Sobre o discurso de Trump na Polónia

Tenho notado por aqui e por ali um certo entusiasmo da “direita” portuguesa com o discurso que Donald Trump fez na sua visita à Polónia. Das duas uma: ou gostaram do dito porque não o perceberam, e na ânsia de contrariar “a esquerda” e “o politicamente correcto”, não conseguem conter o reflexo de elogiar tudo aquilo a que eles se oponham, ou então gostaram precisamente por terem percebido muito bem, o que será ainda pior. A propósito do assunto, vale a pena ler três artigos publicados por três diferentes autores na The Atlantic. No mais recente, escreve David Frum:

“In Poland, President Trump at last delivered the pledge he omitted from his speech at Brussels’s NATO headquarters. “To those who would criticize our tough stance, I would point out that the United States has demonstrated not merely with words but with its actions that we stand firmly behind Article 5, the mutual defense commitment.” But who now will be reassured by these glib words? The whole world has seen how long and how fiercely President Trump squirmed to avoid pronouncing them—and the world, friendly and hostile, will draw conclusions accordingly. As President Trump rightly noted, “Words are easy, but actions are what matters.” Trump’s actions reveal a president disturbingly infatuated with Russia first as a businessman, then as a candidate for president. Trump’s actions reveal a seeming affinity for Putin-style authoritarianism. His actions reveal that his words about NATO cannot be trusted—and they will not be trusted. (…)it’s even stranger to hear Donald Trump speak of “our own fight for the West.” If his foreign policy has had one theme since January 2017, it has precisely been to smash the unity of the Western alliance. The spinal column of the Western alliance is the U.S.-Germany relationship, and Trump has undermined it since Day One. This speech itself amounts to one more such blow against unity: Trump traveled to Warsaw to praise and reward a Polish government that all America’s other leading allies in Europe have been reproving for its suppression of free media and politicization of its legal system. Trump’s speech in praise of the unity of the West predictably and perversely ended up being an attack on the unity of the West. (…) the most troubling thing about the speech was the falsehood at its core; the problem is not with the speech, but with the speaker. The values Trump spoke for in Warsaw are values that he has put at risk every day of his presidency—and that he will continue to put to risk every day thereafter. Trump’s not wrong to perceive a threat to the Euro-Atlantic from the south and east. But the most recent and most dramatic manifestation of that threat was the Russian intervention in the U.S. election to install Donald Trump as president. The threat from outside is magnified by this threat from within—and it is that truth that makes a mockery of every word President Trump spoke in Warsaw.”

Noutro artigo, escreve James Fallows:

“Our current president began his trip to Europe with a speech in Poland that minimized the role of ideals in American identity, and maximized the importance of what he called “civilization” but which boils down to ties of ethnicity and blood.From Donald Trump this cannot be a great surprise, given the support he has courted and the American groups he has derogated during his time on the public stage. But for a president of the United States it still counts as a notable, even shocking departure. A president’s role when traveling has, until now, been to speak for the American idea. (…)
At least when speaking to the world, American presidents have emphasized an expanded “us.” All men are created equal. Every man is a German. Ich bin ein Berliner. Our realities in America have always been flawed, but our idea is in principle limitless. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Trump gave grace-note nods to goals of liberty and free expression. Mainly, though, he spoke not about an expanded us but instead about us and them. He spoke repeatedly about our “heritage,” our “blood,” our “civilization,” our “ancestors” and “families,” our “will” and “way of life.” Every one of these of course has perfectly noble connotations. But combined and in practice, they amount to the way the Japanese nationalists of the early 20th century onward spoke, about the purity of “we Japanese” and the need to stick together as a tribe. They were the way Mussolini spoke, glorifying the Roman heritage—but again in a tribal sense, to elevate 20th-century Italians as a group, rather than in John F. Kennedy’s allusion to a system of rules that could include outsiders as civis romanus as well. They are the way French nationalists supporting Marine Le Pen speak now, and Nigel Farage’s pro-Brexit forces in the U.K., and “alt-right” activists in the United States, and of course the Breitbart empire under presidential counselor Steve Bannon. They rest on basic distinctions between us and them as peoples—that is, as tribes—rather than as the contending ideas and systems that presidents from our first to our 44th had emphasized.”

Se Fallows comparou o discurso de Trump na Polónia com um do antigo Presidente Carter no mesmo país, Peter Beinart fez um paralelo com vários discursos de George W. Bush:

“In his first presidential visit, in 2001, Bush never referred to “the West.” He did tell Poles that “We share a civilization.” But in the next sentence he insisted that “Its values are universal.” Because they are, he declared, “our trans-Atlantic community must have priorities beyond the consolidation of European peace. We must bring peace and health to Africa. … We must work toward a world that trades in freedom … a world of cooperation to enhance prosperity, protect the environment, and lift the quality of life for all.” In 2003, Bush returned, and in his main speech didn’t use the terms “West” or “civilization” at all. After celebrating Poland’s achievements, he said America and Europe “must help men and women around the world to build lives of purpose and dignity” so they don’t turn to terrorism. He boasted that America was increasing its funding to fight global poverty and AIDS because “we add to our security by helping to spread freedom and alleviate suffering.” And he said “America and Europe must work closely to develop and apply new technologies that will improve our air and water quality, and protect the health of the world’s people.” (…)In his 2003 speech, Bush referred to democracy 13 times. Trump mentioned it once. And for good reason. Ideologically, what links the current American and Polish governments is not their commitment to democracy—both are increasingly authoritarian. It is their hostility to Muslim immigration. The European Union is suing Poland’s government for refusing to accept refugees. Among Trump’s biggest applause lines in Warsaw was, “While we will always welcome new citizens who share our values and love our people, our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind.” Given that Trump had linked “our values” to America and Poland’s “tradition,” “faith,” “culture,” and “identity,” it wasn’t hard to imagine whom that leaves out. (…) When Bush spoke in Poland, America’s leaders still mostly discussed globalization as a process by which America improved the rest of the world. Trump generally discusses globalization—the movement of both goods and people—as a process by which the rest of the world cheats, weakens, and threatens America. In his two speeches in Poland combined, Bush used variations of the word “defend” five times. Trump used them 21 times in a single speech. The most shocking sentence in Trump’s speech—perhaps the most shocking sentence in any presidential speech delivered on foreign soil in my lifetime—was his claim that “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.” On its face, that’s absurd. Jihadist terrorists can kill people in the West, but unlike Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, they cannot topple even the weakest European government. Jihadists control no great armies. Their ideologies have limited appeal even among the Muslims they target with their propaganda. ISIS has all but lost Mosul and could lose Raqqa later this year. Trump’s sentence only makes sense as a statement of racial and religious paranoia. The “south” and “east” only threaten the West’s “survival” if you see non-white, non-Christian immigrants as invaders. They only threaten the West’s “survival” if by “West” you mean white, Christian hegemony. A direct line connects Trump’s assault on Barack Obama’s citizenship to his speech in Poland. In Trump and Bannon’s view, America is at its core Western: meaning white and Christian (or at least Judeo-Christian). The implication is that anyone in the United States who is not white and Christian may not truly be American but rather than an imposter and a threat. Poland is largely ethnically homogeneous. So when a Polish president says that being Western is the essence of the nation’s identity, he’s mostly defining Poland in opposition to the nations to its east and south. America is racially, ethnically, and religious diverse. So when Trump says being Western is the essence of America’s identity, he’s in part defining America in opposition to some of its own people. He’s not speaking as the president of the entire United States. He’s speaking as the head of a tribe.”

13 pensamentos sobre “Sobre o discurso de Trump na Polónia

  1. Pois, o que é realmente preocupante é que “percebam muito bem” o género de pessoas que escreve para Trump e lhe tributem o afeto que por aqui se vê precisamente por causa disso.

  2. “Ou porque talvez não o entenderam”….. então vai de pôr 3 artigos em Inglês, pensando que todos nós somos barras em linguas…
    Vai-te lixar Bruninho.

  3. Euro2cent

    Ena, tantos cucos. Nem vale a pena ler tudo e dar troco, mas ficam dois apontamentos.

    O primeiro cuco vem com as tretas do costume dos neocons, o lobi da guerra à Rússia cristã e conservadora. Passaram os últimos vinte anos a meter os proletas americanos em guerras porcas, e a espalhar o caos por onde podem.

    O último cuco vem com as tretas da diversidade com que os nossos donos agora trocam de povo, porque isso de uma nação ser de um povo com ascendência, cultura e expectativas comuns é muito século XVIII para eles, e o que servia para os federalistas fundadores hoje está fora de moda. (Cf. )

  4. Cristo…!
    Bruno, pelo menos ouviu/leu o discurso por isso ou limitou-se a ler opinioes na melhor das hipoteses em segunda mão?

    “Our own fight for the West does not begin on the battlefield — it begins with our minds, our wills, and our souls. Today, the ties that unite our civilisation are no less vital, and demand no less defence, than that bare shred of land on which the hope of Poland once totally rested. Our freedom, our civilisation, and our survival depend on these bonds of history, culture, and memory.” – Donald Trump.

    Eu, pelo meu lado quero muito disto. Muito deste tipo de discurso.
    E Você? faz ao menos a mais pequena ideia do que ele está a dizer?

    Você acha que a europa e o “west” não existe ou acha que a europa é um espaço geográfico e mais nada e que europeu é toda a gente que vive nesse espaço geográfico? – é que europeus a viver durante séculos e aos milhões por exemplo em africa ao final do dia eram europeus a viver em Africa e na verdade nem isso, pois eram colonialistas. Ou na India. Que estranho que nunca deixassem de ser europeus a viver em terra alheia. – Um indiano a viver em londres não é europeu. Pode ser britânico, e com todo o direito e privilégios que isso lhe dará, mas não é europeu. Europeu é outra coisa, tal como eu cuja familia vivia em angola há mais de 300 anos, não era nem sou africano – Sou europeu.

    Sim, ele, o Trump, tem razão- A europa tem que decidir se quer suicidar. Lufada de ar fresco o discurso dele. Certo ou errado, quero esse debate e muitos destes discursos. E quero, porque ao contrario de muitos que vejo comentar, eu sei o que une qualquer povo é perceber aquilo que se aprendia ou apreendia desde a infância e que agora nem em adultos parecem perceber – O pais , ou continente, não e seu para dispor como quiser. É também dos mortos, dos que agora cá vivem e dos que ainda estão por nascer. – Quem não entende isto desde criança, é para todos os efeitos, um merdas. E cada vez há mais.

  5. Não consigo entender nada disto. Ou o Sr. Dr.Bruno (em Portugal somos todos doutores, não é verdade?) não tem a mínima percepção do que se esta a passar, ou está com o “rabo preso” a alguma das máfias dos denominados DDT.
    Venha o diabo e escolha.

  6. ó Bruno já percebemos que o Trump é um idiota. Não é preciso tanto esforço para proselitar a malta. Aguenta. Contra tudo e todos o homem continua a caminhar. Apesar dos fanáticos que lhe querem cortar a cabeça ( jornalistas da CNN, idiotas de Hollywood, músicos etc ) e alguns conservadores que passam a vida nas trincheiras dos liberais esquerdalhos. É difícil aceitar os resultados da democracia quando somos intolerantes.

  7. bruninho, com todo o respeito, vai à merda

    já estás há meio ano a spammar todas as noticias falsas que surgem – mas não apresentas nenhum arrependimento quando não dá em nada

    se amanha o WAPO ou a CNN atirassem que o trump afinal era um agente angolano tu fazias logo retweet a 100 jovens jornalistas americanas sobre o assunto, é triste…

  8. Holonist

    O nivel de idiotice deste tipo nao conhece limites, pqp, como ainda o deixam aqui escrevinhar so pode ser misterio.

  9. Eu gostei de discurso.
    As críticas que lhe fazem dependem de preconceitos típicos de esquerda: a ligação à Rússia, a identificação de West com White, e outros preconceitos repetidos ad nauseum.
    Um bocado belicista para o meu gosto (Trump já foi mais pacifista e também já achou a NATO mais obsoleta), mas curiosamente estes subornados do complexo militar americano com isso não acharam problema. Enfim, esquerdistas hilariantes.


    É sempre reconfortante perceber que há tipos muito mais imbecis que o Trump. Obrigado, Bruno Alves. É uma pena que tipos como o Krauthammer não tenham percebido o discurso. Ao contrário do esclarecido Bruno. És mesmo uma besta, ó Charles! Reaganesque?!?! Como te atreves?…

Deixe uma Resposta

Preencha os seus detalhes abaixo ou clique num ícone para iniciar sessão:

Logótipo da

Está a comentar usando a sua conta Terminar Sessão /  Alterar )

Google photo

Está a comentar usando a sua conta Google Terminar Sessão /  Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Está a comentar usando a sua conta Twitter Terminar Sessão /  Alterar )

Facebook photo

Está a comentar usando a sua conta Facebook Terminar Sessão /  Alterar )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.