US Press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. Care To Meet for a Cheap Drink? (Slate)

Jacob Weisber on what he learned from Christopher Hitchens.

2. Iraq war divided America but freed millions from Saddam (New York Daily News)

"Welcome home. Welcome home. Welcome home."

3. Gingrich's invented history (Politico)

Republican frontrunner Newt Gingrich's recent remarks that the Palestinians are an "invented" people, all of whom are "terrorists," are far from historical truth- but more damaging than Gingrich's rewriting of history is the negative effect of his political posturing, writes Wendy Chamberlin.

4. Iowa Republican debate: Newt's still on top, Romney steadies himself (Washington Post)

E.J. Dionne Jr. on Thursday's debate in Sioux City, Iowa.

5. Obama's hubris is obvious in conflicting statements (Omaha World Herald)

President Barack Obama doesn't suffer from amnesia, but he apparently hopes the public does, writes Cal Thomas.

6. New clinic rules will harm women's health (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Gov. Corbett should carefully consider the consequences and refuse to sign legislation that would roll back women's ability to obtain safe abortions.

7. Huntsman? Stranger things have happened (Denver Post)

All things seem possible in the Republican presidential contest- so, E.J. Dionne asks, is there another turn coming that could benefit Jon Huntsman?

8. No way to conduct people's business (Miami Herald)

In the usual frenzy before the holidays, lawmakers in Washington have once again packed a variety of questionable proposals - including one affecting travel to Cuba - into a huge bundle of legislation.

9. Medicare con: The problem is producing more medical grads, not increasing medicare fees for doctors (Oregonian)

The latest scare tactic by right-wing opponents of the Affordable Care Act aims at convincing Americans that reasonable trims in Medicare spending will make it very difficult for seniors to find a good doctor in coming years, according to Wayne Madsen.

10. Obama foreign policy: When 'reset' means setbacks (Oregonian)

Obama demonstrated decisiveness in killing Osama bin Laden, but forgoing a non-option says nothing about the soundness of one's foreign policy, writes Charles Krauthammer.

Getty
Show Hide image

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland