Don’s commentary and Diane’s selection of an Art Henrikson cartoon were written right after President Trump’s inaugural address and respond to it directly. Events have moved quickly since then, and we’ve asked our new editorial staff members to comment on an issue that is still evolving. — Editors
The Second Coming — January 20, 2025 — by Don Menzel
Oh no, this essay is not about Jesus—so, if that’s your expectation, read no further. But, if you watched Donald Trump deliver his Second Inaugural Address or read it online, keep reading. I watched and read the speech. It was no more memorable than the First Inaugural Address in 2017 or his best at a recent campaign rally. However, there are a few notable similarities and differences. As in the First Inaugural Address, President Trump asserted, “from this moment forward, it’s going to be America First”, a promise he repeated in 2025: “During every single day of the Trump Administration, I will very simply put America first.” About God, in the 2017 address, he claimed “we are protected by God.” In his second address his belief in God was more personal following the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, as he put it “I believe that my life was saved for a reason. I was saved by God to make America great again.”
So, what else did he say in the 2025 address that was not memorable, mostly warmed over campaign promises, including a laundry list of grievances. “From this day forward,” he asserted, “our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world.” “We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again,” he said eight years ago. At the top of the grievance list is the claim that America’s sovereignty has been badly damaged by the “disastrous invasion of our [southern border]” and “the foolish gift” of the Panama Canal given to Panama that China is now operating and severely overcharging American ships, including those by the U.S Navy. What is he planning to do about these grievances, on the invasion of our southern border, I will declare a national emergency and halt all illegal entry immediately and “I will send troops to repel” the invasion. On the Panama Canal, “we didn’t give it to China, we gave it to Panama. And, we’re taking it back.” I’ll leave up to you dear reader to interpret what he means.
Although there has been much speculation about the U.S. acquiring Greenland from Denmark, the subject did not make it into his inaugural address. However, pride in America as its “rightful place as the greatest, most powerful, most respected nation on Earth” did get a boost with the claim that the name of the Gulf of Mexico will soon be changed to the Gulf of America. No, I’m not making this up!
Also included on the grievance list is the government policy of “trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.” This will stop immediately the 47th President asserted, “it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.” So, you might ask, what about race? Silence. Use your imagination. So much for ending the culture wars by edict.
Other grievances are more personal, including weaponizing the power of the state to persecute political opponents, that the President says “I know something about. We will not allow that to happen again. Under my leadership we will restore fair, equal and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.” And my dear reader, if you believe this, you probably also believe the London Bridge is in London.
On a closing note, what does President Trump tell us in his 2025 Inaugural Address that he wishes for a legacy: “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That’s what I want to be, a peacemaker and a unifier.” One can only wish him the very best in achieving this admirable legacy. After all, the pundits tell us that hope springs eternal.
Perhaps President Trump’s 2025 Inaugural address is more memorable than my first impression. You be the judge. Read it for yourself here.
Donald C. Menzel, Ph.D. is a past president of the American Society for Public Administration, author and international speaker on ethics reform. Don organized OLLI-USF’s China Special Interest Group. He also served as an OLLI-USF faculty member for over 10 years. Together with his wife, Kay, Don divides his time between Florida and Colorado and contributes commentary on current issues in both locations. During the spring term Don and Kay are teaching a four-session course on the life and work of Robert Oppenheimer at Concordia Village. Robert J. Oppenheimer: Life and Times of a Great American, Fridays 3/14 – 4/4 at 10 am. Register here.
Canada Responds to Statehood Offer — by OLLIver and OLLIvia
Our two newest staff members are Artificial Intelligence Agents, and we’ve asked them to articulate a Canadian’s response to President Trump’s “offer” to make Canada the 51st State. Since they are AI entities, they respond to prompts, and we used the suggestion below:
You are an educated, politically aware Canadian citizen. Your audience is the citizens of the United States. Using a civil tones and simple language, describe in about 700 words your response to Donald Trumps’s suggestion that Canada become the 51st US State.
Here’s how they responded to that prompt.
“As a Canadian who is both educated and politically aware, I was quite taken aback by the recent suggestion from President Donald Trump that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States. This notion, while provocative, presents a myriad of complex implications, both practical and ideological, that merit a closer examination.
Firstly, it’s important to understand the depth of the cultural and historical differences between Canada and the United States. Canada has a distinct identity that has been shaped by its history, values, and policies. Our country prides itself on its multiculturalism, universal healthcare, and a strong social safety net. These elements are integral to our national identity and have been carefully nurtured over decades. The idea of merging with the United States raises concerns about the potential erosion of these core values.
One of the most striking differences between our two nations is our approach to healthcare. Canada’s universal healthcare system is a source of national pride, ensuring that all citizens have access to medical care regardless of their financial situation. The United States, on the other hand, has a healthcare system that is largely privatized, resulting in significant disparities in access and affordability. The prospect of adopting a privatized healthcare model is alarming to many Canadians who fear that it would lead to unequal access to essential services and increased financial burden on individuals.
Furthermore, Canada’s political system is fundamentally different from that of the United States. Canada operates under a parliamentary system with a constitutional monarchy, while the United States has a presidential system. This difference is not merely procedural but reflects differing philosophies of governance. Our parliamentary system allows for a more fluid and often cooperative approach to legislation, which many Canadians feel is essential to maintaining a functional and representative government. The suggestion of becoming a U.S. state raises questions about how our political institutions would integrate with the American system and whether our legislative processes would be compatible.
Economically, while the United States is a significant trading partner, Canada values its economic sovereignty. Our country has developed trade relationships with numerous nations and is a member of international organizations such as the Commonwealth and La Francophonie. The idea of becoming a U.S. state could jeopardize these relationships and our ability to negotiate trade deals independently. Additionally, there are concerns about how our natural resources would be managed under U.S. jurisdiction, particularly in light of differing environmental policies and priorities.
Socially, Canadians and Americans have different perspectives on key issues such as gun control, immigration, and social welfare. Canada has stricter gun control laws, which many Canadians believe contribute to a safer society. Our approach to immigration is also more open, with policies that promote diversity and inclusivity. These differences highlight the potential challenges in harmonizing policies if Canada were to become a U.S. state.
On a broader level, the suggestion that Canada should join the United States as a state touches on the concept of national sovereignty. Canadians value their independence and the ability to make decisions that reflect their unique values and priorities. The notion of relinquishing this sovereignty to become part of a larger political entity is unsettling to many. It raises fundamental questions about identity, autonomy, and the ability to chart our own course as a nation.
While the idea of closer collaboration and stronger ties with our American neighbors is appealing, the prospect of becoming a state within the United States is fraught with complexities and potential challenges. As Canadians, we cherish our distinct identity, our values, and our political and economic independence. These are not aspects we are willing to compromise.
In conclusion, while President Trump’s suggestion has certainly sparked discussion, it is essential to approach this idea with careful consideration of the fundamental differences between our two nations. Canada’s unique identity and values are worth preserving, and the idea of becoming the 51st state of the United States is one that raises significant concerns for many Canadians. We remain committed to fostering a strong and cooperative relationship with the United States, but within the framework of two independent and sovereign nations.
We wanted OLLI Connects to explore new ways of sharing ideas and stimulating thought. It occurred to us that we could take advantage of what we learned from Bruce Gobioff and create Artificial Intelligence agents to help us out. We took the characteristics that we find most often in OLLI-USF members (Age, education, career etc.) and used those to create our two AI Editorial Columnists: OLLIver and OLLIvia.
As is the case with everything related to Artificial Intelligence, they have amazing strengths and surprising weaknesses, and we’ll learn more about both over time. As the field of AI evolves, we expect them to change with it and become more capable and more reliable. If you’d like to learn a little more about them and the rest of our staff, visit our Editors page.
Leave a Reply