The day after: Some notes on the inaugural

So, it is done Donald J. Trump officially was sworn in as president Friday.

I didn’t watch — I was doing a interview for a story, though I’m not sure I would have. I hate pomp and circumstance, hate the pageantry that too often conflates elected political power with religious virtue. It is pure spectacle, though the words uttered, the inaugural address that follows the swearing in, matter greatly, as do the reactions of supporters and opponents of the new president.

Trump’s words matter, as do the reactions of the rest of us. His supporters will be supportive, will offer him a honeymoon period — and they should.

But critics are under no obligation, and pretending that unity is our highest priority will only make the defense of the things we believe and the gains we have won in recent years that much more difficult.

Let’s start here, with the thankfully brief remarks he made. As much of the media pointed out, Trump’s speech was a mix of the traditional — borrowing liberally from ideas offered by previous office holders. These were generic and represented his olive branch, his symbolic effort at reuniting the nation. They also were bullshit. As my friend Matt Rothschild, former editor of The Progressive wrote on Facebook, Trump’s call for “total allegiance” and his use of the phrase “America First” to describe his “’new vision’ that ‘will govern our land’” echoed the language used during the pre-World War II period.

“America First” was the name of the isolationist and anti-Semitic organization in the 1930s that wanted to accommodate Nazi Germany.

The America Firsters blamed Jews for the march toward war, and they made the argument that the Nazis weren’t that bad. I’m not looking to argue the merits of WWII; I just want to point out that Trump’s language has these troubling associations.

He also called for “total loyalty” and “unity,” which Rothschild said was a “way to give a veiled warning that he might not tolerate boisterous dissent.”

This is not a surprise. Trump signaled this through out the campaign, belittling critics and endorsing violence against protesters. Yes, he praised open and honest debate but, as Rothschild pointed out, his support was conditional, secondary to “solidarity.”

Here is a paraphrase of a postmade by a friend on Facebook (I’m not linking to it or quoting directly because I don’t believe it was a public discussion). She is not a Republican, but was critical of those protesting, saying they need to grow up. She wanted to give her “patriotic support” to Trump. That’s fine, if shortsighted and unfair to the bulk of the peaceful protesters and critics of Trump. This is not about maturity; rather, it’s about standing up and defending one’s beliefs.

We need to be careful with our language and not alllow it to be co-opted as support for Trump’s policies. The phrase “patriotic support” is both vague and loaded. It’s vague because it can cover a wide range of emotions, motivations, and actions — including protest. But it’s loaded because it tends to be used in the more jingoistic sense — “my country right or wrong.”

Supporting the office of the president, respecting it, is a legitimate and logical attitude. It implies a respect for the processes that undergird our form of government. But that does not mean I have to support the man in the office or his policies. And it doesn’t mean I’m a sore loser. Here is how I responded:

I’m ready to go forward, which means preventing him from taking us backward. As with any president,I will respect the office but I make no promise that I will just follow along.

I posted elsewhere … that I am not wishing him success because I believe that his promises, if enacted, will be a travesty for the nation and especially for the most vulnerable among us. But I do not wish him failure because abject failure, when embodied in a president, means depression and/or war.

My point is that we are not in a normal moment, with a normal transfer of power. We have a man who targeted Latinos and Muslims during his campaign, associated with overt racists and anti-Semites, dismissed not only science but any sense of intellectual curiosity, and was completely self-aggrandizing. While George W. Bush also was famously incurious, he was not the kind of egomaniac or fellow-traveler. Nothing is normal, and I resent being told to treat things as if they were.

The office continues to have my respect and support, but I make not promises about its occupant.

Let me say, because I know the question is out there, I do not support the violence that marred the protests yesterday. Violent protest is rarely, if ever, warranted, too often obscures the message and, as Martin Luther King said, undercuts the moral purpose of the protest.

But, and this is important, “riot is the language of the unheard.” It is not justifiable, but can be understandable — though the clashes yesterday are hard to fathom.

Send me an e-mail.