Political speeches are more than just collections of words—they shape how we see reality. They define crises, create urgency, and present solutions that often feel inevitable. But what happens when we take a step back and critically examine the underlying assumptions behind these speeches?
Donald Trump’s 2017 Address to Congress is a prime example of how political rhetoric constructs a vision of national renewal. The speech paints a picture of America in crisis, frames immigration as a security threat, and positions economic nationalism as the only path forward. But instead of taking these ideas at face value, let’s do something different.
Using Alvesson & Sandberg’s problematization methodology, we can challenge the unstated assumptions in Trump’s speech, exposing how his words don’t just describe reality—they actively create it.
The “Unbroken Chain” of American Progress
Trump invokes a classic political image: the idea that American history is a seamless, uninterrupted march toward greatness. He declares:
“Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty, and justice – in an unbroken chain all the way down to the present.”
This statement assumes that America’s trajectory has been continuous and unified, as if truth, liberty, and justice have always flowed smoothly from one generation to the next.
🔹 But is history truly an ‘unbroken chain’?
🔹 How does this framing erase conflicts, struggles, and resistance?
Problematization forces us to rethink this narrative. America’s past is not a single, unified march toward justice—it is filled with contradictions, power struggles, and contested histories. By framing history this way, Trump presents himself as the natural heir to a continuous legacy, rather than a leader of a deeply divided nation.
Economic Nationalism and the Myth of Industrial Revival
Trump’s economic vision is built on a nostalgic appeal to past industrial strength:
“Dying industries will come roaring back to life.”
The assumption here is that reviving old industries is the key to economic prosperity. But let’s problematize this:
🔹 Why is economic strength tied to the past rather than to new industries and innovations?
🔹 Does nostalgia for a previous era prevent forward-thinking economic policy?
By presenting industrial revival as inevitable, Trump avoids addressing deeper economic transformations, such as automation, digitalization, and the rise of service-based economies. Problematization reveals that this isn’t just an economic argument—it’s an ideological one.
The Rhetoric of Crisis and the Demand for Action
Throughout his speech, Trump repeatedly constructs a sense of urgency and crisis:
“Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately, stop.”
“Our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety, and opportunity.”
The assumption here is that these crises are isolated, solvable problems that can be fixed with decisive action. But problematization raises key questions:
🔹 Are these problems truly ‘fixable’ in the way Trump suggests, or are they systemic issues requiring long-term structural change?
🔹 Does crisis rhetoric justify radical political action, rather than thoughtful governance?
By presenting America’s challenges as discrete problems with clear solutions, Trump constructs a simplified reality—one where his leadership alone can bring renewal. Problematization exposes how this rhetorical strategy can be used to justify drastic interventions without addressing systemic causes.
Nationalism and the Politics of Belonging
Trump emphasizes America First policies, positioning his administration as the defender of national sovereignty:
“America must put its own citizens first.”
The assumption here is that protecting ‘American citizens’ is a straightforward concept. But problematization asks:
🔹 Who is included in ‘citizens,’ and who is left out?
🔹 How does nationalist rhetoric shape the boundaries of belonging?
By using a phrase like “America must put its own citizens first,” Trump constructs a dividing line between insiders and outsiders. Problematization forces us to question who gets to be part of the national identity and who is excluded in the process.
Electoral Victory as National Consensus
Trump portrays his election as a mass movement unifying the country:
“Finally, the chorus became an earthquake – and the people turned out by the tens of millions, and they were all united by one very simple, but crucial demand, that America must put its own citizens first.”
The assumption here is that winning an election means having national consensus. But let’s problematize this idea:
🔹 Does electoral victory truly reflect unanimous support, or does it obscure divisions?
🔹 How does this rhetoric delegitimize political opposition?
By equating electoral success with universal approval, Trump minimizes dissent and frames opposition as out of touch with “the people”. Problematization reveals how this technique is used to consolidate power and silence critics.
Why Problematization Matters
Trump’s 2017 Address to Congress is a masterclass in political rhetoric. It frames America as being in crisis, presents nationalism and industrial revival as the only solutions, and positions Trump’s leadership as the natural response to these challenges.
But by applying Alvesson & Sandberg’s problematization methodology, we uncover hidden ideological structures behind the speech:
✅ The assumption that America’s history is a continuous march toward greatness.
✅ The assumption that reviving old industries is the only path to prosperity.
✅ The assumption that social problems can be solved through crisis intervention.
✅ The assumption that electoral victory equals national unity.
Instead of accepting these claims at face value, problematization forces us to ask deeper questions:
🔹 How does Trump’s speech use nostalgia to construct political legitimacy?
🔹 What are the consequences of crisis rhetoric in policymaking?
🔹 How does nationalist rhetoric define who belongs in America?
Political language is never neutral. It shapes the way we think about problems, solutions, and who holds power. By problematizing Trump’s speech, we go beyond what is being said and uncover how reality is being framed to serve political goals.
In an era where political rhetoric drives policymaking, critical engagement is more necessary than ever. Problematization isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s a tool for understanding how power works in language and governance.
What do you think? How does political rhetoric shape our perception of reality? Drop a comment below and let’s discuss. 🚀