His speech "suggests that Trump is a savior, who is restoring power to the people, and at the same time, is demolishing a corrupt establishment. This position strongly establishes a clear us versus them dynamic, which drives his base to rise up against what they believe are elites, and does so while maintaining his populist image. So, through the emphasis on the reclamation of sovereignty, justice, and economic prosperity, Trump presents his administration as the remedy to years of bad mismanagement and exploitation"

https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V6ISSUE1/IJRPR38122.pdf

Ideological Criticism: An ideological criticism of Donald Trump’s 2025 Inaugural Address reveals how the speech constructs and reinforces a specific worldview—one rooted in the following dominating ideologies: nationalism/populism, exclusionary identity politics, as well as anti-establishment and religious sentiment.

This rhetorical strategy allows for an analysis of Trump's speech that extends beyond just persuasion or performance- The ideologies mentioned actively shape how the audience is invited to understand their position in American power dynamics, conceptualize their struggles, and view Trump's legitimacy.

Throughout the speech, Trump's rhetoric demonstrates different instances which speak to this ideological capacity. These are tagged as #ideological.

Trump is ideologically and legislatively suppressing modern social theories on gender attributed to LGBTQ communities. Jason Stanley remarks that Fascism has an anti-intellectual disposition as it does not appreciate ideologies which promote multiple perspectives or multi-faceted approaches to the truth (such as gender).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCKkWMbmXU

Positioning marginalized groups like the transgender community as agitators and antagonizers who are challenging and undermining commonly held values, allows for a more radicalized narrative for Trump's audience.

This line uses enthymematic logic by assuming the audience already sees diversity or equity initiatives as overreach—there’s no argument, just a conclusion: they must be stopped. The missing premise (“social engineering is harmful or unnatural”) is left unstated, encouraging the audience to supply it based on ideological predisposition. This rhetorical move strengthens ethos, as Trump appears decisive, speaking a “common-sense truth” others are too afraid to voice. The phrase “every aspect of public and private life” exaggerates the scope of intervention to heighten emotional identification and urgency.

Ideologically, Trump suppresses and therefore marginalizes leftist values of race and gender equality/expression. Throughout the speech many such instances of suppression are seen which shroud leftist policies as standing in opposition to the dominating ideals of nationalism, a return to old greatness, and restoration of rightful power dynamics.

In her paper, Nationalistic Rhetoric as a Tool for Repressing Social Movements, Ajla Jakupovic outlines some of the underlying processes which allow for rhetoric to undermin social movements or ideologies:

"negative statements towards movements not only are words stated in response to a protest, but that the statements are tactics meant to undermine the movement as a whole. For protestors to be able to alter government and societal behavior, they need support from people in society who will join their agenda and movement. Through negative statements one could limit the possibility for movements to receive supporters and therefore reduce their chances to achieve their goal (ibid.). With negative repressive rhetoric, one aims to frame the state and the opposing group in ways which ensure the state’s survival. With public statements the speaker could frame the opposition as a threat and simultaneously frame the state as safe. Repressive rhetoric is meant to work through two mutually constitutive mechanisms, by convincing others that the movement is illegitimate and by creating noise in public discourse to interrupt the protest and limit its chances to gain support (ibid.). "

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1761690/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Given Trump's base and the context of his address and platform- this use of such language to undermine ideologies that stand in the way of his agenda, can be seen as a substantial and effective attack on his opposition and a reclamation of narrative authority.

Framing the American dream as something that had disappeared reinforces a populist ideological narrative in which the people were robbed—by elites, globalization, or corrupt governance—of economic opportunity and social mobility. Its promised return, under Trump’s leadership, recasts economic and cultural success as contingent upon nationalist revival

This line fuses economic nationalism with populist grievance by presenting tariffs not as policy tools, but as instruments of economic justice and retribution. Foreign nations are cast as takers, and Trump frames the state’s power to tax them as a way to directly enrich “our citizens,” bypassing globalist models of interdependence. This simplifies trade into a moral binary of us vs. them, where economic aggression is reframed as national virtue. Ideological criticism reveals how this rhetoric personalizes national wealth, treating foreign economic actors as adversaries and domestic citizens as rightful inheritors of reclaimed prosperity.

This line embodies the populist-nationalist worldview by portraying foreign criminals as a threat to the purity and safety of the American homeland. Trump presents the nation as under siege by external forces and promises a unified state response to purge these infiltrators. This reflects nationalist ideology by asserting the need to defend national borders and identity through state violence, while simultaneously mobilizing populist resentment—suggesting that the elites have failed to protect “the people.” By invoking the “inner cities,” he blends external invasion with internal decay, extending the threat and broadening the mandate for control. Ideological criticism reveals how this rhetoric constructs a morally charged us-vs-them logic, positioning Trump as the only figure willing to protect the righteous people from both corrupt institutions and criminal outsiders.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University comments on such statements in Trump's speech which completely lack the policy forethought required to back his claims,

"So when they're talking about deporting so many people in America, this is a massive amount of people, and thus you need an infrastructure of repression. You need camps. And the whole thing is a dystopia. And this is not what America is. But Donald Trump has been conditioning Americans to think that this is the way."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-trumps-rhetoric-compares-to-historic-fascist-language

On the ideologically repressive rhetorical devices used by Nationalistic rhetoric, Ajla Jakupovic remarks that,

"Repression and repressive rhetoric could be identified in the political statements if they include aspects of the need of the state or aspects of the threat of the movement (Patane 2021: p. 954-958). Through these types of repression a “we” and “them” is created, where the movement and its opposers are described as distinct groups."

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1761690/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Trump creates the imagery of a large scale deliberate "invasion" to re-conceptualize issues which stem from poor immigration policy and border security, instead linking them to a vague entity that is engaged in an active attack on Americans. This "other" cements Trump's dichotomy and false binary of "us" vs "them".

Trump’s appeal to a “revolution of common sense” functions as a powerful ethos-building device, positioning him not as an ideologue or technocrat, but as a voice of intuitive, relatable reason. By invoking “common sense,” he claims moral clarity and alignment with the everyday logic of his audience, contrasting himself with elite policymakers or intellectuals who are portrayed as out of touch. This strategy builds credibility through identification, making Trump appear trustworthy not because of expertise, but because of his perceived authenticity and alignment with popular intuition. The phrase “It’s all about common sense” works rhetorically to collapse political complexity into emotional obviousness, drawing on shared assumptions rather than detailed argument.

Ideological: (41:00) Rosenfeld's lecture below cites specifically cites Trump's claims about common sense noticing that they always stand in direct contrast to his pattern for the refusal of documented fact and touting of undocumented claims. She implies that through presenting a lot of what isn't common sense (because it may not be true)- as obvious and rightfully assumed, Trump is essentially shaping his own reality.

Trump's "common sense" parallels his base's tendency to understand complex political phenomenon through oversimplification as conspiracy. In such a sense, what is common sense is also what is easy to understand. This is not the case however, for the very delicate domestic issues that Trump naively condenses into one-sided policy positions. Some of these are listed by Trump in the following lines...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKCzM7BLzRU

This line invokes a sacred symbolism which parallels the Christian "trinity"- nation, Constitution, and God—to solidify a fantasy-theme rooted in civil religious mythology. Trump fuses political identity with divine allegiance, offering a vision where forgetting any part of this "American trinity" would be both sacrilege and betrayal. The repeated structure and emphatic final phrase (“Can’t do that”) create a performative ritual of collective remembering, reinforcing group identity. This isn’t policy—it's symbolic storytelling, anchoring the audience in a shared sense of moral duty and spiritual patriotism. Fantasy-theme criticism shows how this language draws supporters into a worldview where political loyalty is equivalent to spiritual faithfulness.

Ideologically speaking, his posturing here is a symbolic assertion of the nationalistic superiority of American values- that Country, Constitution, and God, all collectively favor America and tangibly ground its higher moral position. This can be attributed to a specification

In his Anatomia del Fascismo, Robert Paxton expands on the symbols chosen by nationalistic and populist rhetors:

“Fascisms seek out in each national culture those themes that are best capable of mobilizing a mass movement of regeneration, unification, and purity, directed against liberal individualism and constitutionalism and against Leftists class struggle. The themes that appeal to fascists in one cultural tradition may seem simply silly to another. The foggy Norse myths that stirred Norwegians or Germans sounded ridiculous in Italy, where Fascism appealed rather to a sun-drenched classical Romanita....Fascism was an affair of the gut more than the brain.” https://econsystemsthinking.medium.com/summary-anatomy-of-fascism-eed6d626ee8

Fascism being "an affair of the gut" illustrates that facts and policy are not of any value or worth to those who participate in nationalistic ideological rhetoric- feelings, emotions, and resonance are far more important qualifying factors.

Echoing populist sentiments, this passage ideologically asserts the legitimacy and totality of Trump’s mandate, not through formal institutions but through a sweeping, emotionally charged portrayal of national consensus. Listing race, gender, and geography, Trump claims inclusivity not to broaden representation but to assert universal alignment with his vision, suggesting dissent is insignificant or illegitimate. The reference to swing state victories and the “popular vote” bolsters this claim, regardless of factual basis, to imply that power now morally and numerically belongs to him. This is a classic populist move: constructing political dominance as national unanimity, thereby collapsing the people and the leader into one.

"Benedict Anderson famously suggested that nationalism was not so much one modern political ideology, like liberalism or communism, as it was a pervasive way of imagining the world—more like religion and kinship." https://calhoun.faculty.asu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/articles/the_rhetoric_of_nationalism.pdf

Fantasy Theme: This statement marks a pivotal turning point in Trump’s overarching fantasy narrative. By declaring the end of decline “from this moment,” he signals that the speech—and his inauguration—represents the exact break between national suffering and national rebirth. This aligns with Bormann’s fantasy-theme structure, where a collective drama reaches its moment of reversal, and a new symbolic order emerges. The phrase functions as a fantasy cue, embedding Trump’s leadership into the audience’s emotional timeline of decline and redemption. The simplicity and certainty of the declaration invites listeners to adopt a shared sense of victory, regardless of his policy positions.

Ideological Criticism: Additionally, this line reinforces a populist-nationalist myth: that America has been in a state of managed decline due to elite betrayal, and that Trump alone has the authority to reverse it. “America’s decline” is never defined in empirical terms—it’s a symbolic stand-in for a host of grievances (economic loss, immigration, cultural change) that are repackaged as a unified collapse. This line condenses historical complexity into a single oversimplified ideological position—making Trump's rise synonymous with national revival.

On the effects of Trump's stance as a rhetor in building this fantasy theme, one study notes,

"This kind of ruthless approach appeases their [his supporters'] potential desire for an aggressive, maybe even angry leader. In his previously mentioned article for The Atlantic, titled “The Real Roots of American Rage,” Charles Duhigg discusses the power of anger in public opinion. His theory is that people perceive angry leaders as effective ones. Trump puts his theory into practice in this speech. His use of sharp statements and inflected tone of voice create a powerful combination to portray his strength and anger at vague issues. His anger is either undirected or directed at everything that is not him or his followers. His angry othering validates his audience’s beliefs and allows them to ignore the frequent lack of policy detail in favor of his rhetorical style."

Often it seems that Trump's ability to capture the fantasy themes of "the forgotten people" and "martyr/hero" are integral to his affect on audiences where logical and political exposition is all but ignored.

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1772&context=honors201019

This line, indicative of a highly nationalistic/populist rhetorical approach, is a textbook deployment of exclusionary identity politics. It constructs a moral binary between “magnificent, law-abiding American citizens” and “dangerous criminals,” implicitly racialized or foreign, without naming them. Trump positions the government as failing its core constituency—real Americans—by redirecting protection toward undeserving, dangerous outsiders. This move functions ideologically to redefine who is seen as belonging to the political community and who is framed as a threat to it. Ideological criticism reveals how such language isn't just descriptive—it actively shapes perceptions of justice, loyalty, and civic worth, reinforcing a worldview where safety, power, and moral legitimacy are reserved for those who conform to a narrow vision of national identity.

Calhoun in his analysis on "The Rhetoric of Nationalism" hints that ideological themes can often be embedded within the mind of listeners in subtle, unconscious ways- resulting in processes of inferences and implications which the receiver is often unaware that he or she is is participating in.

"Billig has called our attention to the pervasiveness of both fagging nationalism and rendering fagging self-consciously unflagged—that is, deploying the symbols and rhetoric of nationalism in ways that stay mostly below the level of explicit consciousness."

https://calhoun.faculty.asu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/articles/the_rhetoric_of_nationalism.pdf

Neo Classical: Trump erodes the ethos of the existing government by labeling it incapable of basic governance, building his own credibility by implication. The line also uses reductive logic (if the state cannot handle the simple, it cannot handle the complex) to persuade through, what is presented as, an obvious, clear deduction. This blends credibility and reason to elevate Trump as a more competent alternative.

Ideological: This line also advances Trump’s anti-establishment ideology by reducing complex policy failures to a narrative of elite incompetence. The phrase “even a simple crisis” rhetorically frames the government as inept and detached, promoting a worldview where institutions are inherently broken and outsiders—like Trump—must reclaim control. It reinforces populist distrust and repositions state failure as deliberate abandonment of the people.

Generic Criticism: This line marks a significant departure from the traditional inaugural genre, which typically opens with unifying affirmations and ceremonial reverence for American institutions. Instead of enacting continuity and civic confidence—as we see in Biden’s 2021 inaugural (“Democracy has prevailed”)—Trump opens by casting the government as a failed and suspect entity. This violates a core generic convention: inaugurals traditionally reaffirm the legitimacy of the republic even in times of transition. Trump’s framing instead performs a kind of rhetorical inversion, treating the occasion not as a transitioning of power but as a "day of reckoning". The genre of the inaugural is thus subverted into a platform for populist grievance, more reminiscent of a campaign rally than a ceremonial oath of office.

When asked about the departure of Trump's remarks from pre-existing expectations based on presidential precedent, John M. Murphy, a professor of communication at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who studies the history of American public address and political rhetoric responds as follows:

"Was there anything striking about Trump’s second address and the rhetorical devices he used when referring to his policy agenda, the Congress and his definition of the U.S. and its standing in the world order?

First, President Trump used dark, divisive campaign rhetoric rather than the usual unifying, uplifting words that characterize normal inaugurals.

Second, an inaugural address usually offers only general principles, rather than specific policy, in order to unify the country behind new leadership. Trump listed a long series of bitterly contested executive orders that again divided the nation.

Inaugural addresses usually emphasize the humility of the new president as they face the profound responsibilities of the office. George Washington acknowledged “his own deficiencies” and nearly all presidents place themselves under God and rely on the help of the people.

Trump does not do so. In fact, he says he was “saved by God” to make America great again. His arrogance does not indicate he will respect constitutional limits."

https://las.illinois.edu/news/2025-01-24/how-did-president-trumps-inaugural-address-stack-previous-speeches

Murphy's remarks, given his position as a scholar of political rhetoric, illustrates that even the academic subdomain of American politics is continuing to adjust to the non-traditional themes in Trump's address.

Ideological Criticism: By stating that “our government confronts a crisis of trust,” Trump invokes deep anti-establishment sentiment, a defining feature of his ideological appeal. This rhetoric casts suspicion not just on a particular party or administration, but on the very structure of American governance, framing it as inherently broken.

This statement furthers Trump's nationalistic rhetoric while adding anti-establishment themes into the mix. Trump here is detailing his golden age and contrasting it with the current marginalized state of the government. He presents the the Justice Department in an antagonistic light, touting the irony that it needs to be brought to Justice. This irony is meant to be felt by his audience as a symbol for the conception of current institutional authorities as being in opposition to the values of the people. This enforces an anti establishment sentiment, one that can be seen throughout Trump's speech.

Anti-establishment is central to Populist conceptions because it often oversimplifies complex issues, ascribing them to a single entity while providing validation of the cultural distrust of the people towards their institutions.

In Crisis, Rhetoric and Right-Wing Populist Incumbency: An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tweets and Press Briefings the authors expand on this anti-establishment capacity and its rhetorical function:

" In the USA, the rise in support for right-wing populism, and Trump's variant in particular, is often understood as a ‘Jacksonian’ revolt against supposedly misguided, corrupt elites, and linked to the Tea Party movement (Lacatus Reference Lacatus2020). ‘Jacksonianism’ is motivated by ‘resentment of the well-bred, the well-connected, and the well-paid’, by mistrust in the motives and methods of government and revolt against the political order (Bonikowski and Gidron Reference Bonikowski and Gidron2016; Lowndes et al. Reference Lowndes and Kaltwasser2017)."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/crisis-rhetoric-and-rightwing-populist-incumbency-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tweets-and-press-briefings/928DC40735BEEB1F62AE04ECBB98530C

Trump and in turn, his base, find themselves joyously awaiting a “golden era” in politics- in an advantageous position to execute their reformative agenda. At initial glance this statement is perhaps best attributed to Trump's persona as a businessman- his use of short marketable slogans incentivize his base by providing digestible and memorable policy positions. However this particular utterance is integral to Trump's rhetorical intention and effect in a multi-faceted way. As such, it plays a pivotal role in a variety of rhetorical applications:

Fantasy Theme Criticism: This line serves as uniting symbol for the fantasy in which Trump is trying to engage his base. The implication here is that what this golden age entails is mutually agreed upon by him and his supporters, they are responsible in its ushering just as much as Trump is. Starting with this statement acts as a tantalizing way to initiate his narrative, one which details the transition from national suffering to a triumphant renewal. The phrase “golden age” evokes a grand, almost mythic sense of prosperity and serves as one of the main fantasies which Trump's rhetoric is outlining for his audience.

This line also functions within the fantasy-theme which is pivotal to the function of Trump's speech- that of a fallen people redeemed by a heroic figure. Trump essentially sets up a David and Goliath parallel where his people are the underdogs oppressed by a large institution which has undermined their rights and freedoms. In this story, he casts himself as the savior who, by taking office is putting an end to this tyrrany and putting his foot down on behalf of his people.

The applause which follows is not merely approval—it is ritual affirmation of the shared fantasy. The audiences internalizes a rhetorical vision that unites them emotionally and ideologically.

Ideological Criticism: Framing his presidency as the beginning of a “golden age” reinforces Trump’s underlying nationalist ideology and capitalizes on populist themes. Trump asserts that under his leadership, America can reclaim a rightful, superior place in the world. Use of language like "golden age" constructs an ideological binary between a broken past and a utopian present, shaped entirely by Trump’s ascension. The use of “golden age” also taps into religious imagery, drawing from both nationalist and Christian overtones of promised lands and chosen leaders. On Populist Rhetorical strategies and their efficacy in the context of political speakers and their agenda, Lacatus and Meibauer explicate that:

Populists claim to promote the interest of a virtuous ‘people’ by curbing a dangerous ‘other’, especially corrupt elites, which constitutes a threat to the people's sovereignty. Populists challenge the dominant order, give voice to the collective will and promise a new order that resonates with the longings of the ‘people’ (Moffitt Reference Moffitt2015; Oliver and Rahn Reference Oliver and Rahn2016; Rooduijn Reference Rooduijn2014). Populists use a transgressive rhetorical style that allows them to portray themselves as ‘authentic’ outsiders, and that is often direct, emotional and indelicate"

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/crisis-rhetoric-and-rightwing-populist-incumbency-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tweets-and-press-briefings/928DC40735BEEB1F62AE04ECBB98530C

• for: social tipping point - tools, cascade institute, Boolean Causal Loop Analysis, BCLA, Cross-impact balance, CIB, socio-cognitive mapping, cognitive-affective mapping, ideological state-space

Harper, Craig A., and Darren Rhodes. ‘Ideological Responses to the Breaking of COVID-19 Social Distancing Recommendations’, 19 August 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkqj6.

Harper, Craig A., and Darren Rhodes. ‘Ideological Responses to the Breaking of COVID-19 Social Distancing Recommendations’, 19 August 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkqj6.

Harper, Craig A., and Darren Rhodes. ‘Ideological Responses to the Breaking of COVID-19 Social Distancing Recommendations’, 19 August 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkqj6.

@DFRLab. (2020). Op-Ed: How Brexit tribalism has influenced attitudes toward COVID-19 in Britain. Medium. https://medium.com/dfrlab/op-ed-how-brexit-tribalism-has-influenced-attitudes-toward-covid-19-in-britain-16a983a56929

Axt, J. R., Landau, M. J., & Kay, A. C. (2020). The Psychological Appeal of Fake-News Attributions. Psychological Science, 0956797620922785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620922785

‘My Dear Dr. Sigerson’ (iv)

The Dr. Sigerson in question is George Sigerson (1836-1925), a physician and an eminent translator of Gaelic poetry. When the Gaelic League was founded in 1893, Hyde was elected as its present, and so absented his role as president of the National Literary Society. Sigerson succeeded him, and was the society’s incumbent present when Love Songs of Connacht was published.

A direct address to the National Literary Society was famously performed by Hyde in 1892. The central idea of his speech titled ‘The Necessity for De-Anglicising Ireland’ was that there was an indissoluble link between a nation’s language and its culture, and that it was a sign of cultural weakness to mimic English ways and habits of thought.

The beginning of Love Songs of Connacht reminds us of the ideological backdrop from which the book emerges. For in-depth accounts of the development of the idea that language and nationhood are inextricably linked, see Diarmuid Ó Giolláin’s Locating Irish Folklore: Tradition, Modernity, Identity (2000), and Joep Leerssen’s National Thought in Europe: A Cultural History (2006). You can read the text of Hyde’s 1892 speech to the National Literary Society at http://historymuse.net/readings/HYDENecessityforDeAnglicizingIreland1892.html