Q & A: What to Watch for at the Inauguration

January 14, 2025

Authored by:

Greg Varner

If you think a presidential inauguration is merely ceremonial, think again. According to Michael Goff, professorial lecturer in the Department of Political Science in the George Washington University's Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, an inaugural address can reveal much about the incoming president's agenda-and about the new administration's odds for achieving it. When Donald Trump is sworn in for his second term in the Oval Office, Goff will be watching closely. He shared some of his thoughts on the inauguration with GW Today.

Q: What should we watch for at the inauguration?

A: The main thing about presidential inaugural addresses is that they are an articulation of a new president's agenda. Of course, we hear about the agenda all through a campaign, but inaugural ceremonies are where new presidents articulate their agenda for the first time as president. And it really creates a kind of scorecard to track what they're trying to do and then see if they're able to do it. How do they perform relative to their own goals?

The big thing to watch for is whether the inaugural address simply continues the campaign rhetoric, or does it try to articulate a broader, perhaps more unifying agenda that can gather more support? In political science, we talk about presidents campaigning and presidents governing. And President Trump is almost exclusively a campaigner. He constantly is campaigning, and really does very little in the way of governing or broadening the base.

So, watch to see if he tries to articulate goals in a way that can bring greater support, not just among the base, but among a broader swath of Americans. Not all Americans-he's never going to get everyone. But does he try to increase his base of support, and thereby increase the chances of getting something accomplished?

If the past is prologue, Trump will gear his message to his base, energizing his supporters but alienating his opponents. And that will just increase his chances of failure. This time, will he try to shift from campaign mode to governing mode? That's what to watch for.

Q: Are you thinking of the "American carnage" address from his previous inauguration?

A: Yes. Trump's first inaugural address was very dark and sinister and antagonistic, rejecting his predecessors and condemning the America of 2017, and it did really nothing to broaden his support. He continued along those lines of constantly energizing his base and alienating or demonizing anyone who disagreed with him. Almost kiddingly, I say those who worry about President Trump's positions should take heart when he behaves this way, because it minimizes his chances of actually getting things done. Actually, the people who should be booing are the people who supported him! And the people who should be cheering are the ones who don't support him.

His first inaugural address did almost nothing to advance his agenda, and much of his agenda didn't get through. Congress wouldn't even appropriate the money for the border wall or repeal Obamacare-his two main priorities of 2016. He didn't accomplish either of them. That's partly because he never transitioned from divisive campaign rhetoric to governing rhetoric, which would unify. Is he even capable of that? My prediction is, he's not. He's highly skilled as a campaigner. He's an A-plus-plus campaigner. But he has almost no skills in developing any kind of consensus or compromising, or just getting things done.

But who knows? Maybe he'll give an inspiring, unifying, energizing address that can get lots of Americans behind him. And if he does, he'll succeed. That's what we need to watch for.

Q: Do you think this inauguration will be different from others? If so, how?

A: Inaugurations sometimes reflect the best of America. They put our beacon on a hill. I think of Abraham Lincoln in 1864, when he said, "With malice toward none; with charity for all … to bind up the nation's wounds." Or John Kennedy when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country." Some presidents and inaugurals present stirring articulations of the American spirit and values that speak across history. I think this inauguration is unlikely to do that, and that's a huge missed opportunity.

It's really interesting to compare inaugurals and evaluate them. You could just listen to one speech, but if you compare one with another, you can more fairly measure their success and impact. Making an inaugural address is like going across a bridge from the campaign to actually governing. And it's a completely different kind of politics.

The trouble is that Trump doesn't have anyone around him who tells him these things. Or if they do, he doesn't really hear. It will be fascinating to watch the ceremony.

Q: Do you think the inauguration will be changed in any way by the fact that he is now the first convicted felon to be sworn in as president?

A: Sadly, I don't think it will. I do think that fact will significantly change his place in history. And again, I kiddingly say his own supporters will be less likely to get what they want because of these kinds of things. They're the ones who are getting cheated here, because they vote for a certain agenda, but his behavior diminishes the prospects for that agenda.

Q: A former law professor at Harvard, Alan Dershowitz, has been saying that Trump was framed, so his felony conviction doesn't matter. Your reaction?

A: One of the most fundamental aspects of our system of government is the role of a jury of citizens. And when Alan Dershowitz says this kind of thing, he's throwing the American citizenry under the bus. He's saying, I don't believe in juries. But if Trump was framed, that would have come out in the case. So Dershowitz is basically saying, I don't believe in law. I believe in mob rule. And it's just a shocking, sad thing to hear from someone whose life has been devoted to being a professor of law. All it would have taken was one of those jurors, just one of them, to say they had a doubt, and Trump wouldn't have been convicted, but they were unanimous.

Q. What do you think of the record amount donated to pay for the inauguration?

A: It's just part of a rising tide of money in politics, in our civic affairs, in campaigns, and the hugely disproportionate power it gives to the wealthy and to corporations. It's not new. It's a tide that keeps rising, and we have the Supreme Court to thank for this. Congress has tried to impose limits, but the Supreme Court keeps knocking them down.

People are giving this money for a reason. And it's not just for the inauguration. It's happening every day, every week, every month, year after year. Obviously, it affects voters. But more largely, it even affects who runs for office. Is anyone going to run for office if they're not going to be able to appeal to these huge donors? It's a gigantic weight smothering our politics.

Q: Do you expect to see some of these big donors at the inauguration?

A: I assume they will be present, many of them in seats of honor. And I assume there will be different inaugural events afterwards where they will have huge access and visibility. And that's why they're donating. So, I think they'll all be there, and I hope the media will show that.