InaugurationZzz

Recently, the 45th President of the United States was inaugurated into office. He, like all those before him, read an inaugural address and he, like all those before him, had some pros and some cons.

However, before I get into it, I want to make a few things clear:

A.) This is not an analysis of our president, it is a analysis of his words and his rhetoric. My political views are going to be kept out of this.

B.) I am not going to use his name in the first half of this entry. There is a strong negative connotation attached to his 5 letter name and I want you to do your best at giving me a fair chance to explain my thoughts. Everyone already knows who I’m talking about -- why not experiment?

Coming into this blog, I’ve listened to this speech maybe about 3 times now (twice in my Government and Economics class and once in my English class) and the first time-and-a-half I wasn’t really paying much attention. Somehow, I tuned my brain in for the last time-and-a-half and once my brain connected the words to their meanings, I began to pick apart the language and effectiveness (being given a tangible transcript to follow along with and annotate the second time we watched in Gov and Econ probably helped me there).

In order to make sure I’ve covered my bases, I’m going into quick detail on the audience -American citizens, radical terrorists, and citizens of other countries around the world- the purpose -basically to introduce himself to America, complexly to unite a country of divided citizens through diction and tone- his subject -to introduce the “future” of America- the speaker -the 45th President of the US- and the occasion -the inauguration of a new president of a different party.

Regarding the actual words of the speech, a few major points stuck out to me. About 6 minutes into his speech, he mentions, “...Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.” Hit me in the pathos. Throughout the rest of the speech, he uses phrases like, “refusing to defend … disrepair and decay. … ravages of other countries … stand at the birth of a new millennium,” where pathos cannot be applicable but the choice in diction makes room for logos. The words that actually make up the speech and the tone that’s based off the context makes his points sound like logic. Common knowledge. And, in that sense, I feel like this speech was effective.

However, due to the lost ethos from his campaigning, I don’t believe this speech was effective. While our new president drives one half of the country to happiness, he drives the other half to madness. He damaged his reputation throughout his 17ish months of campaigning through the use of degrading language, inappropriate decisions, and aggressive argumentation. When he entered this inauguration on January 20th, 2017, there was no combination of words he could have used to readily satisfy the general population. Some citizens were far too through with him before he even stepped foot in office while on the other hand other citizens took his words as gospel faster than they even came out of his mouth. Our country is split in two extremes and, despite his speech touching on the necessities of bringing back a unified US (stated toward the conclusion of his speech “When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.”), nothing he could have said could have changed the minds of those who stand firm in their opinions. In that sense, I do not feel like this speech was effective. But I do not think that any speech given in this social situation would be, in this sense, effective.

-------

I want to reenforce the fact that I am not bringing my political standpoint in on this. I think that can arouse unwanted prejudice toward my blog, no matter who or what I agree with.

In my Government and Economics class, we’re also covering speeches from Kennedy, Reagan, and Carter in comparison to Trump. Since we have gone into most detail on Kennedy so far, I am going to use his inauguration speech of 1961 (yes, the “ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country” speech) to compare to Trump’s.

The most blatant difference between the two to me is the description. Branching off of what Andrah brought to the discussion in our 3rd block Gov and Econ course, Kennedy used figurative language like it was his job in 1961. I.e. “… those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.” Or “And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.” Or “… a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion.” So many of his points weren’t meant to be taken literally. In Trump’s speech, his statements were, for the most part, literal. I.e. “… rebuild our country.” Or “… America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.” Or “… we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.” These points all had been described with literal meaning.

A second difference would have to be the difference in where the two leaders were looking when they gave the speech. Kennedy seemed to have had his face toward the future, stating it “… will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.” Trump seemed to have his face looking at the past and present, stating “For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost” and then went on to discuss some issues with the past. However, do not take my words as a complete generalization. My statements can be proven wrong with few specific quotes just as they have been proven right with my few quotes.

Similarly, both speeches discussed the importance of unification. Both presidents were facing a split country. Kennedy at the heart of the civil rights movement and Trump at the heart of a modern day civil rights movement. Kennedy had acknowledged the strength of unification in his quote, “United there is little we cannot do … Divided there is little we can do.” And Trump discussed this in a point I made earlier. Both of these presidents were trying to motivate their people to a new world and a new chance at unification.

And, I am going to leave off with that as I currently am approaching my bedtime and these past few days I’ve started feeling run down and slightly sick. All the sleep I run away from on a daily is finally catching up to me.

Thanks for reading!!