Friday, May 25, 2018

Will Jeff Flake's Harvard Law Commencement Speech about the Decline of Government Standards Make a Difference?

Sen. Jeff Flake, US Senate Photo
Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, who is not running for reelection, gave the commencement address at Harvard University Law School. He delivered a blistering attack against President Donald Trump (without ever mentioning his name). Flake's theme was that the United States government is eroding the principles of our democracy. He is certainly correct. But do Mr. Trump's supporters care about what Jeff Flake thinks? More importantly, do they care deeply about the issues compromise, respect, separation of powers, integrity that Senator Flake discussed? Even more importantly, do Americans understand why Mr. Flake's points were so important?

Flake Talked about the Attack on Our American System of Government 

After humbly expressing gratitude at the invitation to speak, Flake discussed what he saw as the attack on the doctrine of separation of powers, which is central to our Constitution:

"I am here today as representative of a co-equal branch of our federal government — which is failing its constitutional obligations to counteract the power of the president, and in so doing is dishonoring itself — at a critical moment in the life of our nation."

Flake, in that statement, was referring to the reluctance of Republican leadership to offer serious criticism of President Donald Trump's behavior, even when that behavior seems inconsistent with traditional values. He is not alone; conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has repeatedly complained about the same issue: but it is unclear that anyone in the Republican flock is listening. It is even more unclear that the Republican leadership is willing to challenge the president.

Flake complained about President Trump's recent television appearance, during which "a president of the United States publicly threatens — on Fox & Friends, historians will note — to interfere in the administration of justice."

As Flake continued, he complained about Mr. Trump's interference with the Russia investigation:

"And just this week, the President — offering an outlandish rationale, ordered an investigation into the investigation of the Russian attack on our electoral process — not to defend the country against further attacks, mind you, but to defend himself. Obviously, ordering investigations is not a legitimate use of presidential power."

On a positive note, Flake noted that our system of government requires compromise and respect for the other side. With respect to impending darkness, he mentioned the threat posed by "both nuclear weapons and Twitter." (I'll post more about Twitter rhetoric soon.)


What Do People Care about?


In his speech, Flake posed some important questions for voters to ask:

 
"— Do you believe in democracy, or not?
— Are you faithful to your country, or to your party?
— Are you loyal to the law and the Constitution, or to a man?
— Do you reflexively ascribe the worst motives to your opponents, but somehow deny, excuse, or endorse every repulsive thing your compatriot says, does or tweets?"

The heart of Senator Flake's speech, however, lay in these questions:

"Have we really grown tired of democracy? Are we watching its passing, cheered on by the America First crowd even as we cast aside global institutions that have fostered freedom, prosperity and peace for more than a half-century?"

These are real issues. They are important questions.

Political scientists have known for a long time that Americans have very little political knowledge. When I was actively teaching college, at a selective comprehensive university, I often asked my students, most of whom had advanced at the least to the sophomore level, and who had already taken a required course in American history or government, to name their representatives in Congress, the governor, or a member of the school board. Many of them had no clue. Very few could name two Senators from their state. I would be lucky to find even one student in a class who could name the three branches of government (legislative, judicial, and executive).  The first time I held mock political debates in my classes, most of my students turned out to have absolutely no idea what the Republican and Democratic parties stood for, even on the most basic issues. Students who thought they were Republicans argued in favor of Medicare, and students who thought they were Democrats argued in favor of aggressive policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was bizarre.

First Page of US Constitution
I quickly interrupted my class schedule to spend a week teaching my students about the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. It wasn't really my job; I was just a speech and debate teacher. But someone needed to do it. My lessons consisted mostly of putting important passages from those documents up on the projector screen and reading them aloud. This is material that any American should have learned in middle school. Some of my students admitted that they had been taught this material, but just forgot about it. Such is the state of America.

Quickly learning my lesson, I required students to research their political perspectives before the classroom debates. Even a few hours of research made a big difference in their political knowledge. Similarly, I have encountered professors who had no clue about the years of the presidential election cycle. If you think that people who had never attended college were better informed than my students and colleagues, well, think again. My students and colleagues were, sadly, the cream of the crop, information-wise. Yes, Americans really are poorly informed.

Flake's questions were very important, but I've been wondering whether we should blame our leaders, or the people who voted for leaders. It's not an easy question. Politicians respond to their voters, and voters align themselves with their leaders. Conservatives routinely use Twitter handles like "American Patriot" or "Patriotic Voter." Well, that's fine. But there is more to patriotism than waving the flag. To succeed, our nation needs voters who not only love our country, but who understand its history, heritage, and political philosophy. It is not so much that Americans are rejecting the philosophy that has made the United States strong and successful for hundreds of years. Instead, for the most part, people have no idea what the nation's history, heritage, and political philosophy are. This makes the voters vulnerable to hucksters and con artists.

As a retired professor, I would like to think that education is the key. If Americans know more about our traditions, they might start to care more about them. Am I wrong?


P.S. If any of my readers have not done so, I strongly recommending reading the entire United States Constitution. There really is no substitute for the real thing.

P.P.S. Extreme right-wing websites, including various hoax websites, have branded Senator Flake to be a traitor. Apparently, for too many people, loyalty to the president is more important than loyalty to the country. I blogged last year about Flake's retirement speech.

P.P.S. A few years ago, I published an article about conservatives' use of fake quotations from the Founders. The article is behind a paywall, but your local public library can probably get you access to it. 

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

How Did Donald Trump's Story about Police Heroes Help Him Make a Point about Immigration?

Donald Trump honoring fallen officers
Yesterday, President Donald Trump gave an important speech at the United States Capitol during a ceremony to honor fallen police officers. A worthy occasion. After his opening pleasantries, he said that "we are honored to have these cherished officers, and we're honored to have all of you with us today."  But how did this ceremonial occasion morph into a venue to oppose immigration?


Mr. Trump began with a simple, not very controversial thesis: "If we want to bring down violent crime, then we must stand up for our police." He then confronted those who spread "anti-police prejudice." After some more general principles along those lines, Mr. Trump cited some fallen heroes. He started with Police Lieutenant Aaron Allan, murdered while serving. He acknowledged Lt. Allan's family. He honored Las Vegas Officer Charleston Hartfield, killed off-duty while saving people during the Las Vegas massacre.

Donald Trump with Officer Familia's family
Mr. Trump invited the family of a slain police officer, Detective Miosotis Familia, to come onto the stage. Detective Familia's partner, Officer Maher, then spoke about her heroism. President Trump then noted that she was murdered merely because she was a police officer.

Mr. Trump then generalized to talk about police heroes:

"In a moment, we will listen to the roll call of these great, fallen officers.  As we read the names of your loved ones, we engrave them into the eternal chronicle of American valor."  

That was all fine. It was effective rhetoric, and to honor the officers and their families was totally in order. A good thing for a president to do.

But Donald Trump's number one campaign issue was to oppose immigration. So how did he work that into the speech?  Very cleverly!

One of the officers he honored was Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez, killed while patrolling a dangerous area of the southwestern border. To honor Agent Martinez was right and proper. But then Mr. Trump said this, which followed logically from his admiration of Agent Martinez:

"The first duty of government is to protect our citizens, and the men and women of DHS are on the front lines of this incredible, heroic fight.  That is why we are calling on Congress to secure our borders, support our border agents, stop sanctuary cities, and shut down policies that release violent criminals back into our communities.  We don’t want it any longer.  We’ve had it.  Enough is enough.  (Applause.)"

OK, we all know that MS-13 is violent, and some areas of the Southwest are, indeed, dangerous. But fact-checkers have repeatedly shown that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, are overall less likely to commit crimes than citizens.  So, logically, Mr. Trump's claim was a non-sequitur. Still, some immigrants commit crimes, and Mr. Trump's voting base obviously responded to his anti-immigration position.

The rhetorical technique that Mr. Trump used is juxtaposition. Mr. Trump put fallen police heroes, who represented good, side-by-side with  MS-13 and immigrants, who represented evil. He implied that unsecured borders and sanctuary cities caused crime and endangered officers. We could debate whether this is true in any large sense, but the juxtaposition made a powerful emotional appeal.  Agent Martinez' tragic sacrifice was relevant to Mr. Trump's claim, but was only one example, and hardly proves that the millions of documented and undocumented immigrants are criminals.
 
Mr. Trump then ended his speech by once again praising the fallen officers:  

"Thanks again to all of our wonderful police, our sheriffs, and all of law enforcement and law enforcement officers.  You’re incredible people.  You are the finest.  You are the greatest.  You are our heroes."

This made a nice package, didn't it? He praised the officers, and rightly so. He attacked loose immigration policies. Other than Agent Martinez' tragic sacrifice - which was an important point - he gave no general evidence about immigration. He then praised the officers again. Very persuasive.

See yesterday's post for another take on the rhetoric of juxtaposition.

P.S. Thank you to all sworn officers who give up a chance for fame, fortune, and safety to protect our communities from harm. 

Images from White House YouTube channel.

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Dr. Robert Jeffress Tried to Close Down Conversation about Jerusalem - by Praying!


Dr. Robert Jeffress prayed yesterday at the dedication of the United States of America's new embassy in Jerusalem. Jeffress, a popular televangelist, is pastor of the immense First Baptist Church (Dallas).  Although most Israeli government offices are actually in Tel Aviv, many people believe, for religious and historical reasons, that Jerusalem is Israel's true capital. Since many Palestinians also consider Jerusalem to be their capital, much controversy (and much violence) surely ensues. Dr. Jeffress  knows how to shut down controversy: he did it by stirring up controversy. How paradoxical! He did it by mixing prayer and politics, creating the impression that controversial and possibly dubious foreign policy decisions were justified by biblical prophecy. 

In an earlier article, I talked about how conservatives use fake Founding Fathers quotations to shut down conversation. One might argue with Barack Obama, but
https://il.usembassy.gov/
Opening ceremony, US embassy in Jerusalem, Dept. of State image
not with Thomas Jefferson or George Washington (even though the quotations in question were fakes).  Dr. Jeffress cleverly used prayer to do the same thing. One might argue with Barack Obama, but Dr. Jeffress implied, as we shall see, that to argue with Donald Trump was equivalent to arguing with God.

Prayer First

Now, Dr. Jeffress started by praying. With his eyes closed and head firmly unbowed, he began in prayer style: "We come before you, the god of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Four thousand years ago,  you said to your servant Abraham that you would make him the father of a great nation, a nation  a nation through whom the entire world would be blessed." Now that was OK, I think. He was a Christian pastor, and that prayer arose from the biblical traditions of Jews and Christians alike: "As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations" Gen. 17:4 KJV. 

But Dr. Jeffress didn't stop there. He then cited Israel's scientific innovations, continuing “but most of all Israel has blessed the world by pointing us to you the one true god." This was not only sectarian, but had something of an in-your-face tone for people of other religions. Still, he was a conservative Christian pastor, and this couldn't have been too surprising.

Foreign Policy? Was He Still Praying? Or Was He Giving a Foreign Policy Speech? 

Dr. Jeffress then moved on to foreign policy. He told God that the people present were "Thanking you for your providential and powerful protection of this nation from all who would seek to destroy her." He gave thanks for "the founding of Israel in the promised land." That, of course, was controversial, since modern Israel's founding was quite bloodyJeffress then quickly praised the “courageous leadership of Israeli Prime Minister “Benjamin Netanyahu and his determination to do whatever it takes to protect his people at all costs.” This was even more controversial; he was expressing views about partisan Israeli politics. By now, he was stretching well beyond biblical prophecy. Furthermore, Mr. Netanyahu was known for strict (some would say harsh) anti-Palestinian policies. "Whatever it takes" sounds strong and noble, but, of course, "whatever it takes" entails support for policies that many people might argue about.

And Then His Prayer Became a Partisan Political Campaign-Style Speech

Dr. Jeffress then prayed about “Jerusalem,  the city that you named as the capital of Israel 3000 years ago." He continued to pray: "We want to thank you for the tremendous leadership of our great President Donald J. Trump [his voice quivered as he spoke Mr. Trump's name.] Without President Trump’s determination, resolve, courage we would not be here today." That was even more controversial. President Trump is controversial, and some Christian leaders would, contrary to Dr. Jeffress, condemn his policies as anti-Christian. Dr. Jeffress continued to talk about Mr. Trump in religious terms:  Dr. Jeffress continued, "And I believe father I speak for every one of us when we say we thank you every day that you have given us a president who boldly stands on the right side of history, but more importantly stands on the right side of you, oh God, when it comes to Israel." He then prayed for the "peace and prosperity of Israel in Jesus name." How the rabbis in attendance felt about Dr. Jeffress' reference to Jesus of Nazareth, I have no idea. How many of the Americans in the audience actually voted for Mr. Trump? Well, I have no idea either--but Dr. Jeffress still assured God that "every one of us" agreed with his political views.

Not done yet, Jeffress ended by citing the biblical book of Psalms. As he spoke, violent clashes between Israeli authorities and protestors caused several deaths. Was this biblically justified? If one takes Dr. Jeffress seriously, would one wish to say yes? And would that be wise?

Did This Stop the Conversation?

Now, a typical policy-oriented person, a debater, a political scientist, or a diplomat would make controversial decisions by looking at facts and then reasoning from those facts. Is Mr. Trump really on "the right side of history?" Are Mr. Netanyahu's policies wise and moral? Is a policy of strength better than a policy of negotiation and compromise? Those are hard questions, and people might argue about them. But how do you argue with God? That was Dr. Jeffress' tricky move. 

For Dr. Jeffress began and ended with genuine prayer that had actual biblical foundations. But his political comments were unsupported. He gave no reason for them except that he believed God was on his side. Let us note, for example, that the Bible makes no comment about where the United States should locate its embassy to Israel. Dr. Jeffress slid from points that most Christians and Jews would agree with, to a point that was very controversial, and then back to a point that most Christians and Jews would agree with. He did so cleverly--rhetorical theorists call this the method of juxtaposition--so he could make controversial points without giving logical or factual proof that his points were wise. 

Keep in mind, however, that conservatives and liberals don't always think the same ways. Biblical authority might mean more to conservative Protestants than it does to other people. Dr. Jeffress himself is controversial, and I'll say more in a day or two about why he was a featured speaker. 

We argue about foreign policy; we don't usually argue about prayer. But did Dr. Jeffress really stop the conversation? Or did he just stumble into more controversy? 

In general, as a communication professor, I am against conversation stoppers. I don't think they are ethical, and they rarely work over the long run. 

Bernard Cornwell's novels about the 100 Years War suggests that bishops came to pray over the cannons and sprinkle holy water on them. I don't think that Dr. Jeffress went that far. 


If you wish to post a comment, log on to your Google account. 

Tim Cook's Commencement Speech at Duke University - "Be the Last to Accept It"


Apple’s Chief Executive Officer, Tim Cook, gave the commencement speech at his alma mater Duke University on May 14, 2018. His theme was the need for change. Let’s look at his speech methods. He started by telling a story about one of his favorite Duke professors: 

“I reached out to one of my favorite professors from back then. Bob Reinheimer taught a great course in Management Communications, which included sharpening your public speaking skills.

“We hadn’t spoken for decades, so I was thrilled when he told me: he remembered a particularly gifted public speaker who took his class in the 1980s.”

And – it turned out – that gifted speaker was Melinda Gates. We all know about her. Cook built up to the point nicely, and got a good crowd response in return. Stories are a great way to begin a speech. This wasn’t an especially exciting story, but it worked. It related directly to Duke, and it set up a relationship between the speaker and the audience. Very nice.

The need for change arose, Cook said, because the nation has become divided:

“Our country is deeply divided -- and too many Americans refuse to hear any opinion that differs from their own.”

For example, he noted that “our planet is warming with devastating consequences – and there are some who deny it’s even happening.” He noted education inequality. Accordingly, Cook advised the graduates not to accept the status quo. Citing his friend, late Apple founder Steve Jobs, he said:

“Steve’s vision was that great ideas come from a restless refusal to accept things as they are. And those principles still guide us at Apple today.”

Cook continued, “the question we ask ourselves is not ‘what can we do’ but ‘what should we do.” He cited an authority – once again, Steve Jobs:

“Steve’s vision was that great ideas come from a restless refusal to accept things as they are. And those principles still guide us at Apple today.”

Jobs is highly respected in the business community, a point that I’ll look at again later. Cook also used a nice touch of parallel language:


“Robert Kennedy . . . said you should be the last people to accept things as they are.”

“You should be “the last people to accept it.”

Be the last to accept the notion that the world you inherit cannot be improved.”

The “be the last” passages emphasized that change is inevitable – we should embrace change, control it, and use change for good. We should not accept things that are wrong just because they have always been. Parallel language helps the listeners tie the speaker’s ideas together in their own minds. The (almost) identical phrasing helped his point to come through. A nice public speaking technique indeed. Like most epideictic (ceremonial) speeches, the speaker suggested policy changes to improve education and protect the climate. His policies were vague but, again, that’s typical of epideictic speeches.

The great political irony

A final comment. This speech was about change. Successful business people know that they need to innovate. Today’s business triumph is yesterday’s news. They know that they need to move forward. Cook is not only a successful business person himself, but he carefully cited the highly respected entrepreneur Steve Jobs. This greatly enhanced his credibility.

Yet, the business community often supports extremely conservative political candidates who think government must always do the same things the same way, year after year, century after century, with no change. They know that can’t be right…don’t they? They know that can't be good for business...don't they?

P.S. – The almost-ultimate irony is that we professor-types tend to be politically liberal, but are very conservative – narrow-minded, really – in the ways that we conduct our own business of higher education. That doesn’t make sense, does it? I’ll think about that and find a way to blog about it later. 

P.P.S. See my post about Oprah's commencement speech about fake news. Also, you can use the box on the right to search for "epideictic" to see some of my other posts about ceremonial speeches. 


Congratulations to all 2018 graduates everywhere! Good work, future leaders!


Thanks to Entrepreneur for printing a text and posting a complete video of this excellent speech.

To post comments, log on to your Google account.