Trump’s SOTU Triumph, Democrats’ Defeat

 

At 5,100 words, President Trump’s first State of the Union address was one of the longest on record. But that’s not the only reason Democrats were checking their watches. Trump set aside his bombastic communications style to solemnly deliver the most conservative SOTU since the Reagan era. And it put Dems in an awful pickle.

Trump used the hour and 20 minutes of spin-free airtime to report a year of news that the mainstream media never quite got around to telling. “Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs, including 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone.” As Trump spoke, Nancy Pelosi sucked her teeth.

“Unemployment claims have hit a 45-year low. African-American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded, and Hispanic-American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history.” The Congressional Black Caucus glared at Trump with their arms folded.

Whether Trump heralded the stock market, employee bonuses, or the destruction of ISIS, glowering Democrats remained the evening’s most consistent theme. It’s understandable for progressives to sit on their hands for conservative jurists, the Second Amendment, and cutting regulations, but again and again they fumed at America’s very success. Let a thousand midterm campaign ads bloom.

The emotional highpoints were generated by the many guests in the gallery: The grieving families who lost their daughters to violent gang members; the parents of Otto Warmbier; a policeman who adopted the child of a homeless addict. The most powerful moment belonged to Ji Seong-ho, a man who escaped North Korea on ragged crutches to find freedom in the South.

But the speech focused primarily on the American people. Instead of promising all the wonderful things the government would do, Trump underlined that its citizens were her salvation.

“[T]hey are Americans. And this Capitol, this city, and this nation belong to them,” he concluded. “Our task is to respect them, to listen to them, to serve them, to protect them, and to always be worthy of them.”

The modern Democratic Party believes that the American people belong to the government — and fervently wish the rabble won’t embarrass them so. We’ll find out in November which message is more attractive.

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 127 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    What worries me is that we seem already overdue for the next recession, and I think one is more likely than not to occur between now and 2020 no matter what Trump does.

    This is probably true, but timing these things is always a fools game. We are coming off a very slow recovery thanks to Obanma’s socialist regulatory regime and the tax cut will inevitably change investment priorities among multi-national corporations, attracting more to the US, so I think there is a decent chance we can get an extra few years out of this recovery.

    I think the recent pull back in equities has more to with portfolio reallocation after a strong performance last year than anything else, but I do worry about the frothy level of the market.

    • #121
  2. Locke On Member
    Locke On
    @LockeOn

    It’s entirely possible for the general economy to be improving AND the stock market to get ahead of itself.

    • #122
  3. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    The danger of the current unemployment rate is that the last time it was this low was 2000. Then we had a minor recession and it went up again. The rate will never drop to zero, 6% was traditionally considered full employment. My suspicion is that this talking point will soon be dropped.

    Generally speaking, I think an unemployment number between 5%-7% is ideal to maintain. It’s enough employed to not over burden the system while allowing enough flexibility for economic growth.

    It is my personal opinion that immigration, excepting it niche industries, should be severely curtailed when unemployment is over 8% and ramped up when unemployment is less than 6%. And it should be dynamic, changing as our numbers change, as people enter the workforce or businesses rise-up and expand, which is one reason I think it is reasonable for the president (1 person) be able to call shots on it.

    • #123
  4. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Stina (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    The danger of the current unemployment rate is that the last time it was this low was 2000. Then we had a minor recession and it went up again. The rate will never drop to zero, 6% was traditionally considered full employment. My suspicion is that this talking point will soon be dropped.

    Generally speaking, I think an unemployment number between 5%-7% is ideal to maintain. It’s enough employed to not over burden the system while allowing enough flexibility for economic growth.

    It is my personal opinion that immigration, excepting it niche industries, should be severely curtailed when unemployment is over 8% and ramped up when unemployment is less than 6%. And it should be dynamic, changing as our numbers change, as people enter the workforce or businesses rise-up and expand, which is one reason I think it is reasonable for the president (1 person) be able to call shots on it.

    The down side of your approach is that wages increase when the labor market gets tight, which means, almost by definition, when unemployment is low.  Allowing increased immigration when unemployment falls may prevent wages from rising.

    This is not a simple effect, because there is a dynamic element to immigration.  Immigrants are not only workers competing for jobs, but also consumers spending money and thereby increasing demand, which can create additional jobs.  It’s a bit complicated.

    My sense is that your target of 5-7% unemployment is a bit high.  My vague recollection is that, as an economics student in the 1980s, the traditional view had been that “full employment” meant 2-3% unemployment, and that structural changes in the economy may have increased this to closer to 4%.  I’d prefer a range of 3-5% as the target, but I think that we agree in principle.

    • #124
  5. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    He seemed centered in a way that made the words connect with something larger than his own self.

    People sincerely pray for the man.

    G-d listens, and sometimes our prayers are answered.

    May G-d continue to work in and through President Trump, for the benefit of this nation, and the world.

    Amen.

    • #125
  6. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Trump’s teleprompter speeches always sound fake to me, because he never sounds anything like them in real life.

    Oh, you’ve met him, then?

    Haven’t we all? Every day on Twitter? Or is his act really schizophrenic and the real real Donald Trump is just a shy guy who likes to watch Shark Week with his hooker mistress?

    Be quiet.

    • #126
  7. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    George Savage (View Comment):
    When the President delivered the statistics on minority unemployment, my African-American driver looked back and asked “Is that true?”

    This makes me cry. That this man doesn’t know the truth. And also that the statistic is true. The media seems like an abusive relative, holding the public down, by lying to them, and keeping them in the dark. So they can keep their power.

    • #127
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.