Sandwiched between the manufactured government shutdown and the recent declaration of a national state of emergency, the State of the Union failed to unite—but was that ever the intention? The incongruity between President Trump’s address to Congress and the Democratic response issued by Stacey Abrams illustrates two fundamentally different conceptions of unity and strength. Trump’s willingness to embrace an authoritarian strongman politics poses the real threat to the union.

On February 5th, before a joint session of Congress gathered in the House of Representatives, President Trump delivered his 2019 State of Union with a similar evaluation he had the year before: “Members of Congress, the state of our union is strong.” Ten days later, on Friday, February 15, positioned similarly in the Rose Garden with columns hemming in from both sides and an American flag at his back, Trump declared a National State of Emergency on the U.S. Southern border to Mexico.

What in the intermittent ten days warranted this shift from strong to emergency? It seems to be precisely what both President Trump and Stacey Abrams (on behalf of the Democratic response) called for in their respective speeches: a gesture of political unity. On February 14th—a uniquely American coincidence of Valentine’s Day and the year-anniversary of the Stoneman Douglas school shooting—Congress passed a bipartisan spending measure to keep the government federal securely open.

This measure of legislative compromise came at the tail end of a three-week funding extension, offered in the wake the longest government shutdown in December and January, during which some 800,000 government workers went 35 days without pay. President Trump agreed to sign the February spending bill, but only on the condition that he would also declare a state of emergency in order to circumvent Congress and obtain more than the $1.3 billion in border wall funding mutually agreed upon by both legislatures.

The distance then, between strength and crisis, seems to lie in disparate understandings of unity and compromise. The incongruity between President Trump’s address to Congress and the Democratic response issued by Stacey Abrams illustrates two fundamentally different conceptions of unity and strength.

President Trump, in his speech, seemed more than comfortable embracing authoritarian politics. His speech emphasizes the immediacy of danger (of drug trafficking, of immigration, of Iran, of the political elite, etc.) and mythic the yet-to-be greatness of the United States—the knee-jerk reaction against and the aesthetic embodiment thereof his administration continuously lays claim to. The view is absolute. Any modicum of dissent (read: Trump’s flattening of Democrats, socialism, communism) is set in total opposition to American greatness, as Trump defines it.

The open-handed olive branch Trump offers in the speech is actually more of the same divisive rhetoric we have seen in the past two years of his administration—less of a handshake and more of the “clasp, yank, release” diplomacy. Thus, Trump’s speech, although ostensibly a call to unity, collapses most succinctly into the stark binary divide between his vision of success and the alternative of absolute failure:

“We can bridge all divisions, heal old wounds, build new coalitions, forge new solutions, and unlock the extraordinary promise of America’s future. The decision is ours to make. We must choose between greatness or gridlock, results or resistance, vision or vengeance, incredible progress or pointless destruction.”

Stacey Abrams’ Democratic response, in contrast to Trump’s, didn’t claim a universal or absolute position. Abrams built on stories of her father to tell a particular narrative of America expanded into a universal gesture—a story of hardship and of a mutual striving against discrimination and adversity to grow and prosper. Abrams’ speech was a story of America, a country in the crisis of division, with high aspirations and harsh realities of discrimination and prejudice that can only be overcome with moral persistence and political compromise:

“In this time of division and crisis, we must come together and stand for, and with, one another. America has stumbled time and again on its quest towards justice and equality; but with each generation, we have revisited our fundamental truths, and where we falter, we make amends.”

In many ways, this State of the Union was fairly routine: the standard ruptures of applause, the appeals to American moral and military exceptionalism, the parade of special guests (military personnel, ICE and law enforcement agents, Holocaust survivors, the surviving “Angel” relatives of those killed by “illegal aliens,” innocent children, etc.). Trump reinforced and refined his standard rhetoric to match a more presidential tone: Instead of MAGA, Trump implored Congress to “choose greatness;” instead of America first, Trump reminded that, “We must keep America first in our hearts;” instead of outright attacking his opponents, Trump touted his success in the face of a rhetorical opposition, “They said it couldn’t be done.”

There were distinguishing moments, even if they were largely conventional: Trump made occasional gestures to workplace diversity and inclusion, to paid parental leave, to VA reform, and childhood cancer research; Trump highlighted the success of two beneficiaries of prison justice reform (making particular note of their Christian faith); Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi performed a meme-worthy clapback; a record number of women-identifying Democratic delegates wore white in an homage to the early 20th century suffragettes and to honor the modern #MeToo movement; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez brought Ana Maria Archila, the activist popular for confronting former-Senator Jeff Flake during the Kavanaugh hearings.

As he has done throughout his administrative tenure, Trump grounded his political success in U.S. economic growth that has been more or less consistent throughout the last decade since the 2008 market crash. To some degree, Trump had particularly strong reasons for his economic confidence: the February 5th State of the Union Speech followed days after a “blockbuster jobs report,” according to NPR’s White House Correspondent. Many of President Trump’s economic claims were hyperbolic: “We have launched an unprecedented economic boom, a boom that has rarely been seen before. There’s been nothing like it;” “Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades;” “we are considered far and away the hottest economy anywhere in the world.” But their general takeaway is correct—the state of the American economy is strong.

Although Trump’s description of the U.S. economy’s success is generally correct, the attribution of this success to his administration is less clear. Trump’s massive deregulation—of financial institutions, of pollution and environmental standards, and of worker safety—certainly saves special interest groups billions of dollars, but it’s more of an open question than a closed case that this deregulation has been or will be linked to wide-scale market growth or increased equity.

Similarly, while Trump’s massive tax breaks to corporations and “increased government spending on military and domestic programs” have certainly contributed to short-term economic growth, it’s unclear if this practice is sustainable in the long-run. Consider, for example, changes in the federal budgets in FY 2018 and 2019. From 2018-19, spending will increase approximately 5.61% from 4.173 trillion to 4.407 trillion. Yet revenue will only increase around 2.46% from 3.340 trillion to 3.422 trillion. As a result of this disparity, the amount of deficit spending will increase 18.2% from 833 billion to 985 billion. With a real GDP growth rate hovering between 1.5-3% in the post-2008 U.S. market crash economy (through 2017), this policy of short-term growth by through decreased tax revenue coupled with increased spending is ultimately unsustainable.

In his State of the Union address, Trump was explicit in setting investigations (such as the Mueller investigation and proposed investigations in the Democrat-controlled House) in direct opposition to U.S. economic success: “An economic miracle is taking place in the United States, and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations.” Similarly, President Trump emphasized that these investigations are contrary to national security interests: “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way. We must be united at home to defeat our adversaries abroad.” The Trump translation is clear: the Democrats’ attacks of Trump represent attacks on American Greatness.

As The Washington Post and other publications have already noted, Trump’s call to abandon investigations is eerily reminiscent to Nixon’s own State of the Union address, the year before he ultimately resigned for his involvement in the Watergate scandal. As NPR’s Congressional Reporter Kelsey Snell notes, given Democrats’ core campaigning in the midterm elections on accountability, the likelihood that House Democrats will abandon their prerogative of legislative oversight is next to zero. The day after Trump’s State of the Union address, Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that the House Democrats would not be intimidated, and the House Intelligence Committee launched an inquiry into Russia and other foreign powers’ influence over President Trump. And just after President’s Day Weekend, on February 20th, the House launched an additional probe into the Trump administration’s plans to build nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia. These investigations show no sign of backing down as long as Democrats have control of the House.

President Trump has been emphatic in his xenophobic and racist rhetoric throughout his campaign and administration: whether in his infamous Mexico speech: “They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people" or in his laments over immigrants coming from “shithole countries.” His remarks during the State of the Union followed by his declaration of a state of emergency ten days later displayed a similar attitude of racial animus. Despite repeated criticisms for the tenor of his comments, Trump continues, much the same, to promote explicitly false, prejudiced narratives.

Consider for example, Trump’s connection between drug-trafficking, MS-13, and the so-called “migrant caravan.” President Trump is quick to refer to this “savage gang” and to emphasize gang violence, while assuring his audience that “We are removing these gang members by the thousands, but until we secure our border, they’re going to keep streaming right back in.” But what Trump neglects to mention is that MS-13 is a gang that originated in the United States in Los Angeles and was largely, through deportation, transplanted into Latin America. This international drug-trafficking gang is a uniquely American invention, both generated and sustained by the United States failed system of immigration and unsuccessful war on drugs. In part, the “migrant caravan” that Trump condemns is escaping conditions of violence that the United States both has managed to generate and export.

Stacey Abrams in her response outlined a substantively different understanding of America, beyond the parochial “us” vs. “them” tribalism that Trump has promoted in recent years. Building off of her father’s generous gesture of giving away his only jacket, Abrams outlined a vision of America that assists “when times are tough, [she argues] we can persevere because our friends and neighbors will come for us.” Abrams’ speech is critical of Trump’s inhumane actions at the border, especially of his administration’s choice to “cage children and tear families apart.” Building off of her notion of mutual assistance between friends and neighbors, Abrams advocates for a bipartisan “21st century immigration plan” that is compassionate, and ultimately, she argues: “we must all embrace that from agriculture to healthcare to entrepreneurship, America is made stronger by the presence of immigrants – not walls.”

Abrams’ speech argues for another vision of America. Yes, Abrams is critical of Trump’s politics: of the separation of families at the border, of the unnecessary government shutdown, of a broader failure to respond to gun violence and school shootings, of corporate giveaways in the Republican tax bill. But Abrams also argues for an ambitious agenda going forward: an America that is generous, that has a compassionate immigration policy, that embraces criminal justice reform, that supports educational attainment. An America that provides common sense gun laws, that supports working people instead of corporations, that actively combats voter suppression, that guarantees a woman’s right to choose, and that actively defends LGBTQ+ rights. Abrams outlines a fundamentally different conception of unity than Trump—one that is still politically contentious and aspirational, but a unity rooted in the fundamental values of the democratic process of bipartisanship and compromise.

In contrast, Trump’s address sounded more like an exculpatory plea for the crisis he would manufacture and officially declare ten days later. Throughout his speech, President Trump deliberately avoided sensitive topics for his administration like the unparalleled government shutdown or the Democrats’ massive gains in the House of Representatives. Instead, Trump argued the crisis in the country was a failure of political unity, presumably caused by the left’s resistance: “But we must reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and the common good.”

But if unity was Trump’s genuine intention, the speech was a failure. Taken in sum, his brinkmanship in closing the government through January, his recent declaration of a state of emergency, and his rhetoric in the past two weeks following his address demonstrate that Trump has no intention to abandon a politics of rage. Instead, Trump’s State of the Union represented a weaponization of unity—the implicit message to his base was to argue that partisanship is driven by Democrats and that any dissent is incompatible with Greatness as Trump defines it.

In the same moment that Trump claimed the state of the union was strong, the state of emergency that Trump would officially declare ten days later was already emergent. Trump’s definitions of strength and unity are incompatible with the Democratic norms of compromise and of checks and balances of power. The true crisis is that Trump increasingly embraces a strongman politics and is more and more willing—as the shutdown and now-emergency have most recently demonstrated—to subject the nation, at any cost, to his demands.