Did he lie about who is currently serving as president and making the decisions as commander in chief? Nope. We just had four years of that, so I truly do not give a rats ass about his speech. Four years of unconstitutional governance by some combo of staff and “Dr” Jill Biden..but yeah let’s freak out about the carnival barker.
I can't help but agree with all of these reactions.
But, so much of it is premised on the idea that Trump has a legislative agenda they care about. Sure, they want to cut taxes (and likely will). But his actions in the federal government reveal that he doesn't really care about a legislative agenda - he wants to shut down departments and spend money as he chooses. His OMB director makes that clear.
So, while he may have legislative defeats, he is setting himself up to create a reality where he has consistent executive branch triumphs at the expense of constitutional limits. What can be done about that?
"All politicians, I’m sure, make remarks in major speeches that don’t fully hold up to scrutiny."
True enough. The difference is that from the good and the great, the remarks can be inaccurate because they're aspirational. They uplift, inspire, and set a goal, and even if that goal never fully reached, it's always out there. Those from the grifter, the fool, and the criminal only coarsen and corrupt their audience. Compare the peroration of Lincoln's First Inaugural with ANYTHING that Trump says, and that distinction is unmistakable:
"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
In a nutshell: Trump does not intend to face the political consequences of being extreme, nasty, and partisan. He believes he can avoid those consequences, traditionally expressed through elections, entirely.
Which means we all need to prepare to see the Trump administration attempt to forcibly interfere with the administration of elections, and opposition political activity writ large. Likely with more success than last time.
Speaking of "really nasty partisan"...since you didn't mention it, does that mean you were OK with the Congressional Dems sitting on their hands all night, other than when their hand were holding signs, or white boards, or cellphones?
What was there to cheer? I made myself listen to the whole thing, and didn't hear a word that made me proud to be an American, or think that there was some area, however small, where the country has moved in a better direction since January 20.
"Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue", but there's no corresponding debt in the other direction.
That’s not what I heard. When he projects his own ignorance to the entire public, I hear him demeaning the office. Of course, he has no respect to the idea of expertise so he does not care. But to my ears, when he complains that he’s never heard of something, it makes him sound a buffoon.
His lack of curiosity, his lack of interest in knowing, his lack of interest in learning. Maybe these things work for him with his core constituency. But I do not think it makes it easier for him to expand his appeal.
On the issue of USAID grants, I want to point out that many of the assailed projects are truly valuable. For example, the circumcision of men in Africa has been shown to reduce the incidence of AIDS. The Sesame Street project I think was documented on 60 minutes. The children involved were Syrian refugees in a camp in Jordan. They received no education or any kind of respite from the grueling conditions of living in a tent on top of thousands of other people. The program both educated the children and gave them a moment away from the bleakness. I think it is good cheap PR on the part of our government. These choices just shone light on how brutal the Trump regime is.
In an era of negative polarization, I wonder if SOTU actually hurt the President's agenda rather than helps. You probably do more to unify the opposition than unify your base.
Regarding your third point, I thought that one excellent point of the Harris campaign was at the convention portraying Trump as dangerous not because he is strong but because he is weird and weak. However, this stopped as soon as the convention ended. Then, as you say, they portrayed him as strong, which played right into his message.
Probably some of the orange one's executive orders are impactful (although likely to be rescinded by the next [Democratic] administration). But which are impactful, and what is the percentage? For example, the English EO seems completely not impactful. I mean really are people going to feel empowered to attack anyone they overhear not speaking English?
The ones that break federal promises, to workers and patients and allies and contractors and so on, are very impactful, because they will make it much more expensive and difficult for future governments to ever enter into agreements like these, when people will be rightfully worried that another Trump will just break them all.
The ones making new promises, like English as the national language, are not very meaningful.
Curious, @mattyglesias, I'm not going to listen to the orange one's speech, but was it explicit about this "[a]n extended portion of this speech was dedicated to promising higher taxes on groceries!" or was it just implicit in proposing more tariffs?
Only for people with some understanding of economics (and an openness to believing bad things about His Orangeness), though. If he's not saying "I promised to make your groceries cheaper, but instead I will make them more expensive" in so many words, I think it will go over the median voter's head.
He's not trying to set up the GOP legislative agenda, he's explicitly separating himself from it "Good King, Bad Boyars" style.
He'll minimize it a bit by ensuring the Trump show is the news focus, but mostly he'll just let the GOP House and Senate crash and burn. The GOP Congress is going with it, because they believe its better to pass a bad bill than to be one of the few members known for breaking with Trump.
Obviously the GOP Congress is being "set up" in the other sense. But they can't act as a party anymore - it is every grifter for himself right now.
Knowing that so much of what he said were lies, I'm growing convinced that many in his base believes far more than they don't. Any good polls to look at for that sort of question?
I don't know about polls, but Sarah Longwell's focus groups of Trump voters over at the Bulwark bear out the truth of your depressing observation again and again, in their own words.
Donald Trump succeeds because he makes himself the main character in politics, and he plays the character consistently. The Democrats don't have anyone like that right now; they have supporting characters who are consistent (the left, mostly, but also Manchin, for example) but cannot command or retain enough attention to be a main character. They have main characters (Hilary Clinton, Harris, Biden) but those characters are inconsistent: when they speak, often the words sound like they're coming from someone else's mouth. Specifically, a room full of consultants. Every Dem in Congress should be spending as much time as they can in town halls, speaking off the cuff with no input from consultants. Those are the muscles they need to develop to succeed in the next two elections. That's how you get someone who can be the next main character.
Did he lie about who is currently serving as president and making the decisions as commander in chief? Nope. We just had four years of that, so I truly do not give a rats ass about his speech. Four years of unconstitutional governance by some combo of staff and “Dr” Jill Biden..but yeah let’s freak out about the carnival barker.
"This seems pretty dumb — we should call them all State of the Union addresses. As long as all our norms are crumbling, can we just fix this?"
That's why we love you Matt, always taking those lemons and making lemonade.
I can't help but agree with all of these reactions.
But, so much of it is premised on the idea that Trump has a legislative agenda they care about. Sure, they want to cut taxes (and likely will). But his actions in the federal government reveal that he doesn't really care about a legislative agenda - he wants to shut down departments and spend money as he chooses. His OMB director makes that clear.
So, while he may have legislative defeats, he is setting himself up to create a reality where he has consistent executive branch triumphs at the expense of constitutional limits. What can be done about that?
"All politicians, I’m sure, make remarks in major speeches that don’t fully hold up to scrutiny."
True enough. The difference is that from the good and the great, the remarks can be inaccurate because they're aspirational. They uplift, inspire, and set a goal, and even if that goal never fully reached, it's always out there. Those from the grifter, the fool, and the criminal only coarsen and corrupt their audience. Compare the peroration of Lincoln's First Inaugural with ANYTHING that Trump says, and that distinction is unmistakable:
"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
+100000
If you haven't read David Frum's latest in the Atlantic, Matt, I highly recommend you do.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/donald-trump-congress-address/681924/
It fully answers your question on thought 17.
In a nutshell: Trump does not intend to face the political consequences of being extreme, nasty, and partisan. He believes he can avoid those consequences, traditionally expressed through elections, entirely.
Which means we all need to prepare to see the Trump administration attempt to forcibly interfere with the administration of elections, and opposition political activity writ large. Likely with more success than last time.
Speaking of "really nasty partisan"...since you didn't mention it, does that mean you were OK with the Congressional Dems sitting on their hands all night, other than when their hand were holding signs, or white boards, or cellphones?
What was there to cheer? I made myself listen to the whole thing, and didn't hear a word that made me proud to be an American, or think that there was some area, however small, where the country has moved in a better direction since January 20.
"Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue", but there's no corresponding debt in the other direction.
> The best part of the speech, by far, was when
> he ran down the list of goofy-sounding grants
> that DOGE has cancelled.
That’s not what I heard. When he projects his own ignorance to the entire public, I hear him demeaning the office. Of course, he has no respect to the idea of expertise so he does not care. But to my ears, when he complains that he’s never heard of something, it makes him sound a buffoon.
His lack of curiosity, his lack of interest in knowing, his lack of interest in learning. Maybe these things work for him with his core constituency. But I do not think it makes it easier for him to expand his appeal.
On the issue of USAID grants, I want to point out that many of the assailed projects are truly valuable. For example, the circumcision of men in Africa has been shown to reduce the incidence of AIDS. The Sesame Street project I think was documented on 60 minutes. The children involved were Syrian refugees in a camp in Jordan. They received no education or any kind of respite from the grueling conditions of living in a tent on top of thousands of other people. The program both educated the children and gave them a moment away from the bleakness. I think it is good cheap PR on the part of our government. These choices just shone light on how brutal the Trump regime is.
In an era of negative polarization, I wonder if SOTU actually hurt the President's agenda rather than helps. You probably do more to unify the opposition than unify your base.
But admittedly this is pure conjecture.
Someone save the NSF and NIH please.
Sorry, Health and Science don't put tax cut money in oligarch pockets.
Regarding your third point, I thought that one excellent point of the Harris campaign was at the convention portraying Trump as dangerous not because he is strong but because he is weird and weak. However, this stopped as soon as the convention ended. Then, as you say, they portrayed him as strong, which played right into his message.
Probably some of the orange one's executive orders are impactful (although likely to be rescinded by the next [Democratic] administration). But which are impactful, and what is the percentage? For example, the English EO seems completely not impactful. I mean really are people going to feel empowered to attack anyone they overhear not speaking English?
The ones that break federal promises, to workers and patients and allies and contractors and so on, are very impactful, because they will make it much more expensive and difficult for future governments to ever enter into agreements like these, when people will be rightfully worried that another Trump will just break them all.
The ones making new promises, like English as the national language, are not very meaningful.
Curious, @mattyglesias, I'm not going to listen to the orange one's speech, but was it explicit about this "[a]n extended portion of this speech was dedicated to promising higher taxes on groceries!" or was it just implicit in proposing more tariffs?
Tariffs are taxes on groceries (among other things). I think that’s pretty explicit.
Only for people with some understanding of economics (and an openness to believing bad things about His Orangeness), though. If he's not saying "I promised to make your groceries cheaper, but instead I will make them more expensive" in so many words, I think it will go over the median voter's head.
He's not trying to set up the GOP legislative agenda, he's explicitly separating himself from it "Good King, Bad Boyars" style.
He'll minimize it a bit by ensuring the Trump show is the news focus, but mostly he'll just let the GOP House and Senate crash and burn. The GOP Congress is going with it, because they believe its better to pass a bad bill than to be one of the few members known for breaking with Trump.
Obviously the GOP Congress is being "set up" in the other sense. But they can't act as a party anymore - it is every grifter for himself right now.
Knowing that so much of what he said were lies, I'm growing convinced that many in his base believes far more than they don't. Any good polls to look at for that sort of question?
I don't know about polls, but Sarah Longwell's focus groups of Trump voters over at the Bulwark bear out the truth of your depressing observation again and again, in their own words.
Donald Trump succeeds because he makes himself the main character in politics, and he plays the character consistently. The Democrats don't have anyone like that right now; they have supporting characters who are consistent (the left, mostly, but also Manchin, for example) but cannot command or retain enough attention to be a main character. They have main characters (Hilary Clinton, Harris, Biden) but those characters are inconsistent: when they speak, often the words sound like they're coming from someone else's mouth. Specifically, a room full of consultants. Every Dem in Congress should be spending as much time as they can in town halls, speaking off the cuff with no input from consultants. Those are the muscles they need to develop to succeed in the next two elections. That's how you get someone who can be the next main character.
> Donald Trump succeeds because he makes himself the main character
I love this as a description of Trump