Thread: A tale of two speeches: The contradictions of Donald Trump’s presidency

A tale of two speeches: The contradictions of Donald Trump’s presidency

By Dan Balz February 28 at 10:55 PM

The President Trump who spoke to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night bore only passing resemblance to the President Trump who spoke from the Capitol’s West Front on Inauguration Day. Some of the words were the same, but the tone was utterly different. Therein lies the contradiction — and — challenge of his presidency.

In his inaugural address, Trump spoke of American carnage and as the tribune of the forgotten American. To the assembled members of Congress seated behind him that January day, he offered a rebuke and the back of his hand. On Tuesday, he made repeated appeals for national unity and cross-party cooperation. Looking out across the House chamber, he seemed to offer an open hand to the same political establishment he had pilloried just weeks ago.

Trump as president must attempt a perpetual juggling act, at once capitalizing on public insecurities and stoking anti-establishment anger among those who helped carry him to the White House while sounding broader notes of optimism and playing nice with establishment Republicans, whom he needs to help enact his agenda. It is no longer a question of which is the real Donald Trump but more the question of whether he can build a successful presidency out of this split political personality.

The opening weeks of the administration have put on vivid display the tensions within his presidency and potential strains within the Trump and GOP coalitions. At times, as he did at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, the president channels the worldview of White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, the nationalist firebrand who seeks permanent warfare against the established order. At other times, as on Tuesday night, he is a mostly (though never entirely) conventional Republican, embracing the worldview of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), who keeps alive the flame of traditional conservatism.

Trump remains the master of constant action, of both strategic diversions and politically damaging digressions. His days have been filled with gatherings at the White House, crowded photo opportunities in the Oval Office, tweets and interviews and pronouncements, all to project a sense of forward motion and promises kept. He has signed multiple executive orders. He has given several campaign-style speeches. He has stoked the emotions of Trump Nation with an us-vs.-them style of leadership. He has carried on his war with the news media.

The president returned to familiar themes from his campaign in his speech to Congress, promising to reduce regulations and taxes, combat terrorism, crack down on illegal immigration and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Still. Executive orders have pointed to a new direction, but they are limited in what they can accomplish. The campaign-style speeches are just that, a litany of familiar promises. The president set the tone and dominated Washington, and he gives himself an A grade for what he has accomplished. What he has not done is what Republican elected officials want him to do, which is to put flesh on the bones of his campaign promises, set a clear order for his priorities and make some of the difficult choices about those devilish details.

That’s proving difficult. The president stunned the nation’s governors Monday when he declared that “nobody knew health care could be so complicated.” Nobody, perhaps, other than those who have looked seriously at what it took President Barack Obama to enact the Affordable Care Act or anyone who has looked seriously at what it would take to replace it with a conservative alternative.

Trump has repeatedly promised to produce a health-care plan soon. On Tuesday night, the principles he outlined mostly echoed those that Republican leaders have enunciated for replacing Obamacare. But that blueprint for reform splits congressional Republicans and also divides GOP governors. Will congressional Republicans expect Trump to find a consensus path forward, or will he turn over the responsibility to them? That will be a test of leadership.

Another major priority, for Trump and certainly for congressional Republicans, is tax overhaul. Candidate Trump had more than one plan. Sixteen years ago, when President George W. Bush spoke to a joint session of Congress at a similar moment, he talked about the details of his tax cut plan. President Trump has yet to explain what his would look like, particularly whether he supports a border adjustment tax, and Tuesday’s speech did nothing to answer those questions.

Trump has moved quickly on immigration. He ordered the construction of a wall along the Mexican border and is seeking to deport some of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, focusing first on those who have committed crimes. His actions are deeply controversial among his opponents but enthusiastically supported by his base.

On Tuesday, he suddenly veered in a different direction, saying that real immigration reform is possible.

“If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens,” Trump said, “then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.”

The big stories and commentary shaping the day.

A comprehensive immigration overhaul, which has included either a path to citizenship or legal status for those here illegally, has ruptured the Republican base for years. A path to legalization would meet stiff resistance from many of Trump’s most loyal supporters, unless loyalty trumps ideology. Trump ran as a hard-liner. His sudden change of course and tone is a reminder of his unpredictability. It also raises the question of whether he will seriously pursue another complex and contentious legislative battle any time soon.

The president’s agenda is nothing if not ambitious. Again, on Tuesday, he spoke about a big infrastructure initiative. He is a builder, after all. Such a plan would be a key element of a jobs agenda, something he says is a priority. So it is a costly priority and he offered no timetable for bringing it forward.

Republicans who disagree with the president on changes to trade or entitlement policies nonetheless see him as their great hope for a dramatic reversal from the Obama years. He has made a down payment in cementing support from establishment Republicans with his nomination of federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It takes little more than a look back at the speech Obama gave eight years ago under similar circumstances to understand why those GOP leaders see the potential for a significant change in direction for the country during his presidency.

Obama called for a comprehensive health-care overhaul; Trump would undo it. Obama called for tough regulations on the big banks; Trump has targeted Dodd-Frank. Obama denounced previous GOP-initiated tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; Trump’s campaign plans would give wealthy taxpayers substantial cuts. Obama criticized cutbacks in regulations during GOP administrations; Trump has begun rolling back many of the Obama administration’s regulations.

Tuesday’s address was described in advance as a moment for Trump to reset his presidency after an opening that included controversies, missteps and internal turmoil. In tone, he succeeded in offering an alternative to what many saw as the harshness of his inaugural address. In substance, much was familiar — the speech went only a few steps beyond where he has been before. Now comes the less glamorous work of governing and finding the balance between Inauguration Day and Tuesday night.

Dan Balz is Chief Correspondent at The Washington Post. He has served as the paper’s National Editor, Political Editor, White House correspondent and Southwest correspondent.
Follow @danbalz

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.610bb846b184

On Tuesday, he suddenly veered in a different direction, saying that real immigration reform is possible.

“If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens,” Trump said, “then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.”

The big stories and commentary shaping the day.

A comprehensive immigration overhaul, which has included either a path to citizenship or legal status for those here illegally, has ruptured the Republican base for years. A path to legalization would meet stiff resistance from many of Trump’s most loyal supporters, unless loyalty trumps ideology. Trump ran as a hard-liner. His sudden change of course and tone is a reminder of his unpredictability. It also raises the question of whether he will seriously pursue another complex and contentious legislative battle any time soon.

Okay, this writer made the same mistake that I believe Bret Baier and Wolf Blitzer made. Trump is talking about "immigration reform" meaning reform of our legal immigration system. The media interprets that term "immigration reform" to mean "comprehensive immigration reform" which is legalizing illegal immigration.

The "immigration reform" in the White House Survey we took is reform of legal immigration. But remember we weren't sure and were bothered by what if it meant "comprehensive immigration reform"? We weren't sure and we're all pretty much experts on this. The media people aren't experts on anything not even words, which as journalists they should be, but they aren't. So that's what the whole confusion was about. Trump was talking about legal immigration reform and the media and I guess even one of the "senior advisors" thought so also, but they were wrong which resulted in reporting FAKE NEWS.

Bret made the mistake again tonight after the speech when Trump laid it out as clear as bell that it was about legal immigration reform, yet he asked someone what to think about Trump's new position on comprehensive immigration reform and Martha McCallum made the same mistake, even after hearing the speech!!

By the way, Ted Cruz did a great job in is interview with Fox News after the speech.

I'm so relieved, I really am. We still need to keep the pressure on about DACA though. That sucker has to be brought to a swift and final end ASAP.

It's possible no one had any idea how 'complicated' healthcare could be.

What that says to me is he didn't realize just how many politicians, corporations, groups wanted to have an input into a creating healthcare program.

Is it possible that all those various special interests did have an input and wrote their own little 'goodies' into the bill?

Could that be why it didn't work?

Could that be why the American people were the ones hurt by it?

I'm sure it was a hard go for Pres. Obama to be able to include all the 'wants' for all those contributors. I'm also sure that's why it is so complicated.

Yes, nntrixie, that has to be it, because I had private individual health insurance as a woman and a smoker for over 20 years, before that I had employer paid health insurance. There was nothing complicated about it. I called an agent, they either signed me up on the telephone, or came by my office and signed me up. There was absolutely nothing complicated or even expensive about it.

I don't know what's happened. But I think everything went wrong when government got involved in it. Government needs to erase the state lines by repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, and under federal regulation which that now enables as a matter of constitutional law, prohibit exclusions for pre-existing conditions with some reasonable rules, prohibit rescission without cause, prohibit dropped coverage because you got sick and used your insurance you paid for, and let the market deal with the rest of it.

Trump's right. There shouldn't be anything complicated about this.

I want someone to tell me why we're letting 11.4 million people on Obamacare, out of 330 million Americans lead US around by the nose? Isn't this the perfect example of the "tail wagging the dog"?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/21/news...llment-record/

President Trump, you know how this works in the private sector. You've bought health insurance, you've paid for health insurance for your employees, you probably know more about health insurance than anyone in the US government, and if there's something you don't know, then ask one of your friends, they'll know whatever you don't. Just do these few things that were always Republican ideas to begin with and demand Congress pass the bill immediately. I also support the expanded Medicaid, which I thought at the time was the easiest way to take care of the poor and unemployed, but these were economic issues, not health issues, then focus on fixing the US economy, getting all these people back to work, encourage companies to provide health insurance and let employers and employees duke it out in the market place and States duke it out with their poor and disadvantaged.