Staff Reports
PBS’s Inauguration coverage just handed the microphone to New York Times columnist David Brooks, whose insightful commentary struck a chord that wouldn’t be far off if it were played at a funeral. Brooks dissected President Donald Trump’s inaugural speech, drawing attention to the apparent distrust brewing among Americans, which apparently has been brewing like a pot of decaf coffee no one asked for. He believes that in a time when people are skeptical of political figures, President Trump’s best play is to serve up some tangible achievements sprinkled with applause-worthy moments.
According to Brooks, Trump’s inaugural address had the distinct aroma of a State of the Union address. He described it as a clear escape from the typical political drivel Americans have grown tired of. The columnist went on to suggest that this tangible approach is a shrewd strategy, especially since many policies resonate more positively with the public than Trump’s own approval ratings. Instead of lofty rhetoric that might as well come from a Shakespearean play, Brooks thinks Trump’s focus on concrete ideas is just what the doctor ordered for a nation fed up with political fluff and fantasy.
🚨MUST SEE🚨
Trump RIPS the liberal establishment to their faces: "Our government confronts a crisis of trust–for many years a radical and corrupt establishment has extracted power and wealth from our citizens…." pic.twitter.com/blNDM18TsO
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 20, 2025
Surprisingly, during his high-flown moments, Trump made references that could take history buffs back to the time of manifest destiny, railroads, and William McKinley—an era Brooks seems to appreciate due to its unapologetic embrace of American greatness. Conveying the notion that these historically rich references reflect a sense of national pride, Brooks suggests they’re part of Trump’s vision of once again elevating America to its superpower status, edging away from global subservience. Yet amidst all this nostalgia, Brooks highlights a glaring omission: the elephant in the room known as China, which he considers pivotal to Trump’s future as president.
Brooks is particularly concerned about China’s ambitions in technology and territorial dominance, especially its potential invasion of Taiwan—a scenario that he foresees will inevitably shape the United States’ trajectory, regardless of whether Trump is prepared to embrace this reality. It appears Brooks thinks that Trump might want to avoid being a “foreign policy president,” but the stakes are undeniably high, leaving the lingering question: can you truly separate national pride from international affairs in this day and age?
This kind of commentary serves as yet another reminder that Washington isn’t just a political arena; it’s a battlefield where trust is a rare commodity. Brooks’ analytical musings might be considered both humorous and concerning depending on one’s political leanings. As conservatives might say, if you want something done right, it’s time to ditch the lofty rhetoric and get down to brass tacks—let America’s robust history and concrete policies shine while keeping a wary eye on global threats. In a world of political charades, practicality may just prove to be the trump card.
