It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
I honestly don’t know what to think about Donald Trump’s speech in Warsaw the other day. I’m being bombarded with drastically contrasting remarks about it. It was awful. It was great. It was a denial of everything we believe in. It was an affirmation of everything we believe in.
I’ve read it and found it unremarkable, pretty benign, and in the tradition of other speeches by American presidents abroad. I didn’t find it either impressive or horrifying. Rhetorically, I thought it was halting consistent with Trump’s rhetorical style.
Obviously, Eugene Robinson doesn’t feel that way as expressed in his recent Washington Post column:
The speech Trump delivered Thursday in Warsaw’s Krasinski Square might have been appropriate when Britannia ruled the waves and Europe’s great powers held dominion over “lesser†peoples around the globe. It had nothing useful to say about today’s interconnected world in which goods, people and ideas have contempt for borders.
“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,†the president said. “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?â€
Trump added what he probably thought of as a Churchillian flourish: “I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilization will triumph.â€
Triumph over whom? Trump mentioned “radical Islamic terrorism†as one of the enemies posing “dire threats to our security and to our way of life,†but he didn’t stop there. He went on to add Russia and — weirdly — “the steady creep of government bureaucracy†to the list. It is appalling that the president would describe patriotic public servants as a kind of fifth column that “drains the vitality and wealth of the people,†and I guess some precious bodily fluids as well.
But what does Trump mean when he speaks of “the West†and its civilization? “Americans, Poles and the nations of Europe value individual freedom and sovereignty,†he said. “We must work together to confront forces, whether they come from inside or out, from the South or the East, that threaten over time to undermine these values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition that make us who we are. . . . We write symphonies. We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers.â€
That’s what I mean about a little learning. If the president read a few history books, he’d know that for most of the past 2,000 years, China and India were the world’s leading economic powers and Europe was a relatively primitive backwater. He’d know that Europe rose to dominance not by erecting walls but by opening itself to the rest of the world — its resources, products and people.
Here are some links to Trump’s speech and for context I’ve included President Kennedy’s speech in West Berlin in 1963 and President Reagan’s speech in West Berlin in 1987.
Trump’s speech
Kennedy’s speech in 1963
Reagan’s speech in 1987
What should I think about it?
Update
By way of contrast here’s what the editors of the Wall Street Journal have to say about the speech:
This is the speech Mr. Trump should have given to introduce himself to the world at his Inauguration. In place of that speech’s resentments, his Warsaw talk offered a better form of nationalism. It is a nationalism rooted in values and beliefs—the rule of law, freedom of expression, religious faith and freedom from oppressive government—that let Europe and then America rise to prominence. This, Mr. Trump is saying, is worth whatever it takes to preserve and protect.
It was an important and, we hope, a defining speech—for the Trump Presidency and for Donald Trump himself.
Do you see what I mean? That’s why I don’t know what to think.
I agree that the speech was benign and similar to those of previous presidents. I think it was remarkable only in that it’s an example of Trump being able to deliver a speech competently (if not eloquently) and that it’s a reversal of Obama’s “citizen of the world” rhetoric. It certainly hit the right notes for Poles, as it touched repeatedly on their own history of nationalism and cultural pride which has permitted them to rise repeatedly from the ashes of conquest.
I think those two reactions to the speech are examples of two approaches possible for opposition to a political foe. The first is the bogeyman method, framing everything the person says or does according to a narrative of horrors. The second is a damning with feint praise approach.