AMERICA FIRST

by Andy Nowicki

Unlike most on the Alt-Right, I have mostly been Trump-skeptical in orientation and outlook. I was glad that he won, of course, but that was really just because him winning meant that his opponent, that screechy horrid harpy from Hell, lost. Thus I don't approach this analysis as a sycophant or even a particular admirer of the newly-coronated God Emperor, on whose distinctive orange mop the crown now securely rests.

Still, even I have to admit that the Inauguration speech I just heard was quite an extraordinary one. A brazen, brass-balled, taboo-shattering peroration indeed. Though brief, it packed a mighty punch. Though not exactly eloquent (has the Donald ever been so, even with a prepared script?), it nevertheless retained a brusquely bracing brio. It danced to the rhetorical edge, and then thrillingly leaped over the edge, of what polite people  (much less newly-inaugurated presidents!) are supposed to be allowed to say in our benighted age which so arrogantly presumes its own righteousness.

Naturally, the pundits are aghast. They wanted something less bold, more mild and milquetoast. "After all, the campaign is over! After such a trying and divisive time, a responsible president would do his best to cool things down... he would reach out to the opposition, and plead for unity!"

But in fact, Trump did not attack that portion of the electorate (i.e., more than half of the voting public) which voted against him. He did not, unlike the aforementioned hellish harpy, scold and shame those who stood against him as "deplorables." And he did, in fact, express a desire for national unity, noting that "We are one nation... we share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny." And, "We must speak out minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity." And, "whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots."

To the extent that his speech was truly "divisive," however, the dividing line Trump drew wasn't between red and blue-state America, but rather between Washington globalists ("a small group in our nation's Capital") and "the American people." Indeed, after thanking Barack and Michelle for "their gracious aid throughout this transition," Trump proceeded to tear into them, at least implicitly, by declaring that "today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another--but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American people."

The clear implication of such a statement was, of course, that the American people had been tyrannized under Obama, but now, with Trump's inauguration, that tyranny had finally come to an end. Meanwhile the former First Couple could only sit and frown conspicuously as the newly-minted president gleefully cast his implicit aspersions.

"January 20th, 2017," he went on to declare, "will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again." Again with the "again"! Meaning that, while "the people" should have been ruling all along, but their rightful reign was disrupted by "a small group in our nation's Capital." Once more, the Obamas, as well as the Bushes and the Clintons, all of whom were sitting nearby getting pelted by pesky raindrops, could only scowl impotently as this clear, if indirect, indictment was enunciated.

This was not an ideologically conservative speech, exactly. There was no endorsement of family values, no commentary on gay marriage, transgender "rights," or abortion, and no broadsides launched against the welfare state. But it was an uncompromisingly radical speech just the same. It was an address which assailed inner-city crime as "American carnage," which, he vowed would "stop right here and right now!"  (It is, of course, unclear precisely what power the executive branch has to put this "Dirty Harry" rhetoric into effect in America's crime-ravaged inner cities...)

Trump's fiercely protectionist bent was also prominently on display as he cited corporate elites "spending trillions of dollars overseas, while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay." The wealth of the American middle class, he declared, "has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world." And "millions upon millions of workers have been left behind" because heartless heads of multinational conglomerates have closed up shop in America and moved elsewhere in search of cheaper labor, lower overhead, and higher profit margins.

The solution, he announced, was to "hire American, and buy American," and to set about "rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor." Protection, in fact, was openly invoked by name several times, as was border security, most notably here:

"Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength."

And then, most provocatively from a rhetorical standpoint, there was the 45th President's defiant invocation of that simple but powerful injunction which he first unveiled on the campaign trail, "America First!"

Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh (left), of the original "America First" campaign

This appellation has long been reviled by the media establishment, since it was first wielded by non-interventionists (smeared by their enemies as "isolationists" or even Hitler-loving traitors) like Charles Lindbergh and others, who wanted America to stay out of World War II. Pat Buchanan, whom Trump once attacked for being a "Nazi-sympathizer," has been the lone public figure to defend "America First," both as a slogan, and as a general philosophy. And it seems now that Donald has come around to Pat's way of thinking. This indeed marks a yuuuge change of heart on the part of the Prez.

Finally, Trump emphasized the other side of the non-interventionist coin: namely, that while America will protect its borders and its industries, it will also leave other nations alone to pursue their own polices:

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

Yet the "Duke of Orange" did profess an interest in collaborating with other countries in order to defeat ISIS, an outcome that he depicted in vivid terms:

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow. We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

It is still too early to tell, of course, if the reality will match the rhetoric. There is reason for skepticism. Many of Trump's cabinet picks have been neocons and banksters-- representatives of the very globalist machine that he attacked in his Inauguration speech. Still, it is significant that President Trump has come out of his corner swinging at the very start of the match. We'll soon find out if he's ready, willing and able to carry the fight through to its bitter and necessary end.