Mr. Donald Trump was inaugurated as the new US President on 20 January. The messages he wanted to convey in his 16-minute speech were the following. The transfer of power was taking place from Washington D.C. to the people. From now on they are going to be of one heart, one home, one destiny. The sad depletion of the American military will be restored. Now we are looking only to the future, and its going to be only America First. We will bring back our border, jobs, dreams. For that buy American, hire American. The civilized world will fight the radical Islamic terrorists to the finish. He concluded by stressing that America will be strong again, wealthy again, proud again, safe again, and great again.
There are some questions on the above. Why did America lose so many jobs? Are they able to create them when the import from China, Mexico and others have stopped? If they have stopped importing, are they still able to export, and to where? Expert opinion says that the loss of jobs in the US has been because of the progress in automation. Are the US going back by several decades back? And are the US not concerned with the possible loss of jobs in Mexico and other countries?
Then why do the Americans have to be strong? They are already strong enough. Look at the US bases in Japan. The residents around them, and there are millions, are harassed by the terrible noise of the newly introduced aircraft, one after another. If the US wants to get still stronger, it must be against China, North Korea, and Iran. China has been often mentioned by Mr. Trump during the elections and after. The other two are mentioned in the official policy document published by the new White House. Are they, the Americans, not taking non-military measures to solve whatever problems they see existing with these countries peacefully?
Incidentally the said document maintains that the Second Amendment should be observed. We have heard this often enough as the ground on which people go against gun control. Needless to say there is nothing about gun control in the speech, and the policy document. But is the Second Amendment really the legitimate ground to be referred to for such a purpose? Would it be wrong to say that it was a substitute at a time, in 18th Century, when the US had no regular army, and was a measure to strengthen the militia in the hands of the Federal administration?
The speech talks about the Islamic terrorists. This is the only distinct social group mentioned there. It conveys the feeling that the Muslims as a whole are anti-American, anti-social, or at least suspicious. At the same time the above document promises to build a wall along the Mexican border, suggesting that the Hispanics are also anti-American, anti-social. The expressions like wealthy 'again' or great 'again' would suggest going back to the time when by far the majority of the Americans are whites. Again, the personnel to man the new White House would strongly suggest that it would be pro-Israeli. All put together, it is difficult to think that the new Administration is going to be fair to all the communities comprising America, making it a unique, composite, multi-cultural society worthy of respect.
Finally, on what Mr. Trump said about the media the next day at the CIA. He said something like 'the most dishonest people'. He said it on the media, or at least a part of it. It was on a small issue, the number of attendance at his inauguration. He had deliberately avoided, in the presence of many, to nominate a CNN correspondent in his press conference on the day before the inauguration. Those are very un-statesman like, to say the least. I am afraid such a behaviour, such an expression, such an attitude, would provide a very convenient model to follow by many authoritarian-minded politicians, now and in the future, around the world.
There are some questions on the above. Why did America lose so many jobs? Are they able to create them when the import from China, Mexico and others have stopped? If they have stopped importing, are they still able to export, and to where? Expert opinion says that the loss of jobs in the US has been because of the progress in automation. Are the US going back by several decades back? And are the US not concerned with the possible loss of jobs in Mexico and other countries?
Then why do the Americans have to be strong? They are already strong enough. Look at the US bases in Japan. The residents around them, and there are millions, are harassed by the terrible noise of the newly introduced aircraft, one after another. If the US wants to get still stronger, it must be against China, North Korea, and Iran. China has been often mentioned by Mr. Trump during the elections and after. The other two are mentioned in the official policy document published by the new White House. Are they, the Americans, not taking non-military measures to solve whatever problems they see existing with these countries peacefully?
Incidentally the said document maintains that the Second Amendment should be observed. We have heard this often enough as the ground on which people go against gun control. Needless to say there is nothing about gun control in the speech, and the policy document. But is the Second Amendment really the legitimate ground to be referred to for such a purpose? Would it be wrong to say that it was a substitute at a time, in 18th Century, when the US had no regular army, and was a measure to strengthen the militia in the hands of the Federal administration?
The speech talks about the Islamic terrorists. This is the only distinct social group mentioned there. It conveys the feeling that the Muslims as a whole are anti-American, anti-social, or at least suspicious. At the same time the above document promises to build a wall along the Mexican border, suggesting that the Hispanics are also anti-American, anti-social. The expressions like wealthy 'again' or great 'again' would suggest going back to the time when by far the majority of the Americans are whites. Again, the personnel to man the new White House would strongly suggest that it would be pro-Israeli. All put together, it is difficult to think that the new Administration is going to be fair to all the communities comprising America, making it a unique, composite, multi-cultural society worthy of respect.
Finally, on what Mr. Trump said about the media the next day at the CIA. He said something like 'the most dishonest people'. He said it on the media, or at least a part of it. It was on a small issue, the number of attendance at his inauguration. He had deliberately avoided, in the presence of many, to nominate a CNN correspondent in his press conference on the day before the inauguration. Those are very un-statesman like, to say the least. I am afraid such a behaviour, such an expression, such an attitude, would provide a very convenient model to follow by many authoritarian-minded politicians, now and in the future, around the world.
