Vincent J. Curtis
2 Sept 2016
Donald Trump’s meeting on Wednesday with Mexican president
Enrique Pena Nieto demonstrated, if anything could, Trump’s fitness and
capacity to be president of the United States.
Trump began his speech that evening in Phoenix with these
gracious remarks:
“I have just landed having
returned from a very important and special meeting with the President of Mexico
– a man I like and respect very much, and a man who truly loves his country.
Just like I am a man who loves the United States. We agreed on the importance of ending the
illegal flow of drugs, cash, guns and people across our border, and to put the
cartels out of business.
We also discussed the great
contributions of Mexican-American citizens to our two countries, my love for
the people of Mexico, and the close friendship between our two nations. It was a thoughtful and substantive
conversation. This is the first of what I expect will be many conversations in
a Trump Administration about creating a new relationship between our two
countries.”
These high remarks are the sorts
of diplomatic gestures intended to convey good will and good intentions that
one would expect from a serious individual in high office.
Trump then delved into the heart
of his remarks, the details of his immigration policy. The speech was delivered to an audience of
15,000 people and was telecast simultaneously.
He cautioned his audience that he was now going to deliver a raucous rally speech,
but a substantive speech, and so he might be a little tedious for them. But he would do his best not to disappoint.
The speech was delivered with
great energy and power that was sustained for over an hour. In it, Trump presented his ten point plan for
dealing with illegal immigration, from Mexico particularly but also principles
for immigration and refugee settlement from other parts of the world.
In summary, the plan was to build
an impenetrable wall along the border with Mexico, and then enforce the
immigration laws on the books. Trump
would prioritize the removal of illegal aliens with criminal records, followed
by a re-assessment of aims and methods after the completion of phase 1. Sanctuary cities would be pressured to comply
with federal law. Trump would also use
his discretion as President to adjust immigration quotas under the law to favor
those people most likely to succeed in integrating into American society. In general, he would reduce the flow of
immigrants at the bottom rung of the economic ladder to enable American workers
to get jobs.
Trump would also repeal all of
Barack Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional Executive Orders that are
effectively granting amnesty to millions of illegals who seem to like the
Democrat Party.
How radical: build a wall to keep
the problem from getting worse, and then enforce the law!
All the talking heads in the media
were either impressed or distressed at the reasonableness of Trump’s
immigration policy. But when it comes to
Trump, the talking heads have to find fault.
The narratives of objection
concerned either Trump’s style of delivery, or focussed on a n alleged “softening”
of the position he seemed to take in the primaries. The latter criticism carries the implication
of rank hypocrisy in this case.
On the matter of style, it seems
that Trump took common sense and made it seem extreme (in the words of NRO commentator
David French). After being so serious
and presidential in Mexico, Trump comes to Phoenix and then reverts to bombastic
mode again, spoiling the effect of his previous seriousness and
presidentialness.
Fox News contributor Charles
Krauthammer couldn’t let go of the fact that the speech amounted to a softening
of Trump’s position, indicating that Trump was weakening, or was being hypocritical,
having disposed of his primary rivals for holding the very position that he now
advances. He observed that Trump was
wasting his time delivering the speech in Phoenix, Arizona, since Trump already
was going to win the state and should be giving the speech in a battleground
state, like Ohio.
You would hope that professional
commentators would be knowledgeable on matters of communication, yet they
apparently know nothing about the art of rhetoric and seem to forget the boilerplate
wisdom they themselves offered less than five months ago.
In front of 15,000 enthusiastic
supporters, Trump was supposed to deliver somnolent, TV-style remarks in a
calm, bland manner suitable for a TV
audience. Just as Hillary Clinton
would. The TV-types wanted a TV
presentation at a rock concert! (There
is a reason Hillary speaks to small, carefully selected audiences, and it is
because she can’t deliver a rock-concert performance, and when she tries, her
fingernails-on-the-blackboard voice comes out.)
The reason the speech was given in
Arizona and not Ohio is that Arizona is greatly affected by illegal
immigration, and Arizonans are quite hostile to it. Trump was guaranteed an enthusiastic audience
who would like his remarks, and since it was carried live on television, people
in Ohio and other battleground states could watch it if they wanted to. The energy and enthusiasm of the audience in
front of Trump would be carried through the presentation, and people at home
would understand that Trump was speaking before a huge audience, requiring a
lot of power in his delivery. Not
weakening in over an hour of powerful delivery was a sign of strength and
health in Trump.
The softening business is a dream
of a hostile media. The boilerplate
wisdom among the commentariat is that candidates move to the left or right in
their parties to gain the nomination and then tack to the center during the
general election. If Trump is tacking to
the middle, he is following exactly the received wisdom of the commentariat,
but to a hostile media, following media advice or the well-beaten path of
successful candidates is weakening, softening, and rank hypocrisy. They wanted Trump to announce a Nazi-style
deportation force so that they could denounce him for his inhumanity. He didn’t, and so they complain about his “softening.”
But Trump is not weakening, and
their hostility prevent them seeing from the logic of Trump’s policy.
Trump said at the beginning of his
speech that the government doesn’t really know how many illegals are actually
in the country. The figure of 11 million
is bandied about, but no one really knows.
So, until the true dimensions of the problem are fully known, Trump
prioritized deportations. He was going
to concentrate on the criminal element, and then reassess the situation after
that part was completed. Trump made
clear that he would be humane in that re-assessment, but that the only path to
citizenship for an illegal was to leave the country and re-enter properly under
immigration law. The rule of law was
going to be upheld, however bad the law may be.
In addressing the issue this way,
Trump demonstrated a more mature handling of the problem that the commentariat
are capable of seeing, given their anti-Trump prejudices.
Trump showed that he is the adult
in the room, and the hot-house plants of the Washington commentariat have yet
to pick up the resonance Trump is developing outside of DC, and tailor their remarks accordingly.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment