Trump's new normal: Just a speech, however good, can't make America great

An emollient speech does not reset the narrative

Donald Trump has raised the bar by which he will be judged after an unexpectedly restrained performance during his first address to the joint session of Congress. The Dow pierced the 21,000 mark, most Americans expressed approval of his agenda on the economy, terrorism, tax and immigration, and even the liberal press, recently condemned as “fake media”, offered fulsome praise. The muted cadences, the appeal to his opponents to allay “trivial fights”, the condemnation of hate crimes, the occasional human touch in acknowledging the wife of the Navy SEAL who died in a botched overseas operation, and the toned-down observations on immigration and health care all suggest that Mr Trump has finally absorbed the unsettling impact of his coarse rhetoric on a large proportion of the electorate and, indeed, on many world leaders. Unlike his countless campaign speeches and statements in his first month in the White House, fact checkers found no flat-out untruths in the hour-long address, though there were several misleading statements and claims —notably on his job-saving successes with several American corporations, the job-creating potential of the two environmentally threatening oil pipelines, on Affordable Care and his claims to “drain the swamp”.

Two points are worth noting. First, Mr Trump has managed to sound presidential several times before — his increasing maturity as the nomination debates proceeded escaped no one, for example. This did not discourage him from lapsing back to his core agenda of economic nationalism, xenophobia and Islamophobia addressed to white working-class Americans and random Republican billionaires. His curmudgeonly inauguration address, for instance, quickly disabused those who drew hope from his conciliatory acceptance speech of a more inclusive, sophisticated world view. The chaotic flood of executive orders in Mr Trump first ten days — including a seven-country immigration ban that was struck down by a court — reassured only his narrow base of supporters.

Second, it is uncertain if Mr Trump has reset the narrative in fundamental ways. Consider his comments on immigration, which has been front and centre of the controversies surrounding his early days. His aversion to undocumented settlers may be justified and a merit-based system in which immigrants should be capable of supporting themselves sounds sensible — it certainly reassured India’s anxious technology companies — but it leaves unaddressed the very live issue of West Asian refugees who have lost everything to civil war. His antipathy to climate change is intact, as is his resolve towards protectionism and tax breaks for big business. His boilerplate commitment to NATO would have scarcely assured his allies across the Atlantic when his relationship with Vladimir Putin remains closed to scrutiny — his Attorney-General Jeff Sessions is now under pressure to resign for lying about campaign contacts with Russia. When Mr Trump’s aggressive talk at home is tempered by emollient Cabinet members overseas, questions are legitimately raised as to who really is in charge. His continuing proximity with his international business empire and his steadfast refusal to declare his tax returns will ensure that the pall of distrust will never quite leave his administration. In short, when set against the hard business of governing, a speech, however good, cannot make America great.