Biden's Speech at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center: Working Together for Progress

Biden at Ford Rouge Center

On May 18, 2021, President Joe Biden spoke at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center in Dearborn, Michigan. Biden reaffirmed the Democratic Party’s traditional links to American industry, labor, and labor unions. Using a seemingly random selection of speech techniques, he showed that Americans—workers, industry, and government—need to work together to move to a new industrial future. 

Biden emphasized making progress through unity. What did he talk about? First, Biden recognized union, government, and industry leaders. He made jokes and friendly comments about several of them. He talked about cars and his childhood. He emphasized how unions represent unity: in an ideal world, where everyone works in unity to accomplish great things. He gave examples of past American successes. He explained that we need to work together to build a better future. 

Whereas, too often, conservatives like to pretend that we are the greatest when we’re not, Biden pointed out that the United States has fallen behind because we have fallen asleep. His opening pleasantries, his examples, and his arguments all aimed toward the theme of unity, of working together to make progress. His speech was not traditionally organized; instead, seemingly unrelated speech tactics led the audience back to his central theme.

Making That Critical Audience Connection

Biden began by connecting himself with his audience. He began by thanking the United Auto Workers for their support in his political career:

“I want to say something else up front: I’m standing here because, about 180 years ago, when I first got elected to the Senate, Gov — (laughter) — the UAW elected me.  (Applause.)”

Let’s remember, that for many years, the Democratic Party often overcame the Republican Party’s huge campaign coffers because labor unions supported them. Biden told stories about his father’s work ethic. He casually mentioned that his father operated a Ford dealership. 

Biden greeted various dignitaries. He pointed out  “a good friend of mine: Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.” He also acknowledged United Auto Workers leaders and Ford executives Bill Ford and Jim Farley. He thanked Ford and Farley “for hosting us, and investing in our workers and in our country.”  All very chatty. Later in the speech, he hailed Representative Elissa Slotkin and the controversial Rashida Tlaib. Confronting the tremendous criticism that Tlaib often faces, Biden said:

“I tell you what, Rashida — and I want to say to you that I admire your intellect, I admire your passion, and I admire your concern for so many other people.  And it’s my — from my heart, I pray that your grandmom and family are well.”

In other words, he called out and praised leaders of government, industry, and labor: people who often find themselves in conflict. Yet, they were all in the room, and seemingly shared goals.
 

An Alternate Perspective: Trump's Speech at the Whirlpool Factory

And Now, Biden’s Thesis!

Biden’s point was that the United States faced a crucial decision, whether to move forward with modern industry. He was, after all, speaking at an industrial research facility. He warned:

“We’re at a great inflection point in American history.  How we handle the next 4 to 10 years is going to determine where we’re going to be 30, 40, 50 years from now.  It’s one of those moments in American history.

“This is an incredible facility.”

More Introductions!

After recognizing even more dignitaries, Biden then asserted unity among the government, labor, and industry leaders whom he was recognizing. Indeed, he turned the routine task of recognizing guests into a rhetorical technique: 

“Labor, industry, federal, state, local leaders all together.  That’s America at its best.  And that’s what I so admire about what Bill Ford is doing here. 

“And I — you know, I want to — so everything that these workers, this historic complex, and this state represent is something that I hope gets modeled around the country.  It’s about respect.  It’s about dignity — the dignity of work.” 

 
We Need New Industry

Ford’s electric research facility is not a traditional auto-making plant. It was, Biden explained, the industry of America’s future:

“And I wanted to be here today — the day before you unveil the next generation of America’s bestselling vehicle to the entire world — to thank you.  Thank you for showing how we win the competition of the 21st century.  You know, how the future is going to be made — it’s going to be made here in America.  Made in America.  (Applause.)”

Biden drove that point home, stressing that “look, the future of the auto industry is electric. There’s no turning back.” He then quoted union leader Rory Gamble, who said “The American auto industry is at a crossroads.” Biden emphasized that the United States needed to move ahead in industry, not backwards: 

“And the real question is whether we’ll lead or we’ll fall behind in the race to the future; or whether we’ll build these vehicles and the batteries that go in them here in the United States or rely on other countries; or whether the jobs to build these vehicles and batteries, that are good-paying union jobs with benefits — jobs that will sustain and grow the middle class.” [Italics added]

But There Is a Challenge

Biden warned his audience that China was racing ahead with new industrial technology. He didn’t deny it. He didn’t beat his chest and pretend that the United States was winning. Instead, he challenged his audience, and as he did so, the rest of America: “Right now, China is leading in this race. Make no bones about it; it’s a fact.” 

Biden pointed out that the United States used to lead in research and development, but, due to the United States’ lack of investment in basic research, technology and infrastructure, China has now badly surpassed the United States: 

“You know, we used to invest more in research and development than any country in the world and China was number eight — or, excuse me, number nine.  We now are number eight and China is number one.  Can’t let that be sustained.”

 
On to the Politics

Toward the end of his speech, Biden reviewed the legislative proposals in the proposed “American Jobs Plan.” He listed three points that the proposal made:

 “One, transform our infrastructure.  Our infrastructure is ranked like 38th in the world.”

And, next: 

“Two, we’re going to boost our manufacturing capacity.  That’s why the American Jobs Plan invests in new and retooled union facilities: grants to kickstart new battery and parts production, loans and tax credits to boost manufacturing of these clean vehicles.” [Italics added]

Finally, he talked about the Plan's research and development component:

 “It also makes the largest investment in research and development in generations.”

Biden reminded his audience that it was government investment that propelled American industry in the past: “It was the Defense Department and NASA that got the modern semi-conductor industry on its feet decades ago. We started it. Your tax dollars.” [Italics added]

As his speech neared the end, Biden pulled his comments together into a brilliant package, ending with this punchline:

“Bottom line: The American Jobs Plan is a blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America — a blue-collar blueprint to build America.  (Applause.)  And we need automakers and other companies to keep investing here in America.”

 Finally, Biden pointed out that we all need to work together for the nation to succeed:

“This is the United States of America.  There’s not a single thing — and I believe this with every fiber in me — that not a single thing — nothing — beyond our capacity when we act together.  And that’s exactly what we’re about to do, starting with all of you.”

 
Conclusion

Biden’s theme – progress through unity – emerged gradually from a collection of seemingly unconnected comments. Biden didn’t just give this speech at an industrial research facility for his health. He wanted the audience to think about the future. He didn’t call out so many different dignitaries just to be friendly. No, indeed, he wanted to show that all those different people from different groups had come together to help industry make progress. His examples, stories, and historical comments all pointed at that central theme, that Americans need to work together to develop new industry. 

Political scientist Jeffrey K. Tulis’ book The Rhetorical Presidency points out that American presidents can bypass Congress and speak directly to the American people. This recognizes that when the voters are behind something, the politicians will often fall into line. Frankly, I wonder why Biden is not giving speeches like this three and four times a week. Congress, as it stands, is inflexible, hidebound, partisan, and dysfunctional. Nevertheless, if Biden can win the war of ideas, the members of Congress will bend over like the spineless minions they are.

The Republican Party’s premise, of course, is that government needs to get out of the way and let industry succeed. In this speech, Biden argued that the entire nation needs to work together for American interests to succeed. He helped his audience realize that, although labor and industry often are in conflict, each needs the other. He pounded on the warning that we cannot live in the past.

On a personal note, it has bemuses me that businesspeople tend to vote for politically conservative candidates. Why? I guess they want low taxes. However, every successful business person will tell you that today’s success only belongs to yesterday, and that business needs to move forward. Yet, they seem to think that the opposite is true of government. That doesn’t make much sense, does it? Worse, as Biden pointed out, research and development, largely financed by the government, fueled America’s past success. Why have we forgotten that lesson?

 

P. S. There is nothing new about the Democratic Party’s connection with labor, which often helps to overcome the Republican Party’s enormous financial resources. If you’re interested, the first chapter of my book about the 1896 presidential campaign shows how William Jennings Bryan exploited just that relationship more than a century ago. You can find a copy at many university libraries, and it’s available for sale in paperback. 

Image of Biden's speech: White House YouTube Channel

Liz Cheney Used Examples to Remind Us of Our Values in Her Courageous Speech about Trump's False Election Claims

Liz Cheney Giving a Speech

Yesterday, I wrote about Congresswoman Liz Cheney’s courageous May 11, 2021 congressional floor speech, in which she criticized former President Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Let’s now turn to her public speaking technique. In particular, she did not select examples to prove that Trump was wrong. Instead, she expanded the debate to the United States of America’s moral standing.

As I mentioned yesterday, few politicians are motivated by any morality higher than the ballot box. If it helps them win, they’ll say it. In her dramatic speech, Cheney raised the debate to a higher level. Doing so, she indirectly reached out to a national audience rather than to her Republican colleagues. Her thesis: “I have been privileged to see firsthand how powerful and how fragile freedom is.” Her proof: she gave examples of people’s struggle for freedom.

Read: Cheney’s Courageous Speech for Freedom

Cheney’s First Example

Within her speech’s first few seconds, Cheney talked about the devotion of Kenyan voters, who defied armed soldiers so they could come to the polls and vote:

“Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged to see firsthand how powerful and how fragile freedom is. Twenty-eight years ago, I stood outside a polling place, a schoolhouse in Western Kenya. Soldiers had chased away people who were lined up to vote. A few hours later, they came streaming back in, risking further attack, undaunted in their determination to exercise their right to vote.”

Cheney’s Second Example

Indirectly challenging former President Trump’s friendship with Vladimir Putin, Cheney’s next dramatic example talked about Russia’s struggle for freedom. That was not just a struggle against communism, but later against Putin’s kleptocracy:

“In 1992, I sat across the table from a young mayor in Russia, and I listened to him talk of his dream of liberating his nation from communism. Years later, for his dedication to the cause of freedom, Boris Nemtsov was assassinated by Vladimir Putin’s thugs.”

Cheney’s Third Example

Warning that we could forget history’s lessons, Cheney then turned to Poland:

“In Warsaw in 1990, I listened to a young Polish woman tell me that her greatest fear was that people would forget. They would forget what it was like to live under Soviet domination. That they would forget the price of freedom.”

Just as Polish people needed to remember the horrors of Soviet rule, so, Cheney, implied, Americans must take care not to be careless with our freedom. 

In the United States, of course, we face a danger opposite to Poland’s. The United States has never lived under communist domination. Instead, we might take our centuries of constitutional government for granted. Conservatives love to honor our nation’s founders. Unfortunately, conservatives seem less eager to live their political lives according to doctrines like equality, freedom, and constitutional government. Cheney hoped, it seems, that the courage of Kenyan, Russian, and Polish voters would inspire Americans to treasure our constitutional republic.


Who Was Cheney’s Audience?

In their influential book about rhetoric, Traité de l'argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique [Treatise on Argumentation: The New Rhetoric], Belgian philosophers Chaïm Perlman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca made the remarkable claim that the audience is a construct in the mind of the speaker. The important audience, especially in the media age, is not necessarily the small group of people in the room. Cheney, obviously knowing that the Republican Party had turned against her, reached out instead to the larger public. Those larger audiences could watch her speech on the news or read about it on the Web. Will the Republican voting base hear her ideas? Will her appeals reach the larger American public?

Perhaps only time will answer those questions. Notable, however, is that all but one Republican member of Congress in the chamber walked out before she spoke. They chose to ignore what she would say. By walking out, maybe they wanted to show that they disapproved of her integrity. Maybe they were ashamed to know that she was a better person than they were. We may never know.

Are Republican voters listening? Only time will tell, but Cheney tried to elevate the discourse beyond Trump’s election lies. Instead, she raised the larger question of American values. That is going to be a tough sell in the conspiracy theory-infested regions of red-state America.


Why Does Cheney’s Speech Matter?

Cheney’s examples warned us that America’s time-tested system of government is more fragile than we might think. On January 6, 2021, violent insurrectionists tried to stop the election’s certification, while more than 100 Republican members of Congress refused to certify an obviously accurate count of the Electoral College’s votes. The insurrectionists’ simple but crude goal was that the vote didn’t count until Congress said it counted. President Trump repeatedly egged them on. The disorganized, poorly-led mob came perilously close to sabotaging the tally. Liz Cheney was removed from her leadership position precisely because she opposed that sabotage.

Is Cheney right? Can the American experiment fail? Of course. Germany in 1933 was wracked by economic and political disaster, but it was also a world-recognized center of industrial power, religion, philosophy, art, and music. Germany was the homeland of Beethoven, Kant, and Goethe. Adolf Hitler’s political base consisted of conservative Christians in southern Germany. He never gained a majority of the vote, and became Chancellor of Germany by manipulating the political system. Does any of that sound familiar? If totalitarian government could seize control of Germany, then, yes, it can happen in the United States.

Read: Hitler and Christian Nationalism 

Back to Cheney’s examples: unlike most conservative speakers, she told no stories about history’s American heroes. Instead, she talked about people in other nations who valued the freedom that we take for granted. Indeed, I am reminded of a statement that Ronald Reagan made many years ago: “If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”

Cheney’s examples did not prove her point in a logical manner. Instead, she encouraged her audience to think in broad terms, to remember the United States’ founding values, to recognize that winning elections is not the be-all and end-all of political life. I do not expect Cheney’s speech to have much effect on American politics over the next few years. Maybe, given enough years, her message will finally sink into our national conscience. She asked for us to return to American Revolutionary ideals. She spoke to people’s hearts. As usual, only people with open hearts will hear her.



Technical notes: Perlman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s book, which presents an innovative, and now widely-accepted, theory of audiences, is available in an excellent English translation under the title, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise in Argumentation. Highly recommended to anyone who wants to understand persuasion. My friend Ray Dearin wrote a fine summary and analysis of Perlman’s philosophy of rhetoric, which is available for paid download. Most good libraries can probably get a copy for free. 

Most printed texts of this speech are based on Cheney's draft. I referred to that draft, of course, but also to the verbatim transcript on Rev.com. Speakers often improvise during delivery. 

Image: Liz Cheney's Congressional Website

Liz Cheney's Courageous Speech Asking Republicans to Reject Trump's False Election Claims

Liz Cheney, US Congress

Never take freedom for granted.

In a dramatic speech, Wyoming congressional representative Liz Cheney told Congress yesterday that the Republican Party needed to reject former President Donald Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him by voter fraud.

Today, the Republican caucus removed her from her leadership role by voice vote: literally shouting down her insistence that the Republican Party should stand for truth. Good public speaking is not just a matter of skill; no, good public speaking requires integrity.

Acts of political courage like Cheney's are remarkably few and far between. Young Senator John Kennedy’s 1956 best-selling book Profiles in Courage summarizes courageous acts of eight United States senators who risked their political careers by taking unpopular political positions. It’s often noted that Kennedy’s book is short because politicians rarely exhibit courage. Most politicians are simple, amoral creatures who never think past next week's opinion polls. Most are willing to take any position, no matter how evil, that they think will help them get elected. This makes Cheney’s speech, which insisted that patriotism matters more than politics, all the more remarkable.

In fact, Cheney stated that theme in her very first sentence: “Tonight I rise to discuss freedom and our constitutional duty to protect it. Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged to see firsthand how powerful and how fragile freedom is.”

Indeed, Americans so often take freedom and greatness for granted. This sometimes makes us think that anything our nation does is automatically great. However, Cheney told Congress – and, more importantly, the American people – that American freedom is both fragile and endangered. She then warned that the nation’s freedom and greatness depend on responding to threats:

“God has blessed America, Mr. Speaker, but our freedom only survives if we protect it, if we honor our oath, taken before God in this chamber, to support and defend the Constitution, if we recognize threats to freedom when they arise.”

It required great intrepidity for Cheney to then explain that the greatest threat to American freedom came from the leader of her own political party. Former President Trump has repeatedly, and falsely, stated that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Conservative media, including commentators on Fox News, Newsmax, and so forth, have repeated this thoroughly-discredited claim. Since our constitutional republic depends entirely on the people’s faith in the system, Cheney warned that Trump’s behavior poses a unique and terrible danger:

“Today we face a threat America has never seen before. A former president, who provoked a violent attack on this Capitol in an effort to steal the election, has resumed his aggressive effort to convince Americans that the election was stolen from him. He risks inciting further violence.

“Millions of Americans have been misled by the former President. They have heard only his words, but not the truth, as he continues to undermine our democratic process, sowing seeds of doubt about whether democracy really works at all."

There is much wisdom in her simple phrase, “They have heard only his words, but not the truth.” We’ll return to that in a minute.

Cheney noted, of course, that the courts and the Department of Justice had universally rejected Trump’s false claims. She then called her party to its constitutional duty: “This is not about policy. This is not about partisanship. This is about our duty as Americans.”

She concluded her speech by once again calling on people to rise above party to defend the country:

“Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this is at the heart of what our oath requires—that we love our country more [than life]. That we love her so much we will stand above politics to defend her. That we will do everything in our power to protect our constitution and our freedom -- paid for by the blood of so many. . . . That is our duty.”

As she gave this speech, Cheney – who is a most astute politician – knew perfectly well that the Republican caucus would soon remove her from her leadership role and that she would become a pariah in her own party.

People can speculate as to Cheney’s political future. If the Trump cult – no other word describes it – collapses, this does not mean that his supporters will ever forgive her. Germany rejected the Nazi Party after World War II, but never fully forgave Oskar Schindler for rescuing Jews from the Holocaust. He got death threats for years. I think that most Republicans know that Cheney is right, but that doesn’t mean they will welcome her again. I’ve heard speculation that Cheney may want to establish her own party or run for president. Neither seems likely.

Read: Senator Jeff Flake Spoke against Trump's Falsehoods

Read: Reagan versus Trump, Unifier versus Divider

Nevertheless, Liz Cheney gave a speech for the ages. Her speech will land in history books. Many speech students will study this speech, write papers about it, and let it inspire them. Other people, although they may stay quiet, will seethe in anger every time they think about what Cheney said yesterday.

In part, Republicans, desperate to remain in power, have shown themselves eager to discard every principle that they ever claimed to believe. Many Republicans, I suspect, quietly know that Trump has shamed them. Instead, however, of turning aside from their dark path, they will simply resent Cheney for being better than they are.

When she made her principled stand, Liz Cheney said that country mattered more than party. Her party, the once-great party of Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, and Eisenhower, rejected her. Heaven help us.



P.S.: Let’s return to Cheney’s statement that, “They have heard only his words, but not the truth.” For many Republican voters, this is probably true. We are long past the point when most people informed themselves by reading newspapers or listening to newscasters like David Brinkley or Walter Cronkite, who delivered carefully-verified reports with voices like heavenly thunder. Today, most conservatives get their news from Fox News, Newsmax, talk radio, or even less reputable sources. On the rare occasions that Fox' Chris Wallace tries to speak truthfully, viewers can tune him out, knowing that an irresponsible pundit will soon come on the air. I suspect that many Republicans, most of whom believe President Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen, have literally never heard the conclusive evidence that this is false. That is because they only listen to news media that tell them what they want to hear. To understand this bizarre phenomenon, look at communication professors Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Capella’s remarkable book, Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment.

Post updated May 13, 2021 to incorporate corrections based on the verbatim transcript published by rev.com. (She said Mr. Speaker, not Madam Speaker,  in the live speech, due to a Speaker Pro Tem presiding,) 

Jerry M. Lewis’ Speech about the Kent State Shootings

Today is the 41^st anniversary of the shootings at Kent State University, when members of the Ohio National Guard fired more than 60 rifle bullets at a group of students demonstrating against the American assault in Cambodia. Four students were killed and nine were injured, some very seriously. Some of the students were not even involved in the demonstration and were merely caught in the crossfire.

Retired Kent State Professor Jerry M. Lewis spoke on campus today to commemorate the shootings, to which he was an eyewitness. Like all good ceremonial (or epideictic) speakers, Lewis did not merely honor the fallen, but also drew important lessons from the tragic events. Indeed, he had two lessons to convey, both worth remembering.

First, he reminded his audience that being a social activist carries risks:

“People get hurt. People die. A student shouldn’t become an activist for marijuana rights, women’s rights, voting rights, unless they are willing to take risks.” 

He continued: 

"Students who enter into activism without being aware of those risks are in danger, and it’s our responsibility as teachers to prepare them for those risks.”

That’s an important point. People sometimes think about demonstrations and protest speeches as games. The powerful people who run societies do not, however, like to be challenged. The authorities can fight back at any time, often with extreme violence, and rarely face any consequences. As a case in point, neither the justice system nor army discipline called anyone to account for the May 4^th shootings.  We see this today, of course, with the Black Lives Matter demonstrations, which are often opposed violently even when the demonstrators themselves are peaceful. We saw this during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as well, when voting rights organizers sometimes paid with their lives.

 Second, Professor Lewis reinforced the importance of free speech:

“In many ways, the commemoration serves to protect democracy and free speech.” 

He also said: 

“When we gather on the Commons every May 4, and we say what happened in 1970 was wrong and shouldn’t have happened, and we honor the suffering of the students and their families, we are fighting for free speech.” 

 

Free Speech on Campus: It Happened Again, at William and Mary!

Don't Fear the Protests! Free Speech on Campus Applies to Everyone

We’ve heard a lot about free speech from the right wing, who often feel that their right to speak is being oppressed, but, in my experience, established authorities more often suppress left-wing speech. The Kent State shootings were not a test case for peaceful demonstrations, since some of the demonstrators were, indeed violent. Still, the indiscriminate shooting, which was disproportionate to the threat, was obviously intended to end the demonstrations. 

Cait Christenson Not Allowed to Speak about Equity

Ceremonial speeches like the one that Professor Lewis delivered remind us about the past. But they do more. Lewis gave admonitions about values and how those values should affect the future. That is why he said:

“It is essential that Kent State continues to remember May 4 because it honors the four and the nine and comforts the parents and relatives, but more importantly, it provides a medium for protest and study on social problems.”

I particularly identify with Lewis’ speech because I lived in Kent from 1984 to 2005. I became friends with the legendary bearded professor who had led a group of students to safety. I have seen the bullet holes that were never repaired. I can attest that hard feelings from May 4 lingered for a long time. Although the huge university was the town’s major employer, many residents deeply resented the students. Students who had not even been born in 1970 sometimes faced open hostility. 

Conservatives, by their nature, often prefer a stable social order. Social justice demonstrations threaten that order. The demonstrators’ purpose was to call public attention to a military action that many people felt was illegal. It was an attempt to arouse conscience. It was particularly poignant because we still had the military draft in 1970, and young male students could be called up at any time to fight in a cause they might not support. 

The spiritual wounds from the Vietnam War still afflict us today. Also, let us not forget that, only 11 days after May 4, 1970, a group of police overreacted against a similar demonstration at Jackson State University, a historically Black university, killing two students. 

Speech might be free, but it can carry a penalty.