Four years ago, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott gave the Republican response to President Joe Biden’s first speech to a joint session of Congress in 2021. Claiming to advocate for bipartisanship and communal values, he argued that the commander-in-chief “should not push agendas that tear us apart.”
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump gave his first speech to a joint session of Congress, in which he repeatedly disparaged immigrants, “transgender ideology,” and the “radical left lunatics” that have allegedly been attempting to destroy the United States. It’s ironic, if not unsurprising, that the conciliatory rhetoric offered by Republicans at the start of Biden’s first term hasn’t exactly replicated itself in the present.
It wasn’t an easy choice to watch Trump’s address, and I don’t imagine myself being the intended audience of his provocative overtures. It’s hard to expect something different from a State of the Union address, in which members of both parties routinely applaud and jeer in a choreographed manner. I chose to tune in — and subsequently write this article — because I believe that staying informed and sharing my interpretations is the least that I can do, as a private citizen, to hold our elected officials accountable.
The policies outlined in Trump’s speech will harm Americans across the country, regardless of who they supported in the last election. Despite speaking at length about the deficit and the need to reduce debt by cutting “wasteful” government programs, Trump raised the national debt by over $7 trillion in his first term and is currently supporting legislation that will provide further tax breaks to billionaires while adding $2.8 trillion to the budget deficit through 2034.
His enactment of tariffs and future retaliatory measures against other countries — including our friends and partners — will prompt trade wars that will decimate farmers and consumers alike, and his indiscriminate firing of civil servants has already shattered thousands of families across the country.
Finally, Trump’s betrayal of Ukraine — framed in his speech as “talking to both sides” — runs antithetical to the values of democracy and self-determination that the United States can and must represent. Most of us were not alive when the international community last attempted to appease a tyrant, and the results were deadly.
As abysmal as his policy proposals are, explaining them in depth isn’t the purpose of my article. Throughout his speech, Trump constantly used cultural and nationalistic tropes meant to evoke emotional responses. He spoke at length about the “invasion of our country” by immigrants, whom he described as murderers, drug dealers, and “people from … insane asylums.” He pledged to halt the importation of “dirty and disgusting” foreign imports while cracking down on “toxic ideologies in our schools.”
His regurgitation of divisive rhetoric — and the blind loyalty exhibited by his supporters in Washington — points toward the death of discourse within our government and society. At what point did we begin to prioritize culture wars and the vilification of minorities over constructive dialogue about our shared problems?
During both his presidential campaign and Wednesday’s speech to Congress, Trump has prioritized the former in an attempt to increase his political fortunes. In doing so, he undermines our ability to respectfully discuss issues such as tax policy, foreign relations, and climate change — issues that, when mishandled, will not discriminate between liberal and conservative households. Through his speech, as well as his self-given description as a savior for all of America’s cultural and economic woes, Trump seeks to instill blind loyalty from his supporters in place of a critical reception, and dispiritedness and resentment from his opponents instead of a new push for consensus.
In Trump’s world, we would abandon critical thinking in favor of blind acceptance. It’s no surprise, therefore, that he continues to exhibit hostility toward higher education, including a veiled threat in his speech to revoke federal funding from schools that do not comply with his agenda.
Perhaps nothing else can make me further appreciate the value of a liberal arts education. At Oberlin and other learning institutions, we are challenged to look beyond empty platitudes and analyze contemporary issues. Our interpretations of those issues may differ, but each of them is grounded in discussions, research, and reflection — quite the opposite of simply accepting the words of a politician.
Taking this approach may ironically lead us to appreciate Tim Scott’s call for consensus, however underhanded it may have been, and question why he and other Republican officeholders aren’t sticking with the same message today. Americans are more polarized than they have been in decades, and the mandate Trump often claims is only based on winning a plurality of the popular vote by a single percentage point. Would such a message not heal a deeply fractured nation? It’s hard to assume this question will ever have an answer.
Sometimes, refusing to disengage is the best that we can do. That’s how I felt when I chose to watch Trump’s speech on Wednesday. I did sacrifice a bit of sleep to finish some readings in the morning, but it’s not a decision that I regret.
