only description of ‘people’ takes place in this odd sentence: “You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.” What movement is he talking about? When and where did it happen? Who was part of the movement? He doesn’t say. Is he including only ‘those who came’ meaning his voters – white evangelicals, or is everyone else in the country included too? Just prior to that statement he said: “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.” Does this mean the minorities he has worked so hard to exclude in the past? We don’t know. If we give him the benefit of the doubt we’d be foolish due to the ridiculous lies he comes up with, like the most recent lie about attendance records at inaugurations.

There is the occasional poetic phrase plopped into the speech by someone who knows what they are doing, just not often enough to matter. He mentions protection a lot. He says: “You will never be ignored again” as if he is only speaking to middle class whites and evangelicals who believe they were ignored by Obama and vulnerable to all things ‘foreign’. Races, religions, nationalities and sexual identities were protected by Obama in addition to whites; but whites, who’d, in their own minds, had sole ownership of that protection, suddenly were required to share it. So, they came to doubt its value and felt ignored.

Here is another curious section lacking in clarity: “We are one nation – and their pain is our pain.”   Who’s pain are we talking about here? “Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success.”  Notice how dreams ‘are’ but success ‘will be;’  why change tense within the same sentence? Will ‘we’ take ‘their’ success once it occurs to make it “ours”? The use of the word ‘their’ suggests he is talking about some group other than us which he tries to equate to us while keeping a separation. Kind of separate but equal. Since he never specifies anyone outside of the nebulous group of “our people” the audience feels unsure about whom he is discussing.

The vulgar imagery of bleeding races was startling; it arrived without context. He promised to “eradicate completely from the face of the Earth”Radical Islamic Terrorism.” Terrorism is an idea and a collection of techniques not a thing; you can’t eradicate a technique no matter how radical or what religion it comes from.

He stole this sentence from proselytizing Christians: “When you open your heart to patriotism (Jesus), there is no room for prejudice.” Why suggest that allegiance to a political philosophy is the same as an allegiance to a religious belief? Is he saying that politics is holy? Maybe his own politics are!

Trump seems to endorse a form of diversity that becomes homogeneous: “We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.” This makes sense for a labor union fighting corporate overlords but a democracy relies upon compromise. Diversity of thought and conviction merged through compromise into a solution seldom leads to unanimity. The only solidarity represented by his election was the massive Women’s March.

If there had ever been any  attempts on his part to include blacks, Mexicans, or any minority, then I would just chalk this up to bad writing alone. The speech is total crap, obviously written by amateurs. There is no reason to trust any part of it. What makes me nervous about it is this: he is cheerleading for an ill-defined country that is populated by some undefined group of followers. He wants total allegiance to whatever he may mean by ‘America’ and suggests that we will be rewarded with camaraderie through this total devotion.

The speech is just another attempt to gaslight us. He is directing his minimally masked comments to an alt-right audience who will be his loyal comrades – “our” people? Could be!