The “righteous many” against the “wicked few”
Let’s see what they’re saying about Trump’s horrific speech outside the US. Let’s read the Guardian.
Donald Trump’s maiden address to the UN general assembly was unlike any ever delivered in the chamber by a US president.
There are precedents for such fulminations, but not from US leaders. In tone, the speech was more reminiscent of Nikita Khrushchev, Fidel Castro or Hugo Chávez.
And going back to pre-UN days it was reminiscent of Hitler. Yes, Hitler.
Like Bush, Trump offered the world a black-and-white choice between the “righteous many” against the “wicked few” – but his choice of language was far blunter than his predecessor. There can not have been many, if any, threats to “totally destroy” another nation at a UN general assembly. He did not even direct the threat at the regime, making it clear it was North Korea as a country that was at peril.
Trump issued the warning just minutes after the UN secretary general, António Guterres, had appealed for calmer rhetoric. “Fiery talk can lead to fatal misunderstandings,” Guterres had said in his own first general assembly address, and it was clear who those remarks were directed towards.
But Trump thinks he’s a law unto himself, and that everyone else is beneath him. He won’t have given a rat’s ass what António Guterres said.
Venezuela was targeted for the socialist policies of the Nicolás Maduro government and the erosion of its democracy, but Trump did not attempt to distinguish Venezuela’s faults from other autocratic regimes with whom Trump has sought to cultivate.
Saudi Arabia was not mentioned. Nor was Russia, although there was, early on in the speech, a rare public expression of support for Ukrainian sovereignty.
Well they’re not socialist. There’s none of that pesky insistence that the wretched of the earth should get a share of the good things too.
Nor was there any explanation of how the castigation of these “rogue regimes” dovetailed with the dominant theme of the first half of Trump’s speech, which was devoted to the assertion of the undiluted sovereignty of the nation state.
Seeking to draw a sharp line between his view of international relations and those of his predecessors in the Oval Office, Trump stressed that diverse nations had the right to their own “values” and “culture” without the interference of outsiders. The UN was there as a forum for cooperation between strong and independent nations, not to impose “global governance” from on high.
In a briefing on the eve of the speech, a senior White House official had insisted that Trump had pondered long and hard over this “deeply philosophical” segment of his address, as it marked an important exposition of his approach to foreign policy, labelled “principled realism”.
Trump and his administration have frequently invoked such ideas to justify the absence of criticism for Saudi Arabia, Russia and other perceived partners for their appalling human rights records.
With Tuesday’s address, however, Trump punched yawning holes in his own would-be doctrine, singling out enemies, expressing horror at their treatment of their people and threatening interference to the point of annihilation.
What was left, when the muted applause died down in the UN chamber, was a sense of incoherence and a capricious menace hanging in the air.
He’s a toddler with nukes. He’s the stupidest man any of us have ever seen in that job, and he may well destroy everything.
I’m not sure he’s a real UN Secretary General. His name sounds…he could be Mexican, right?
(Just to note: I am not suggesting any of this, just channeling DJT, so don’t jump on my ass, okay?)
Which, translated from Trumpspeak, means: No one can tell the US what they should do, neener neener neener.
That means he ordered another piece of chocolate cake and two scoops of ice cream.
“In a briefing on the eve of the speech, a senior White House official had insisted that Trump had pondered long and hard over this “deeply philosophical” segment of his address, as it marked an important exposition of his approach to foreign policy, labelled “principled realism”.”
This is the most hilarious paragraph of the whole post. The senior White House official’s insistence must have been in response to disbelief on the part of the listener, which is understandable, given the unnatural and wildly improbable pairing of the words “Trump” and “pondered.” Doubly so when me move on to “deeply philosophical.” Pure comedy gold, as bright and shiny as one of Trump’s toilet seats. Trump has nothing as coherent as a foreign “policy” and pretending it has a name and that it claims to be “principled” is just too much. The only thing that Trump is capable of exposing at this point is that his desperate attempts to compensate show that his days of having anything long and hard are long past.
I know, isn’t it? The idea of Trump “pondering” anything at all…
The closest he ever gets to “pondering” anything is his fits of rage. Not very close at all.