Harry Truman’s Atomic Bomb Speech Revealed “The Power of the Laboratories”

Hiroshima Peace Dome

On August 6, 1945, 80 years ago today, a United States B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, immediately killing about 66,000 Japanese, mostly civilians, with the long-term death toll approximately 140,000.

Sixteen hours after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan, United States President Harry Truman spoke to the American people. Truman began his speech by blaming the Japanese for starting the war and ended up by calling for the peaceful use of atomic power, his theme was the power of science. Or, as he described it, “the power of the laboratories.”

By focusing on science’s power, Truman linked the past, the present, and, in his last thought, the future. This approach focused his theme to the bigger picture.  Out of the cataclysm, to draw hope that atomic research could establish international security and help the world look for peaceful uses of atomic energy. Will humanity, however, be wise enough to advance in science to use its new knowledge wisely? That was Truman’s wish, and the answer remains unknown. No doubt, that is why Truman emphasized, not the impending victory, but the accomplishments of the human mind:

“What has been done is the greatest achievement of organized science in history.”

In his speech, Truman called the atomic bomb:

“A harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East.”

Truman’s comment highlighted that World War II had become a technological war. Death had rained from the air across the continents. New types of explosives, tanks, electronics, torpedoes, and aircraft joined in the struggle for world supremacy. A war that had begun with horse-drawn logistics ended with guided missiles, jet airplanes, radar-controlled gunfire—and splitting the atom. Truman assured the nation, and the world, that:

“What has been done is the greatest achievement of organized science in history.”

Thus, Truman highlighted science’s power:

“The battle of the laboratories held fateful risks for us as well as the battles of the air, land and sea, and we have now won the battle of the laboratories as we have won the other battles.” [italics added]

Modern science had, in general, become a massive, international enterprise, and, as Truman explained, it was international scientific cooperation that brought atomic warfare to Japan:

“Beginning in 1940, before Pearl Harbor, scientific knowledge useful in war was pooled between the United States and Great Britain, and many priceless helps to our victories have come from that arrangement. Under that general policy the research on the atomic bomb was begun. With American and British scientists working together we entered the race of discovery against the Germans.”

At no point in his life would Harry Truman, a combat veteran of World War I, underestimate the

Harry Truman

sacrifices of fighting men and women. World War II’s cataclysmic end, however, was an accomplishment of the human mind. Truman explained:

“But the greatest marvel is not the size of the enterprise, its secrecy, nor its cost, but the achievement of scientific brains in putting together infinitely complex pieces of knowledge held by many men in different fields of science into a workable plan.”

As he neared his conclusion, Truman acknowledged the need to examine “possible methods of protecting us and the rest of the world from the danger of sudden destruction.”

Truman’s speech does, also, teach us an even more general lesson. Hiroshima and its population were destroyed, and World War II ended, because the Allied powers committed themselves to scientific research. Now, the world already has far too many superweapons. The larger lesson, however, is the terrific power of science. The pacifist scientist Albert Einstein began his research, not by looking for a bomb, but by trying to understand the nature of matter. Pure, basic research. As we look to the future that Truman envisioned, lets us recognize the “power of the laboratories.”

Harry Truman's 1948 Labor Day Speech: "You" versus "Them"

J. Robert Oppenheim himself was reported to say, “The physicists have known sin.” Scientists of his era, however, also gave us vaccines, antibiotics, treatments for heart disease, safer automobiles, moon rockets, and transistors. My own life was recently saved by a spectacularly complex medical invention. Government funding financed most of those endeavors. Yet, to my horror, as the Donald Trump administration in 2025 suppresses lifesaving scientific research for short-sighted political reasons, we need to reflect long and hard about what science has done for the world, both for good and ill, and what it can do for us – or against us – in the future. Are we wise enough to make the right choices?

Historians will argue forever as to whether the atomic bombing of Japan was justified. I have my doubts, although I can see both perspectives. There is, however, no turning back the clock. We should never underestimate how science, knowledge, and investigation shape the world.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Harry Truman, US government portrait, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of the Hiroshima Dome, by DXR, Creative Commons license, via Wikimedia Commons

Eleanor Roosevelt's Speech about the Struggle for Freedom

Eleanor Roosevelt

“We must not be confused about what freedom is.”

So said Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of the United States of America’s 32nd president, one of the 20th century’s most prominent American orators, and a famed advocate of human rights. In her powerful speech of September 28, 1948, at the Sorbonne, Roosevelt pointed out how important it was never to twist important concepts like “freedom.” 

In the great battle between conservatives and liberals – the battle between the powerful haves and the impatient have-nots – between those who want to lag behind and those who wish to advance–Eleanor Roosevelt saw with searing insight–“We must not be confused about what freedom is” – that the great battle lies between competing ideas. And ideas come down to definitions: in this case, what is freedom? Who gets to be free? All of us, or only a few?

Roosevelt realized that freedom is one of our most powerful concepts. Like the visionary she was, Roosevelt saw how that word masters our political thinking. Roosevelt showed that our definitions prescribe our actions. She learned that we must never twist the word “freedom” against itself. In her view, freedom meant freedom for all, including the millions of people who suffered without basic human rights. In 1948, when much of the world still lay in ruins, she offered hope to a world that was losing hope. That is why, in this speech, she explained and defended the simple point that freedom meant freedom for everyone, not just the rich and powerful. She knew that this would mean constant struggle. That is why she worked toward a post-World War II world that would respect everyone’s rights. For example, she said:

“But we would not consider in the United States that we had gained any freedom if we were compelled to follow a dictatorial assignment to work where and when we were told. The right of choice would seem to us an important, fundamental freedom.”

That notion of “fundamental freedom” led Roosevelt to state her key value, that rights are not a gift of the government, but belong to the people:

“Certain rights can never be granted to the government, but must be kept in the hands of the people.”

Although born into fabulous wealth herself, Roosevelt reached out, not to her fellow oligarchs, but to the world’s people who struggled to be free. That is why Roosevelt spoke for universal freedom. She thus gave an expansive explanation of what freedom means:

“Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.”

Roosevelt spoke in a time of crisis. In 1948, Europe and eastern Asia still largely lay in ruins, and only the most far-sighted people could look toward a visionary future. As she spoke to a war-ruined world, tens of millions of families struggled with grief and horror. The Holocaust had shaken the world’s value system.

Yet, sadly, Roosevelt’s warnings resonate to the present day. Even here in the prosperous United States, the false libertarians of 2025, inspired by Ayn Rand, protect the liberty of those who already have much against the imaginary predations of those who have nothing. We should all know that such ideologies underlaid World War II and have, indeed, long plagued humanity. Roosevelt, in contrast, warned that, as the world recovered from disaster, we must move forward to protect everyone: 

“We must not be deluded by the efforts of the forces of reaction to prostitute the great words of our free tradition and thereby to confuse the struggle.”

“Prostitute the great words”–Roosevelt continued to warn the world against false definitions. The linguistic perversions against which she warned were nothing new. In Mein Kampf, Hitler, the recently deceased embodiment of evil, had called himself a “freedom loving man.” The Confederate States of America used words of liberty: indeed, confederate President Jefferson Davis spoke of “liberty”—the liberty of the southern states—oblivious to the irony that he sought the liberty to force other people into slave labor. That’s a question of definition. 

Thus, wary of the past, and concerned for the future, Roosevelt next insisted that “freedom” has a real meaning, and that meaning should, to echo her own word, never be prostituted:

“Democracy, freedom, human rights have come to have a definite meaning to the people of the world which we must not allow any nation to so change that they are made synonymous with suppression and dictatorship.”

In 1948, the world still trembled in the uneasy peace that followed the Second World War. In that calamity, the Western nations defeated the horrors of Nazi anti-Semitism and brutality, not to mention the militaristic oppression of the Japanese Empire. The forces of freedom won. Nevertheless, Roosevelt surely worried about the growing communist hegemony and domestic cruelty in Russia and China. Perhaps that is why she next warned that oppressed people will never rest until they are free:

“People who continue to be denied the respect to which they are entitled as human beings will not acquiesce forever in such denial.”

Today, in 2025, Roosevelt’s warning should still echo through our hearts. American conservatives rejoice that they are gaining freedom from immigrants. Yet the immigrants’ freedom means nothing to them. That is a matter of definition: who gets to be free? Freedom from what? Does freedom mean that the United States is free to shut off opportunities for non-white people? Or does freedom mean that we  should be free from masked secret police who smash into people’s cars? Does freedom mean that powerful oligarchs should be free to defraud working people? Internationally, does freedom mean that Russia should be free to bomb Ukraine? That Israel should be free to blow up international aid sites in Gaza ?

People who falsely shout about freedom continue to stand up against other people’s freedom. Recently, Republican leaders loudly called for lawful protestors to be arrested if they oppose the administration’s policies. Florida’s conservative (and very popular) governor, Ron DeSantis, forbids Florida universities from teaching Critical Race Theory, which is a pro-civil rights inquiry.

Children studying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Such abuses call for protection. As Roosevelt spoke, the United Nations had just adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose creation Roosevelt sponsored. That Declaration states:

“Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” [italics added]

Freedom is what rhetorical theorists Kenneth Burke and Richard Weaver called a “god term.” After all, “freedom” stirs our most powerful emotions. Who would dare to challenge freedom? Unless, however, freedom applies to everyone, including the least favored people, it is merely an illusion. Freedom to oppress is no freedom at all–by definition! 

Eleanor Roosevelt’s powerful speech to the United Nations praised freedom, but she warned that we must define it accurately – that we must define it fairly – that we must recognize everyone’s freedom, not just the freedom of those who wield power. That we must not yearn for a past when freedom was only an illusion. That we should not return to the abyss from which the world had just escaped, and to which it could easily return.

Eleanor Roosevelt gave a speech for the ages. I hope that we, who live in the next age, are still listening.

by William D. Harpine

__________________

Research Notes: Richard Weaver explains “god terms” in his indispensable book, The Ethics of Rhetoric. That book serves, not only as an important contribution to rhetorical theory, but also as a defining document of the intellectual conservative movement. Everyone should read it. One of Weaver’s other points was that, when we define terms, we express eternal concepts and principles. Roosevelt’s speech at the Sorbonne embodied that same great principle. In A Grammar of Motives, the essential book of modern-day rhetorical theory, Kenneth Burke describes god terms that embody universal and compelling power.

The late Professor Ruth Lewis of the University of Akron once chided me for not spending more time teaching about Eleanor Roosevelt’s speeches. Sorry, Ruth, I’m a bit late to the game, but I hope you’re reading this from above. Rest in peace, kind mentor and wise colleague. 

This blog’s readers might want to look at The American Ideology: Reflections of the Revolution in American Rhetoric, a prize-winning monograph by my University of Illinois professor Kurt Ritter. He analyzes the themes of liberty and freedom that resonate throughout United States history. It’s out of print but I found an online pdf.

Special thanks, once again, to Stephen Lucas and my classmate, the late Martin Medhurst, for creating the monumental speech bank, AmericanRhetoric.com, which published the speech transcript on which I relied today.

Looking at these notes, many good people helped me along the way. Thanks to these and many others.

Copyright ©2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Eleanor Roosevelt: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of children studying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, public domain, UN General Assembly, via Wikimedia Commons

John Denver Made the Anti-Censorship Case to a Senate Committee

John Denver

Popular singer, songwriter, and actor John Denver spoke against censorship to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. He began by thanking the committee, and he thanked them with a key point, the exact human right that censorship threatens:

“It’s a great honor and a privilege to - to appear before you this morning and to take advantage of the opportunity given me in our free society to speak my mind.”

Censorship’s machination is to snatch that opportunity away. How did Denver make his case? The recipe for a good debate speech is to state your case, prove it, and turn to the big picture. Good debaters set the agenda! That is exactly what Denver did. Denver presented a model of the perfect debate speech. He testified on September 19, 1995, the same day on which Frank Zappa also spoke against music censorship.
Denver began his argument by opposing the Parents Music Resource Center’s (PMRC) proposal to involve the government in labeling sexual or occult content on record albums:

“Mr. Chairman, this would approach censorship. May I be very clear that I am strongly opposed to censorship of any kind in our society, or anywhere else in the world?”

Having stated his point, Denver then proved it with not one but two examples from his own artistic experience. The first was to note that one of his own songs was often mistakenly censored:

“I've had in my experience two encounters with th[is] sort of censorship. My song ‘Rocky Mountain High’ was banned from many radio stations as a drug-related song.”

Denver then, courteously but clearly, and in detail, showed that ignorance, not moral fortitude, motivated that censorship:

“This was obviously done by people who had never seen or been to the Rocky Mountains and also had never experienced the elation, the celebration of life, or the joy in living that one feels when he observes something as wondrous as the Perseides meteor shower, on a moonless and cloudless night, when there are so many stars that you have a shadow from the starlight, and you're out camping with your friends, your best friends, and introducing them to one of nature's most spectacular light shows for the very first time.”

How vivid! “Wondrous as the Perseids meteor shower;” “moonless and cloudless night;” “one of nature’s most spectacular light shows.” The fact that the song mentioned the word “high” – while referring to the Rocky Mountains, which are, after all, high – was enough to trigger ignorance – and censorship.

This was, Denver insisted:

Rocky Mountains

“Obviously a clear case of misinterpretation.”

Denver immediately challenged the committee to deny that future censorship would often entail the same ignorance and false reading:

“Mr. Chairman, what assurance have I that any national panel to review my music would make any better judgment?” 

 Denver then turned to his charming (but somewhat controversial) movie, “Oh, God.” In that film, John Denver played a grocery store produce manager who inadvertently became a messenger from God (brilliantly played by George Burns). Denver noted how people who misunderstood the film, who resisted its uplifting message, sometimes tried to suppress it:

“To my knowledge, my movie ”Oh, God!" was not banned in any theaters. However, some newspapers refused to print our advertisements, and some theaters refused to put the name of the film on the marquee. I don't believe that we were using the name of our Lord in vain. Quite the opposite, we were making a small effort to spread his message that we are here for each other and not against each other.”

Good debaters know, however, that it is never enough merely to refute the opposition. Yes, the censorship attempt was un-American and needed to be refuted. Following up, however, on “Oh, God’s” uplifting themes, Denver reminded the committee that there were more important problems. He reminded them that the world faced greater threats than R-rated songs. He reminded the committee that human beings can solve those big problems instead of fretting about what recordings children might or might not purchase:

“We can end hunger. We can rid the world of nuclear weapons. We can learn to live together as human beings on a planet that travels through the universe, living the example of peace and harmony among all people.”

In my own view, the PMRC’s attempt at censorship was unwise, and I think that the Senate committee showed poor judgment to entertain the idea. I gather that they were motivated by the prestige of the tiny group of powerful persons who sought the power to overrule the American people’s musical taste. Is it not a basic principle of conservatives that we, the people, not the government, decide what we think, say, or purchase? Why should that change just because some busybody doesn’t like a record? If they don’t like a record, don’t buy it. If they don’t want their children to hear it, don’t take them to the record store. Nowadays, watch over their Internet usage. Problem solved.

So, Denver stated his case precisely, right at the outset. He gave two examples to prove his point (after all, one example is never enough). He explained why the censorship that he experienced was so very wrong. He concluded by offering the committee a chance to abandon censorship and instead pursue a positive moral course.

Another speech at the same hearing!

Frank Zappa Delivered Shock Rock to a Senate Committee

In my younger days, I coached many superb college debaters, who often went on to fame and fortune. Still, it is a shame that I never had John Denver on my college debate team. We could have won many debate trophies! 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of John Denver: US Government photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of the Rocky Mountains, by William D. Harpine, Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Frank Zappa Delivered Shock Rock to a Senate Committee

Nazi Book Burning

Shock rocker Frank Zappa, who often appeared in concert without the benefit of a shirt, spoke to a Senate Committee wearing a traditional blue business suit, short hair, and a neatly trimmed mustache. In a dignified voice, he railed against music censorship:

“The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years, dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal’s design.”

Now, often to their detriment, liberals often prefer to state their outrage with big words, weaselly expressions, and pompous philosophical insights. That just wastes time. Zappa’s blunt, plain, and sometimes-insulting language was more likely to make the enemies of liberty squirm.

This September 19, 1985 testimony to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee’s hearing on Rock Lyrics and Record Labeling delivered some shock rock to a committee that needed to hear it. Zappa’s forceful, harsh, and condescending language exposed the PMRC’s (Parents Music Resource Center) plainly unconstitutional anti-liberty stance. His harsh language was exactly what the enemies of freedom needed to hear. This was no time to say that “both sides have a point,” nor did Zappa see a need to ramble around his point. He saw this as a time for controlled outrage.

The PMRC was a now-defunct group of prominent political wives who wanted to censor sexual and occult music. They sought to protect children. The combination of Susan Baker, wife of Republican Treasury Secretary James Baker, and Tipper Gore, future Democratic Vice-President Al Gore’s wife, made the PMRC’s attack truly bipartisan. Indeed, as Zappa noted, the proposal was a manifest assault against the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights:

“Taken as a whole, the complete list of PMRC demands reads like an instruction manual for some sinister kind of 'toilet training program' to house-break all composers and performers because of the lyrics of a few.

“Ladies, how dare you.”

A threat to the Constitution deserves rebuke. Zappa avoided the typical liberal techno-language. For example, he did not say, “The PMRC threatens our precious liberties.” Who would care? No, he gave the attack on our Constitution the contempt it deserves: “sinister kind of ‘toilet training program,’” “house-break,” and the condescending “Ladies, how dare you.”

Although I mostly oppose ad hominem arguments, Zappa’s attack on the PMRC itself made an important point. Zappa’s point was that the PMRC was not a real organization, but rather a small group of powerful busybodies who wanted to dictate artistic expression to the entire country. Zappa recognized that this was no time to respect his opponents. No, it was a time to mock:

“I can't say she’s a member because the PMRC has no members. Their secretary told me on the phone last Friday that the PMRC has no members, only founders. I asked her if it was a cult. Finally, she said she couldn’t give me an answer and that she had to call their lawyer.”

Was this tiny group of important dignitaries a “cult”? Zappa’s hyperbole, dripping with sarcasm and hyperbole, gave the Senate committee a chance to notice the group’s tiny size and excessive influence. Turnabout is linguistic fair play! A name like “Parents Music Resource Center” sounds like a major, ever-so-proper charitable organization. By snapping out the word “cult,” Zappa reduced them to a tiny clique of busybodies – which is what they were.

Like many communication professors, I am close to a free speech absolutist, and I agree with Zappa’s point. Yes, Zappa’s lyrics often repulsed me (I never cared for his music), but he could express social commentary like no rock and roller before or since. He brought compassion for the poor into the ears of middle-class teenagers. A healthy republic can afford to let people listen to his message:

“They won't go
For no more
Great mid-western hardware store
Philosophy that turns away
From those who aren't afraid to say
What's on their minds
(The left-behinds of the Great Society)”

Was that politically correct? No. Did America want its children to hear Zappa’s message? Probably not. Did Zappa have a right to say it? Yes, I think he did. Should censors stop him just because he was obnoxious? No. If you don’t like his music, don’t buy his records. I never did. Problem solved.

When we drive toward censorship, we steer over a dangerous precipice. Who is to say what is right, and what is wrong, for people to hear? Do we gain anything if we protect our children from provocative ideas? Do busybodies really think that teenagers will never think about sex until they hear a song about it? Should we hide racial conflict from our children? Do uncomfortable topics make people feel uncomfortable? Well, the world is not a comfortable place.

Harrison Ford's Climate Speech Used Language and Voice Skillfully

Zappa would have none of it. He defended the United States Constitution with vivid, forceful, and uncompromising language. He laid bare the censors’ hypocrisy and self-importance. Articulate and uncompromising, he refused to talk about censorship on Tipper Gore’s own ground. That is, he did not frame the talk as an opportunity to protect or defend children. Instead, he stated the issue in libertarian terms, using language that no one could misunderstand.

Furthermore, we still need to defend the United States against censorship, and we still need to give freedom a firm, precise, and affirmative defense. Sadly, censorship once again rears its ugly, un-American head in 2025. School libraries are banning books by Toni Morrison and Anne Frank. Any book, no matter how tasteful, featuring an LGBT character is instantly branded as pornography. The Trump administration is using the full force of the federal government to stop schools from teaching about racial history and theory. The National Parks may need to strip mention of slavery from the Liberty Bell museum, as if not mentioning slavery could solve our problems. Today’s self-appointed guardians of religion and good taste are eager to block the teaching of the basic science of evolution, and even to deny fundamental astronomy and geology. Like Tipper Gore and Susan Baker, today’s busybodies know how to sound dignified and righteous. Yet, busybodies always have evil effects, and, when we confront them, we need to speak more like Frank Zappa. At least once in a while. 

by William D, Harpine

Follow-up from the same hearing: John Denver Made the Anti-Censorship Case to a Senate Committee

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Brazilian President Lula Asked, Do We Have the Courage to Succeed?

President Lula, 2008

“Imagine if we started to discuss this with our universities, with our data centers, the issue of artificial intelligence in a Latin American language, you know. … The only reason we may not do it is if we lack the courage to do it.” [italics added]

Do we have the courage to succeed? Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva asked his audience in his speech at the Brazil-Chile Business Forum in Brasilia, on April 22, 2025. Lula gave Brazil and Chile a vision of progress, reform, education, and economic growth. Education, however, is the key that, as Lula explained, could unlock South American prosperity. Lula sought middle ground by seeking common values. Investing in education when the world says to cut budgets? Yes, that requires courage. To persuade his audience, Lula joined progressive policies with conservative goals.

While Brazilian President Lula wants to improve science education, business leaders across the western world, including Brazil and the United States, are turning away from science, scientific research, and factual knowledge. 

That is why Lula reached out to a business community that traditionally resents progressive programs. To find a middle ground, Lula sought common values. He sought to convince the Business Forum that Brazil and Chile needed to invest in education. His speech combined progressive policies with conservative goals. Let’s take a look:

“We must have heavy investments in education; we must have heavy investments for training new scientists in this country, of new researchers; we must have heavy investments to prepare thousands and thousands of new engineers in this country. And we must prepare highly-qualified labor force so that we can be competitive. And at the same time, that we can become a consumer market.”

Furthermore, Lula neither backed down or compromised. He asked for “heavy investments.” Why back down? Lulas implied. That is why he asked Brazil and Chile for the courage to take risks and move forward. He called for “thousands and thousands of new engineers.” He wanted to be competitive. He wanted a “consumer market.”

With that last comment, Lula identified the point that conservatives worldwide love to skip: business requires customers. Lula’s liberal supporters want better consumer markets. His conservative enemies seek their own wealth. But a humming economy provides both! Yet, the two groups stand opposed. to overcome that division, Lula sought common ground with the business community.

Did he convince them? Probably not yet. Will Brazil’s sharply divided economy – an economy in which the very rich thrive and the very poor despair, while the middle class grows slowly, be able to respond to a message of hope? Can Brazil and Chile accept Lula’s reasonable but complex and risky ideas?

All the same, South America’s political conflict mirrors our own in the United States. In the United States, our once-great middle class deteriorates while too many people split into a false populism. Will we move into the future? Or dwell in a smoldering past? Time will tell.

Lula himself grew up poor and has little formal education. Yet he sees hope, not in revolution or counter-revolution, but in higher education. Brazil’s economy remains fragile and fragile economies often cause political turmoil. In this speech, Lula asked much of Brazil’s people and its leaders. He asked for courage.

Sadly, however, in the modern world, moral courage runs low. 

by William D. Harpine  

___________

Note: I quote the official Brazilian government translation by Mary Caetana Aune.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of President Lula, cropped from an official photo by Agência Brasil, 2008,

via Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons license

Ronald Reagan Spoke about Freedom, Friendship, and Hope at Moscow State University

Reagan in Moscow

Let us remember a bygone era. Let us remember when the United States of America shone its beacon of freedom, justice, and openness across the world. Let us remember a Republican president who spoke, not of cruel vengeance, but of freedom; not of the past, but of the future; not of violence, but of peace. Let us remember a nation whose conservative and liberal citizens alike once praised those values. Let us remember a time, not so long ago, when conservatives proudly spoke of justice and harmony.

On May 31, 1988, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate rhetorical president, discussed these ideas while speaking at Moscow State University. Reagan spoke of what is eternal. He stated our values; he reminded us of our values, and he guided us to share our values. And values are a speaker's greatest gift.

Reaching out in friendship to the United States of America's long-time Cold War adversary, Reagan encouraged peace and mutual respect. He spoke not for himself, but for his nation: he reported that the entire American people gave him his theme. He spoke for us all. That is why, as he began the speech, Reagan said:

"Before I left Washington, I received many heartfelt letters and telegrams asking me to carry here a simple message, perhaps, but also some of the most important business of this summit."

Reagan's message, a message from his entire people, was that the two nations should become friends. Reagan gave a message of friendship and harmony:

"It is a message of peace and good will and hope for a growing friendship and closeness between our two peoples."

As he continued, Reagan discussed freedom, the free market economy, and the growth of democracy. Indeed, democracy supported all the values that Reagan talked about. Reagan spoke the word "democracy" with pride, not suspicion:

"The growth of democracy has become one of the most powerful political movements of our age."

With even more force, he continued:

"Democracy is the standard by which governments are measured."

Most dramatically, as he concluded his speech, Reagan expressed hope: even though he admitted that we can never know the future. Yes, the human condition prevents us from knowing how our deeds will work out. In no way, however, should we let fear of the future interrupt our hope, our values, or our dreams. Reagan brilliantly explained:

"We do not know what the conclusion will be of this journey, but we're hopeful that the promise of reform will be fulfilled. In this Moscow spring, this May 1988, we may be allowed that hope: that freedom, like the fresh green sapling planted over Tolstoy's grave, will blossom forth at last in the rich fertile soil of your people and culture. We may be allowed to hope that the marvelous sound of a new openness will keep rising through, ringing through, leading to a new world of reconciliation, friendship, and peace."

Sadly, however, the cruel march of history and human frailty crushed Reagan's hopes. It blooming spring of freedom now ended, Russia today is ruled by a cruel, greedy, and violent dictator. In 2024, the American people reelected a self-centered man who had already given us one failed presidency and is now giving us a worse one: an America in which masked agents jump out of unmarked cars and grab people off the street with no legal process. We now have an America in which the government's propaganda prescriptions attack the academic freedom under which my own university career flourished. We live in an America where our leaders consider court orders to be merely advisory. We live under a government that attacks freedom of the press. Freedom for all is rapidly becoming freedom for the privileged few.

Ronald Reagan Spoke on the Fourth of July: Celebrating Freedom, Shared Values, and Diversity

"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!" How Ronald Reagan's One Sentence Changed Berlin

In these dark times, we must especially harken back to the Republican Party's glory days. We must remember the day when conservatives did not merely cite the nation's Founders, but, more importantly, pledged to follow their values. As Reagan said in this speech, let us praise the times when "the first breath of freedom stirs the air." The greatest speeches promulgate the greatest values.

On a personal note, I did not vote for Ronald Reagan, and I think that his well-intentioned economic policies, which arose from the now-discredited theory of supply-side economics, have long stifled our nation's growth and prosperity. I nevertheless remind my many Republican friends that they should honor Reagan for his values, his humanity, and his patriotism. His tax cuts were temporary economic expediencies. In contrast, as conservative theorist Richard Weaver would remind us, values are ultimate and eternal. What the world needs is, to repeat Reagan's brilliant phrase, "reconciliation, friendship, and peace." If we lose those values, the tax cuts mean nothing. Nothing!

by William D, Harpine

_________________

Research Note: Anyone interested in the rhetoric of values should study the magnificent books by conservative scholar Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences and The Ethics of Rhetoric.

Special thanks and fond memories given to my late classmate (and editor) Martin J. Medhurst. He and Stephen Lucas prepared the invaluable website AmericanRhetoric.com. 

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons 

Donald Trump's Iranian Bombing Speech: Whom Should We Believe?

“There has never been a military,” boasted United States President Donald Trump, “that could do what took place just a little while ago.” Trump made this statement on June 21 after a group of United States Air Force aircraft and United States Navy vessels bombed Iran to destroy its nuclear enrichment program. Trump defended his action in a televised speech. He promised to attack Iran again if that nation failed to comply with his demands. Force majeure.

Few major speeches have relied as much on the speaker’s credibility as this one. Trump presented almost no evidence to prove that Iran either had or was developing nuclear weapons. If we trust Trump, we might believe him. Do we trust Trump, or the experts? Do we trust Trump to have gathered accurate information? Do we think that competent people surround him?

To be specific, Trump’s key statements offered no evidence whatsoever to support his claims:

“A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive, precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime. Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan. Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise.

“Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”

In this case, any evidence about Iran’s nuclear program is mired in the mysteries of international espionage. This situation differs from, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor speech, when Japan had openly attacked an American naval base. Trump’s speech also diverges from the argument that, “we should trust the president because he has all of the intelligence information.” This was not a unanimous decision. Individuals with knowledge of the situation spoke against the attack. No, the audience response to this speech depends entirely on whether they consider the speaker to be personally credible.

What was missing from Trump’s brief speech? Evidence! He cited no intelligence reports. He quoted no nuclear warfare experts. He gave no facts and figures. Saying “Everybody heard those names” does not count as proof. Since the speech included no facts or evidence to prove that Iran was about to produce nuclear weapons, Trump implicitly asked the nation – and the world – to accept his views purely on trust.

But what about the experts that Trump did not cite? What did they think? In contrast to Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, the president’s chief national security officer, had earlier stated that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons. The joint assessments of the nation’s national security apparatus presumably led her to that conclusion.

Disbelieving Gabbard’s views, Trump told reporters that, “I don’t care what she said.” More to the point, Gabbard was excluded from the final meetings where Trump and his other top advisers agreed to launch the attack. Perhaps bowing to pressure, Gabbard later backtracked. Quite odd. 

As a former college debater, I spent most of my academic career teaching classes in debate and public speaking. I was trained to debate with evidence and reasoning. Yet, Trump’s speech notably contained no evidence. Not bad evidence - no evidence. Can such a speech persuade people? Of course it can! Public speaking teachers from the ancient Greeks and up to the present have noted that the speaker’s credibility is the greatest persuasive factor. An important research article by my late professor and mentor Kenneth Andersen and his colleague, Theodore Clevenger, Jr., showed that credibility is a function of how the audience perceives the speaker’s expertise, goodwill, and dynamism.

With that in mind, despite my mistrust of Gabbard’s personal motives, I, for one, am somewhat more inclined to trust the intelligence establishment than political leaders. It would be valuable to hear directly from, for example, the CIA’s professional Iran specialists.

Let’s look at some examples. From the Vietnam escalation (the Gulf of Tonkin clash), to the Iraq war (did Iraq actually have chemical weapons? None were found), and on to the present, the United States' leaders have too often let political expediency overcome facts. Trump’s terrible record among fact checkers reinforces my mistrust. (As of this morning, PolitFact has rated hundreds of Trump’s statements, with a summary of 3% True, 7% Untrue, 11% Half True, 19% Mostly False, 39% False, and a stunning 18% Pants on Fire.) Thus, more than half of the statements that PolitiFact checked were untrue. That is bad even for a politician.) Of course, conservatives who think that fact checkers are left-wing Marxist stooges will care little about a fact-checkers' statistics. 

So, let us continue with Andersen and Clevenger’s theory. PolitFact leads me to doubt Trump’s expertise and good will. His enthusiastic speaking style, however, surely helps his uncritical target audience find him credible. Although Trump presented no evidence, perhaps his skillful identification with conservative voters leads them to trust him. Average Americans (like me) have no direct access to the nation’s intelligence findings; therefore, we find ourselves wallowing in a game of trust or mistrust. Truth or Dare. No, I do not trust the Iranian government. But can we trust the American president?

We Americans, and the world at large, find ourselves evaluating this momentous occasion according to our personal, subjective evaluations of President Trump’s credibility: our own judgment of his expertise, goodwill, and dynamism. Trump left us unaided by any of the evidence that he, unfortunately, failed to cite.

Maybe Trump figured that he did not need to prove his points. Plenty of Americans trust him implicitly Furthermore, basic wartime psychology will lead many Americans to support the decision to bomb Iran. Still, I wish that Trump had stated his proof. Perhaps he had no proof to state. Maybe the bombing raid and subsequent speech were merely a political ploy to distract the public from recent controversies about immigration or Trump’s infamous military parade. Maybe Trump has prevented World War III. Maybe he has triggered World War III. Who knows? The inexorable march of history will eventually judge who was right.

by William D. Harpine   

__________

Research Note: I didn’t only teach public speaking. Priding myself on being a communication generalist, I also spent several years teaching college classes about group discussion and group decision-making. The most basic principles of effective group decision-making are to solicit opinions from all viewpoints, to welcome dissent, and to give special attention to people with whom we disagree. If we suppress dissent, we often suppress truths. One-sided discussions are bad discussions. That is well proven. Now, pundits often ream social scientists for offering uncertain, inconsistent, or poorly proven conclusions. In contrast, the evidence about how to conduct effective group decision-making has been thoroughly established. In Trump's case, certainly, members of the professional intelligence community needed to be involved.

Readers who want to learn more about the decision-making processes that lead to the often-unwise decisions to start wars might look at these two classic books:

Why Nations Go to War, by John G. Stoessinger

Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, by Irving Janis

Or, for that matter, any college textbook about group discussion or group psychology.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain