CommentPlus: pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers

1. Why don't we love David Cameron? (Sunday Telegraph)

...asks Janet Daley. By making his party unthreatening, inoffensive and un-nasty, Cameron may not be malignant, but neither is he magnetic.

2. Can't pull the wool over our eyes, Ed (Sunday Times) (£)

While Nick Clegg is "hanging tough" and proving himself the real heir to Blair, Ed Miliband is just a woolly liberal, writes Martine Ivens.

3. Ed Miliband is simply Gordon 2.0 (Sunday Telegraph)

Tony Blair really understood Mondeo Man, while Gordon Brown knew that he needed to sound like he did. In that, and in many other senses, Ed Miliband is much more like the latter than the former, says Matthew D'Ancona.

4. Two-tribe politics is over. But the likes of John Prescott can't see it (Observer)

Look at the opponents of electoral reform and all bar William Hague come from another age, writes Andrew Rawnsley.

5. Cancun: Where's green Dave now? (Independent on Sunday)

He may have talked a good game in opposition but David Cameron's apparent "green amnesia" exposes him as an opportunist, according to today's leader column.

6. Welfare does encourage "breeding" (Sunday Times) (£)

Howard Flight may have chosen the wrong words, says Minette Marrin, but there is evidence that tax and benefits influence the number of children people choose to have.

7. What exactly is the benefit of Howard Flight? (Observer)

Meanwhile, Babara Ellen says Flight's remarks should cause offence to all right-thinking people.

8. The long race to challenge Obama begins (Independent on Sunday)

This Thanksgiving weekend marks the start of the 2012 presidential campaign, notes Rupert Cornwell.

9. Obama conjured up the Palin whirlwind (Sunday Times) (£)

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan says it was Barack Obama who set the model for Sarah Palin's rise that sees her on the brink of a presidential run. Why? Because Obama came out of nowhere, too.

10. Without libraries, we will lose a mark of our civilisation (Observer)

Closing 250 libraries around the country will do great damage to our communities, argues Catherine Bennett.

 

Sign up to CommentPlus for a daily digest of comment and opinion direct to your inbox.

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