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

Barack Obama's Father's Day Advice

Barack Obama

In his lengthy 2008 Father’s Day speech, President Barack Obama offered much wise advice, some of it pointed, to the nation’s fathers. As a wise speaker, however, Obama remembered to look at the big picture. A wise speaker on a ceremonial occasion always looks beyond the immediate event. So, what struck me the most is the way Obama reminded his audience – his true audience was the entire nation – his message was that our main duty as fathers is to provide a better world for our children:

“And what I’ve realized is that life doesn’t count for much unless you’re willing to do your small part to leave our children — all of our children — a better world. Even if it’s difficult. Even if the work seems great. Even if we don’t get very far in our lifetime.”

Can we think about that on Father’s Day? What things can we do, maybe small things, to make life better for the next generation? Certainly, my mother’s father thought hard about that – as an immigrant who never learned much English, he sweated away in a steel mill so that his children and grandchildren could become engineers, soldiers, lawyers, and college professors. He helped make America great. My own father thought about the future as he volunteered to provide legal services for elderly people who had been cheated out of their Social Security benefits. Let us all try to make the world a little bit better place.

Happy Father’s Day. Congratulations and thanks to dads all over the land. 

by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

Copyright @  2025 by William D. Harpine  

 

Abraham Lincoln Raised The Flag: A Speech of Principle. A Speech for the Ages

Lincoln at Independence Hall

Liberty and justice for all. Those stirring words conclude the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Today, on Flag Day, June 14, 2025, some Americans celebrated by watching President Donald Trump’s massive military parade in Washington, DC, while others participated in thousands of No King demonstrations that protested Trump’s executive orders and aggressive anti-immigrant policies. Still, Abraham Lincoln, speaking off the cuff, gave the greatest of all speeches about the American Flag. He called the nation to unite on our founding principle: the principle of liberty. He spoke at Independence Hall in Philadelphia as the new flag, with a new star for just-admitted Kansas, made its formal first appearance. 

Let us, then, look into history, not to current events. to understand our conflicts and our hopes. In his speech about the American Flag, Lincoln urged the nation toward unity in the face of impending disaster. Can we learn his wise lesson? Or are we doomed to repeat bitter history? For, while facing an oncoming struggle, Lincoln resorted, not to the nuts and bolts of picayune policy discourse, but instead to the higher principle of liberty. In Lincoln’s speech, a higher principle bound the United States. That principle created the nation, and, Lincoln hoped, that principle would hold the nation together.

Liberty Bell, Independence Hall

Conflict, indeed, is nothing new. When Lincoln, who had just been elected president but not yet inaugurated, helped raise the United States Flag on February 22, 1861, he urged unity in the face of division. 

As the United States faces conflict and hostility today between opposing factions, we stand in a hard tradition. For, less than two months after the speech, the South Carolina militia attacked Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, and the Civil War began. Before the war ended, more Americans would die than in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm added together.

In his speech, Lincoln stood, not on factions, but on historical principle:

“I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”

Indeed, reflecting on the United States’ long endurance as a united republic, Lincoln looked, not to the clutches of circumstance, but to a great moral principle: the principle of liberty:

“I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time.”

Liberty. Lincoln did not speak for the liberty of the fortunate, but for the liberty of all. Lincoln talked about how American liberty promised freedom and justice for everyone, for eternity. Noble words. Have we forgotten them?

“It was that which gave promise,” Lincoln asserted, that, in the passage of time, lift a great “weight,” not just from Americans, but also “from the shoulders of all.”

Lincoln again stressed the great principle of liberty. He emphasized that the Declaration of Independence, United States of America’s founding document, rested on principle, and that principle gave Lincoln hope:

“This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful.”

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”

One Searing Phrase: Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech

Yes, history does show that the consequences turned out to be awful – beyond awful. All the same, Lincoln made that principle – the principle of liberty – his guiding light above all political decisions:

“But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.”

Consider the questions that Lincoln did not ask. Points of economic and political disagreement? How to improve the economy? Lincoln didn’t ask those questions. He asked no questions about political patrons, nor did he say an evil word against his opponents. His simple question was whether we could unite on the great principle of liberty. In fact, his greater question was whether all people throughout time could enjoy liberty. 

Do similar issues face us today? In Lincoln’s time, the southern states considered liberty to be a God-given right of White men, while Black men and women could be held in forced labor and cruel chattel bondage. Today, we are debating about the freedom and liberty of those who wish to immigrate to the land of the free, making their homes here. In 1861, southern leaders felt that freedom for slaves was just as absurd as a plan to make the moon stop rotating around the earth. In 2025, the very concept of freedom for immigrants strikes horror into the hearts of Trump and his supporters. So, have we really changed? Have we changed enough?

Lincoln was not our greatest president because he won a war or because he preserved the union. No, he was our greatest president because he reminded us, with wisdom and eloquence that no other leader could match, that the United States is a nation of principle. Let us never forget. Our guiding principle is neither liberalism nor conservativism, neither tradition or progress. No! That great principle, liberty, created our nation, and only liberty can preserve us.

 Liberty for everyone, liberty for all time. American liberty as a shining example to spread across the earth. A great principle. A great, idealistic, and stunningly ambitious theme. A theme so idealistic that we can hardly grasp it.

Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president. Let us never forget, however, that Abraham Lincoln was, by far, also our most contentious and divisive president. His election prompted a great civil war which, by the time it ended, had cost almost every family in the land a husband, brother, son, or dear one. Only by massive bloodshed was the horrifying injustice of slavery ended. Only after terrible bloodshed could the former slaves enjoy even any hope that they, too, might receive liberty and its blessings.  

In this great speech, Lincoln taught the only lesson we will ever need for Flag Day: Liberty and justice for all. 

by William D. Harpine

__________

Research Note: The great conservative rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver wrote brilliantly about Lincoln’s commitment to principle and enduring truths. In that sense, Weaver insists, Lincoln was a true conservative. Lincoln was a true conservative because, instead of dwelling on immediate circumstances, Lincoln always looked to the higher values. In this speech, Lincoln drew his values from the tradition of the Declaration of Independence. Weaver’s most important book, The Ethics of Rhetoric, should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the powers of speech.

Copyright @ by William D. Harpine

Image: Photo by Frederick De Bourg Richards, public domain, Library of Congress, via Wikimedia

Commons

Photo of Liberty Bell by William Harpine, copyright @ by William D. Harpine

Simple Steps to a Healthy Art: A Cardiologist Shows How to Begin and End a Speech

Physician holding a heart

“It doesn’t have to be this way.”

So remarked cardiologist Robert Kelly in his TED Talk at the REDxTralee 2024 conference. While encouraging the audience to strive for a healthier lifestyle, Kelly illustrated how a speaker can involve the audience while driving home the speech’s main point.

Kelly began by engaging the audience to demonstrate their own vulnerability. He concluded his talk by giving the audience a simple action to begin their healthier lives. Problem, followed by solution, followed by the first healthy step.


Kelly's Introduction

Kelly involved his audience right away, giving them a practical experience to help them understand the danger of heart disease.

“Now, only if you are able, could I get you again to stand up, please? Brilliant.

“So, there are now about a hundred people looking at me somewhat worried. But for me, your hearts are pumping and you’re all alive. So, I’m going to ask 30 of you to sit down. Now, I have two assistants who are going to randomly pick out the 30, so don’t all sit down yet.”

That simple act of audience participation made the statistics come alive. We can hear public health officials warn us that “30% of Americans will die of heart disease.” But that is just a number! Kelly gave them the experience – he asked 30 people, chosen at random, to sit down. That kind of introduction makes an audience think. Makes an audience see the statistics as more than mere numbers on a spreadsheet.

Having started with a warning, that one-third of the audience might die of heart disease, Kelly gave them a path toward hope:

“And in fact, the great news is, if you follow the steps, it won’t be this way. And so, at this point, you can all sit down. And I’m going to share with you exactly why.”

Wanting the audience to feel positive, however, Kelly then told them that they did not have to suffer the fate of the 30 unfortunate heart patients, that there was hope, that there was a way out. He discussed stress reduction, healthy eating, relationship-building, and exercise.

Only then did Kelly introduce his solution:

“So, I’m here today as a cardiologist and as a health habits coach. And I want to encourage all of you to enjoy a long and a happy life by doing one small step for your heart health every day, starting right now today.”

“Today” was a nice touch, because right now is always the best time to do things, is it not?   

Then, during the bulk of his speech, Kelly advised his audience not to smoke, to reduce stress, to get some exercise, and to eat a more plant-based diet. The genius of his introduction is that he offered the crowd the chance to consider how lifestyle changes could help them. He gave the audience a chance to think past the platitudes. He brought heart health into their own personal experience.

Dr. Margaret Chan Organized Her Public Health Speech for Success

Joe Biden Organized His Holocaust Remembrance Day Speech to Place Values in Context

Kelly’s Conclusion

Unlike many perfectly capable speakers, Kelly did not end by listing points for the audience to memorize. Instead, he asked them to take one simple thing at a time. So, after describing the principles of heart-healthy living, Kelly asked them to take the first step – not all of the steps, just the first – which was to be grateful for what they already had:

“I want you to think of two things that you are most grateful for today. And it’s really important that you feel that gratitude of what that gratefulness is all about. And then you have to celebrate now. Show your high fives, or your thumbs up, or a big smile. I see lots of smiles. And maybe a few ‘yippees’ in the room. Very quiet room. Woo!”

By leading the audience to take one gentle first step, Kelly helped them work through the feeling that a massive lifestyle change imposes too great a burden. Instead, he asked them to take the first step. (Of course, once we take that first step, well, the second step, and the third, and the rest can fall into place, one by one.) Just one first step: 

“So this is one powerful small step that can dramatically improve your heart health. And that might save your life and the loads of people that you have around the room today.”

Final Thoughts

People pay the most attention at the beginning and end of the speech. We all know that. Kelly had begun his speech by offering the audience a personal experience. He ended by asking them to take one simple step. The audience responded. They even cheered a bit. What else could a speaker want?

In general, people learn according to what grabs their attention and relates to their own experience. They act when the action is simple, easy to understand, and easy to do. It helps if they can act right now! Kelly gave everyone a personal experience and one easy step to begin their future healthy lives. Great job! 

by William D. Harpine

______________

P.S. This speech stirred me, since I just got out of the heart hospital myself! It does all seem overwhelming. Terrifying. My idea that “it can’t happen to me” came crashing down. Years of hearing cardiologists telling me that all my test results were excellent vanished into a mist. Years of eating a sort-of-healthy diet turned out to be too little. But one step a day! Be grateful for my blessings and take one step at a time to live a healthier life. I am, after all, grateful beyond expression for my wife and family. Grateful that modern medicine lets me hope for many more years with them. What, dear readers, are you grateful for? 

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image by asawin (PxHere user), Creative Commons license

In Defense of International Students

 

The Earth Is Not Flat

My previous post praised Harvard University President Alan Garber's speech, which defended bringing international students to Harvard. Admitting international students was, he said, "as it should be." Let me take a moment to explain, from my personal experience, why he was so very right. It is not just that international students gain benefits for themselves. They also bring great benefits to their professors and classmates.

Previous Post: “False Conviction Saps True Potential.” Wise Words from Harvard’s President

As our ignorant, xenophobic president, Donald Trump, vigorously (and maybe illegally) suspends visas for Harvard's international students, he leads American education, and American life, down a dark, angry path.

As the White House announced his proclamation, Trump said:

“We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country. Harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason!”

The legality of Trump's document request is highly suspicious under the 4th Amendment and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Those issues are before the courts. 

No, I never taught at Harvard. I happily spent my entire career teaching at excellent state universities. Yes, those universities recruited and admitted students from all over the world. I taught students from China, India, Europe, Russia, Central Africa, and Central America. From everywhere. I taught students who came to the United States to gain an international education. Some of them eventually became more prominent university professors than me.

Some of my students came to the United States to gain the benefits and prestige of an international education. Some came to escape certain torture and death if they returned to their home countries.

The international students were often among the most talented and industrious students in class. They were often inspiring. (I still fondly remember my foreign student who, distressed at receiving a B+ on one of his assignments, ran up to my desk in a panic: “Dr. Harpine! This has never happened to me before! How can I improve?” Of course he ended the semester with an A. With an attitude like that, how could he not?) My international students often conducted advanced research, sometimes, I am proud to say, under my supervision. Some of my international students eventually returned to their home countries, but many – maybe most – eventually settled in the United States and contributed, in their own way, to Making America Great.

Furthermore, my American-born students gained just as much, maybe more, as their international classmates. My American-born students attended class, participated in group projects, and made friends with students from all over the planet. The dedication that the international students showed was often inspiring. Many of them learned difficult subjects while studying in their second or third language.

It is one thing to learn about other cultures by reading anthropology textbooks. It is quite something else to become people's lifelong friends. It is quite something else to experience the humanity and personal qualities that international students shared with their American classmates. Maybe that is the outcome that Trump and his supporters fear the most. What do you think?

by William D. Harpine

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: NASA, public domain

“False Conviction Saps True Potential.” Wise Words from Harvard’s President

Harvard University's 2025 Commencement

“A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.” Proverbs 15:1KJB

Sometimes the gentlest words tell us the most. At Harvard University’s 2025 commencement, University President Alan Garber pointedly reminded students that they had been educated to avoid rigid thinking and ideological devotion. Indeed, he warned the crowd that we take a terrible risk if we grow too sure of our own wisdom. Not raising his voice, not naming names, and avoiding all hostility, Garber challenged the Trump administration, not on its policies, not even on its rhetoric, but on its underlying philosophy (or lack thereof).

Garber defended Harvard University at the same time, and with the same words, that he used to give wise, gentle advice to the newly-minted scholars. On the one hand, commencement speakers want to honor the graduates and offer advice. Garber did that. Still, on the other hand, the United States government has lashed out at Harvard University for political reasons that strike against the school’s entire purpose. (Indeed, if we reject open inquiry and human community, we have rejected the concept of a university. After all, the word “university” comes from the idea of “universality.”) While Garber reminded everyone of the university's purpose, he also reminded the attendees, and the entire nation, that we all require human dignity, intellectual growth, and wisdom. He never needed to mention Donald Trump, for the context made his meaning obvious. 

So, Garber warned the graduates against complacent thinking:

“The world as it is tempts us with the lure of what one might generously call comfortable thinking, a habit of mind that readily convinces us of the merits of our own assumptions, the veracity of our own arguments, and the soundness of our own opinions, positions, and perspectives—so committed to our beliefs that we seek information that confirms them as we discredit evidence that refutes them.”

Anyone who watches Fox News or surfs through talk radio has heard willfully uninformed people spout absolute nonsense with complete self-confidence. Never mentioning those sources by name, Garber quietly rejected their underlying value:

“False conviction saps true potential.”

What a stunningly insightful axiom! For college graduates are potential in the making.


Trump's Attack on Harvard

Irked almost to the point of blind rage, President Donald Trump had placed severe restrictions on Harvard’s ability to recruit international students. Although a judge quickly ruled against Trump’s action, the shockwaves continued to roil the campus. In a sweeping, and possibly, illegal move, Trump canceled almost 1,000 research grants. Most of these were medical studies awarded by the National Institutes of Health. These included research into a TB vaccine, ALS treatments, and Alzheimer’s Disease. Trump justified the cuts by claiming that Harvard was “woke” (whatever that means) and falsely stating that many Harvard students were taking remedial math courses. (A glance at Harvard’s catalog shows that calculus is their lowest-level math course.) He accused Harvard of being antisemitic. (Garber himself is Jewish.) Harvard is reacting by suing the administration. 

Tom Hanks, Truth, and the American Way at Harvard University


What Is the Most Important Lesson University Students Can Learn?

Trump’s actions appear to arise from resentment rather than policy. Trump even canceled grants for artificial intelligence research, which is supposedly one of his priorities. The self-righteousness, the unwillingness to admit error, make it difficult for the Trump administration to see reason, much less to back down. Thus, Garber reminded the crowd that there are worse things than being wrong. He reminded them that it is only when we learn that we are wrong that we allow ourselves to grow, become better, learn new things, and have a better society. Learning, Garber insisted, requires us to take risks:

“Focused on satisfying a deep desire to be right, we can willingly lose that which is so often gained from being wrong—humility, empathy, generosity, insight—squandering opportunities to expand our thinking and to change our minds in the process.”

As Garber reminded the graduates, we too often require society to assure us that we are right.  We seek comfort and support, not wisdom, when we ask people to confirm everything we think.  That is a terrible mistake, for no one is always right. Instead, we must, Garber said, always be ready to revise our beliefs and move forward:

“My hope for you, members of the Class of 2025, is that you stay comfortable being uncomfortable.”

Garber did not urge the graduates to be self-confident. Instead, he urged them to live in intellectual discomfort, knowing that this is the path to personal growth.

Garber did not need to mention Trump. No one in the audience could possibly have missed his point. 


Should Harvard Welcome International Students?

Garber defended Harvard’s commendable practice of enrolling students from around the world. Yet, he made his point by implication. He never mentioned Trump. He did not complain about the government’s injustices. He did not refute Trump point by point. Argument and refutation would not suit the occasion.  Instead, Garber gently countered Trump's underlying values. That, in the long run, made a far more powerful argument. 

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

Harvard has long enrolled foreign students, but it was no coincidence that Garber had specifically mentioned them at his speech’s outset. Not about to let a good point die out, Garber continued:

“Members of the Class of 2025 from down the street, across the country, and around the world.

“Around the world, just as it should be.”

Just as it should be! Instead of knuckling under to the Trump administration’s foolish idea that “America First” means “America Only,” Garber proudly stood by his worldwide values: “just as it should be.”

That is how Garber established his thesis, which was that true intellectuals never allow rigid, inflexible ideas to take over their lives. He stood up for America: not the America of Jim Crow, isolationism, or injustice, but the America that welcomes the free interchange of ideas, cultures, and people. Garber showed how to counter the false philosophy of fear and exclusion. Garber delivered a calm, gentle, and insightful speech for the ages. I hope that the graduates, who deserve our congratulations, remember his words forever. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Used by permission, courtesy of Harvard University

Down with Slogans! The Sad Case of Ron Johnson

Senator Ron Johnson

Speaking at the Wisconsin Republican Convention on May 17, 2025, Republican Senator Ron Johnson recently parroted a slogan:

“We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.”

We’ve all heard that one. 

Politicians love their slogans. “Make America Great Again.” “Stop the Steal.” “Make Love, Not War.” “Support Your Local Police.” Catchy? Surely. Do slogans make us think? No. Of course not. What a silly idea.

Slogans grab our attention. Slogans might state nationalism, prosperity, pride, anger, kindness, or hatred. But slogans rust our thinking. For example, “Stop the Steal” begs the question: was anything really stolen? If we say, “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem,” does that excuse us from studying the numbers? Certainly not.

What about “Black Lives Matter;” “White Lives Matter;” “All Lives Matter?” Catchy slogans, fine, but are they sincere? Or do some people just say “All Lives Matter” to hint that “Black Lives Don’t Matter?” (Yes, they are all good slogans, but they do no good unless they inspire us to treat one another better. Right?)

The problem: slogans are not policies. They are just slogans. If we want good policies, well, we need to work. We need to get facts and and think a bit. Slogans don’t do that. Slogans give us an excuse not to think. Slogans excite us, and I enjoy slogans the same as everyone, but we get stuck in slogans the same way we get stuck on muddy roads.

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap

Back to Senator Johnson, whose slogan could, but does not, raise legitimate questions: how much money do we need to spend? How much money do we need to raise? Who should bear the most burden: the poor, or the rich? Those are policy questions, and the slogan does not answer them.

Johnson wants Congress to cut government spending. There is, however, no such thing as “government spending.” Not really. The government spends money on many different programs: national defense, law enforcement, national parks, border enforcement, various types of medical insurance, food support, agricultural subsidies, Social Security, and administrative expenses. And much more.

So, which programs does Johnson want to cut to solve the “spending problem?” Slogans don’t answer that tough question. No Republican wants to cut national defense. Although they talk about it, no Republican is foolish enough to cut Social Security. Social Security helps elderly voters, the Republican party’s main voter base. At the moment, Johnson’s party is trying to cut Medicaid spending. They are, however, not cutting Medicaid enough to balance the budget, just enough to create hardship. In general, making cuts is hard and painful. If you cut National Parks, you anger people (like me) who love parks. If you cut Medicaid, are you ready to face the fallout as rural hospitals close? If you cut defense, will the nation still be safe? Anyone can spout smug slogans, but slogans aren’t policies. Slogans are easy; policies are hard.

Yet, Johnson’s slogan is nothing new, while policy ideas repeatedly vanish into the mist. Indeed, back in 2010, Senate leader Mitch McConnell announced that, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.” A year later, John Boehner said that, “Washington does not have a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem.” Chiming in, Orrin Hatch avowed that, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We all know we have a spending problem.” Sound familiar?

Sadly, politicians mouth their much-loved slogan, over and over, in a thought-free rhetorical style that would horrify any public speaking teacher. If your slogan is your thesis, a teacher would ask, where is your argument?

Thus, we still ask, how does Johnson want to manage fiscal policies? His slogan fails to enlighten us. Worse, once our empty slogans fill us with pious but unthinking indignation, how can we then talk through our nation’s needs? For slogans are the ultimate conversation-stoppers.

Instead of parroting slogans, we need to work on our problems. Sit down. Figure things out. Never imagine that great policies will fall out of the sky. The world dumps massive problems on us every day. Mindless comments never solve them. Not ever. Fiscal slogans are the harbingers of fiscal disaster.By parroting a slogan instead of analyzing and discussing problems, Johnson displayed rhetoric at its worst.

America: Think, or Die! 

Earlier Post: I Don't Like Political Slogans Because They Tell Me Nothing

_____________

P.S. In context, Johnson literally recognized that he was spouting a slogan, yet it never seemed to occur to him to couple his slogan with an actual policy: 

“Every other Republican leader saying some version of we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. I would hope you all agree with that.”

I hate to think of our leadership as a cult where our leaders make do with a slogan - the same slogan, the same unargued dogma, the same vacuous absence of ideas, year after year, decade after decade - with the idea that “I would hope you all agree with that.” Surely the world's greatest republic can do better. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official Congressional Portrait, via Wikimedia

“Liberation Day in America”: Trump's Tariff Speech

 

“So, this is the beginning of Liberation Day in America.” 

So said President Donald Trump when he announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles in an Oval Office address on March 27, 2025. “Liberation” is what rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver calls a “god term.” To Weaver, a “god term” is not a religious concept, but rather a metaphor that conveys cultural values that are too intense to question. The word “liberation” carries such power, and is so deeply seated in the United States’ cultural ideology, that few people would doubt it. Other “god terms” from various historical eras might include “progress,” “justice,” or “freedom.”

Viewed as nuts-and-bolts economics, Trump’s policies are dubious at best. Nevertheless, his conversation-stopping sales slogan – “Liberation Day in America” – turned his policy into a matter of pride, hope, and freedom. “Liberation Day” doesn’t make us think about economic charts or government statistics. Instead, it makes us think about ending slavery, emptying concentration camps, and gaining independence. “Liberation Day in America” elevates the discourse to patriotism’s greatest heights. That is the value-laden power of god terms.

That is, Trump pushed ideals, not theory. Trump’s pro-tariff argument assumes, quite falsely, that tariffs place a charge on exporters who exploit the United States. He explained this false premise by saying:

“We’re going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth, taking a lot of things that they've been taking over the years. They've taken so much out of our country, friend and foe. And frankly, friend has been oftentimes much worse than foe.”

He offered no proof that other countries have harmed us. Just because he says someone has harmed us does not make it so. Instead, “charge countries” falsely but persuasively switches the economic burden to the nations that Trump thinks are harming us. 

Trump’s argument overlooks a simple point, which is that importers, not exporters, pay tariffs - any tariffs! Importers pay tariffs as products arrive in American ports and then pass the cost to their customers. Tariffs are collected when imports are received, not when they are sent. This lays the expense directly on the United States, not the exporters. As the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research points out, “Studies show that tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration were almost entirely borne by U.S. consumers.” [italics added]

In Trump’s speech, however, liberation is the point. Studies are not the point. Having said that imports threatened the United States, Trump concluded that we must liberate ourselves from foreign competition. Trump promised that competitors would build factories in the United States and thus stimulate the United States’ economy. As history shows, that isn’t how it works.

Trump's Tariffs versus Henry Clay's "American System"

By using a god term, however, Trump shoved detailed economic questions aside. We’re talking about “Liberation Day in America.” We are not talking about statistics. No, we are talking about values: freedom and independence. Liberation. Liberty. The Statue of Liberty. A 25-cent coin carries the word “Liberty.” In Trump’s speech, we are liberating ourselves from foreign competition. “Liberation Day” creates a powerful image that makes America sound great. It is the kind of phrase that can inspire listeners to pride.

For, after all, Trump’s motto is “Make America Great Again.” Greatness is a value, and god terms like “Liberation” are about values. “Liberation Day” does not inform people about economic charts or statistics. How boring that would be! “Liberation” is a god term. We do not want other nations to exploit us, and Trump promised a great day of liberation. “Liberation Day” does not inform us, for Trump’s purpose was not to inform, but to make us feel free. 

McKinley's 1896 Speeches Made the Tariff Sound Patriotic - Just Like Trump!

Franklin Roosevelt's Speech against Tariffs

That image, the idea that Trump will free the United States of America, offers relief and salvation. Our culture values liberty above all else. That’s why the word “Liberty” adorns our coins, our statues, and our textbooks. A supposed hero who will, he promises, liberate us from our friends and enemies alike used a god term to remind us of our values and lead us to economic redemption. Are Trump’s tariff policies stunningly unwise? Sadly, yes, but that is not really his point. Is his rhetoric spectacularly compelling? Obviously yes. Underestimate value-driven speeches at your peril. “Liberation Day” might sound grandiose; it might defy logic, but its essence is powerful indeed.  

by William D. Harpine

________________

Research Note: Conservative rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver talks about god terms in his insightful book, The Ethics of Rhetoric. Kenneth Burke’s ground-breaking book A Grammar of Motives offers a somewhat different explanation of “god-terms.”  

Copyright 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image from White House YouTube Channel

Franklin Roosevelt's Speech Against Tariffs

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The protective tariff has dominated economic rhetoric almost since our nation’s dawning. From Henry Clay to William McKinley to Donald Trump, politicians promise (dubiously) that tariffs will be an “American System” or put “America First.” Those are powerful words. Tariffs are always popular, but they are usually a terrible idea.

Although tariffs might help the few, they will, overall, cause more harm than good. Writing for the conservative Cato Institute, Erica York remarks that: “It is dubious to claim that tariffs can be imposed with no economic trade-offs, and economists generally consider them to be poor tools for achieving various policy objectives.”

Tariffs Are Nothing New under the Sun: Trump's Tariffs versus Henry Clay's "American System" 

Franklin Roosevelt explained this important principle, almost alone among the United States' leaders. Speaking during the depths of the Great Depression at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on September 23, 1932, during his first presidential campaign, Roosevelt linked tariffs to the ancient battle between the rich and powerful versus the ordinary citizen:

“The issue of government has always been whether individual men and women will have to serve some system of government of economics, or whether a system of government and economics exists to serve individual men and women.”

Thus, Roosevelt did not discuss the economy by throwing out complex facts and figures and percentages, or by citing mathematical formulas. Instead, he put the tariff controversy in its human context. He showed how the protective tariff was a government regulation that harmed the overall economy, disrupted international relations, and degraded the nation’s welfare.

As Roosevelt spoke, the massive Smoot-Hawley Tariff had been crushing the world economy and, according to almost all economists, worsening the Great Depression. Economics Professor Kris James Mitchener comments that the Smoot-Hawley Act triggered “the mother of all trade wars.”

Thus, Roosevelt showed considerable insight when he noted how the anti-regulation businessperson:

“…is the first to go to Washington and ask the government for a prohibitory tariff on his product.”

As he spoke, building on that contradiction, Roosevelt developed the theme that the rich and powerful seek their own benefit at the nation’s expense. 


Roosevelt Opposed the Tariffs

Roosevelt placed the tariff into its historical background from the 1800s:

"The tariff was originally imposed for the purpose of 'fostering our infant industry', a phrase I think the older among you will remember as a political issue not so long ago."

 
Yet, after reviewing the history of the American economy (quite an enterprise for a short speech!), Roosevelt squarely ridiculed the contradiction of modern businesspeople who want to keep the government away from business and yet demand that the government protect them with tariffs. In contrast, Roosevelt insisted, as almost all economists do, that tariffs defend particular industries at a cost to the overall economy. Tariffs cause trade wars, he explained, and the trade wars restrict the markets to which American industries can sell their products. Oddly, instead of encouraging American business, tariffs force businesses to locate their factories overseas. While a few benefit, the many suffer a downturn. Roosevelt explained as he continued:

“Our system of constantly rising tariffs has at last reacted against us to the point of closing our Canadian frontier on the north, our European markets on the east, many of our Latin American markets to the south, and a goodly proportion of our Pacific markets on the west, through the retaliatory tariffs of those countries. It has forced many of our great industrial institutions who exported their surplus production to such countries, to establish plants in such countries within the tariff walls.”

(Doesn’t that sound just like Donald Trump’s trade war? But I digress.)


A Message of Hope

Yet, like all great leaders, Roosevelt ended his speech, not with fear, but with a message of hope. As a terrible economic depression wracked the world, Roosevelt urged the American people to fulfill their old values – which he called “the old social contract” – to avoid “a rising tide of misery engendered by a common failure” – and to work together as a common people, for economic recovery:

“… failure is not an American habit; and in the strength of great hope, we must all shoulder our common load.”

Of course, the economic troubles that the United States of America faces today, although real, have not reached the massive disaster of the Great Depression--yet. Still, we must ask whether we as a nation have failed to learn from history’s most terrible mistakes. Can we find leaders today who can explain why and how narrow economic policies harm the overall public? Can we find leaders who can help people understand difficult economic forces? Sadly, those questions remain open.

Unfortunately, politicians instead continue to promote harmful economic policies in the face of overwhelming resistance from economic theory and history. 


Tariffs Harm the Economy

So, yes, economic historians have long concluded that protective tariffs worsened the Great Depression. Indeed, studying the Great Depression, economists Mario J. Crucini and James Kahn suggest in the Journal of Monetary Economics that “the global escalation of the tariff war precipitated the collapse of world trade, along with declines of several percent in international output and investment.”

Reed Smoot

Similarly, Douglas A. Irwin writes in the Annual Review of Economics that, “Perhaps the most important ramification of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff was its role in triggering retaliation against US exports.” By economic principles, Roosevelt's controversial speech was squarely in the right. 

Yet, the public loves tariffs despite the historical evidence that tariffs and tariff wars harm the economy. So, is it any surprise that President Donald Trump embarked on a massive tariff war, not during a depression, but during a time of relative prosperity? His Press Secretary described this as an “America First Trade Policy” and an “America First economic agenda.” Did she not merely echo Henry Clay's speech on the pro-tariff American system? Or William McKinley's argument that tariffs and the American flag were patriotism's soul? 

McKinley's 1896 Speeches Made the Tariff Sound Patriotic - Just Like Trump!

Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” Speech, a Lesson in Positive Justice

Conclusion

The protective tariff is one of the United States’ oldest economic controversies, and thus one of the oldest subjects that political speakers discuss. Indeed, if we want to understand today’s political controversy, the old speeches, like Roosevelt's masterful speech to the Commonwealth Club, can be a great learning tool. Avoiding excessively technical discussions, Roosevelt used history’s lessons to help American voters understand how the protective tariff was hurting them while helping only the very few. People do not always understand technical arguments. Statistical charts make our eyes glaze over. People can, however, understand basic values. People can understand the eternal battle between the great and the small, between the haves and the have-nots, and between an overall view versus a narrow view. His grasp of human context helped Roosevelt gain a massive victory in the 1932 election. 

by William D. Harpine

____________________

Research Note: AmericanRhetoric.com is a terrific website, established by my graduate school classmate Martin J. Medhurst, that contains texts (and often videos) of American speeches. 

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Images of Roosevelt and Smoot, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Trump's March 4, 2025 Speech to Congress: Why Are His Lies So Persuasive?

“Believe it or not, government databases list 4.7 million Social Security members from people aged 100 to 109 years old. It lists 3.6 million people from ages 110 to 119. I don’t know any of them. I know some people that are rather elderly, but not quite that elderly…. But a lot of money is paid out to people, because it just keeps getting paid and paid.” 

So President Donald Trump said during his speech to Congress yesterday, March 4, 2025, but he spoke falsely. Unfortunately, falsehoods, distortions, twisted arguments, and outright lies filled Trump’s speech. Politicians tell lies: who would have thought? The real question is, what makes these lies persuasive?

There is a rhetorical reason that massive chains of falsehoods persuade people. The RAND Corporation calls this technique the “Firehose of Falsehoods.” The answer lies in the numbers. A basic propaganda technique is to unload, not one lie, but a vast number of outrageous lies. It’s not a single lie, it’s a firehose. Tell one lie, and the audience might catch you. Spray out enough lies and, well, that is a different story A barrage of arrogant lies can persuade people when a single mild fib does not. To echo the old slogan, quantity has a quality of its own.

Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

There’s also a psychological reason that massive chains of falsehood persuade people. The psychological theory called the Elaboration Likelihood Model states that people who lack the time, attention, or ability to check facts will tend to believe things that they have heard repeatedly.

So, look at a few of Trump’s outrageous statements.


What about Social Security?

Whenever someone says, “believe it or not,” as Trump did, my Spidey sense tingles away. Trump expounded further:

“And it really hurts Social Security and hurts our country, 1.3 million people from ages 150 to 159 and over 130,000 people, according to the Social Security databases, are age over 160 years old.”

Now, Wired magazine notes that the problem in the Social Security spreadsheet results, not from real data, but from a programming glitch. The chart was created by an obsolete programming language called COBOL that failed to read death dates for older Social Security recipients. Furthermore, Lee Dudek, the new Acting Commissioner of Social Security, notes that “These individuals are not necessarily receiving benefits.” 

Analyzing the problem in yet more detail, FactCheck.org notes that, although some ineligible people do receive Social Security benefits, the number is nowhere near as great as what Trump claimed. Social Security’s data shows that fewer than 90,000 actual Social Security recipients are 100 years old or older. That sounds about right. So, Trump was just carelessly wrong. Since his claims had been publicly refuted weeks earlier, he has no excuse. 

But Trump told other lies. 


A Mandate? I Think Not

Asserting his power, Trump claimed that:

“The presidential election of November 5th was a mandate like has not been seen in many decades.”

ABC News’ fact checkers note, however, that: “Trump's margins of victory — both in raw votes and in percentages — were small by historical standards.” In fact, in the final election results, Trump received 49.9% of the popular vote, against 48.3% for his opponent, Kamala Harris. Trump won, yes, but a popular vote advantage of only 1.6% hardly counts as a mandate.


Ended a Non-Existent Mandate? I Think Not

Well, the lies poured on. Trump claimed that he saved the auto industry by ending an “electric vehicle mandate:”

“We ended the last administration’s insane electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto workers and companies from economic destruction.”

Oddly, as ABC’s fact checkers note, the Biden administration did not impose an electric vehicle mandate. The administration had signed off on stricter automobile emission standards, which Trump did, in fact, revoke. But an electric vehicle mandate? Didn’t exist.


An Autism Epidemic?

Is there an autism epidemic? Vaccine skeptics and vegetarians cite a supposed autism epidemic to support their views of clean living. Trump’s unqualified Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Trump himself, have repeatedly harped on that.

So, it was no surprise in yesterday’s speech when Trump said:

“Not long ago — and you can’t even believe these numbers — one in 10,000 children had autism. One in 10,000, and now it’s one in 36. There’s something wrong. One in 36. Think of that.”

However, a research team led by Sebastian Lundström published this in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2022 said:

“Much – or even most– prevalence increase seems to reflect changes in diagnostic practice and ascertainment.”

Similarly, Tony Charman finds in the prestigious journal The Lancet Psychiatry, 2025, that:

“The authors argue this finding does not indicate rising prevalence per se but changes in the GBD methodology, specifically the exclusion of studies relying on passive case finding (registries or administrative estimates), which underestimate prevalence. The authors found no evidence of an increase in prevalence across a 15-year time window.”

In other words, the supposed increase in autism seems in large part to reflect changing diagnostic criteria, plus more interest by mental health professionals when they work with clients.


Lies and More Lies?

Tell one lie, and you probably persuade no one. Tell a hundred lies? Well, that’s different.  Suppose that Trump tells ten lies in a row. One after the other. Let us suppose that most of the lies are either invented out of thin air, or sucked from the dim recesses of Fox News or Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s dubious website. Lies are easy to produce, since they can arise from nothing, but they are often troublesome to refute. Any debater knows that it is hard to prove a negative.

Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Art of Squirming

ABC News’ fact checkers reviewed 12 of Trump’s claims, finding only one to be true, while marking the others with labels like “false,” “misleading, or “lacks context.” FactCheck.org, the premier fact-checking website, studied 12 of Trump’s claims, including some that were different from those that ABC examined, finding all 12 to be dubious. For example, they noted that Trump falsely claimed that Panama had turned control of the Panama Canal over to China. Trump lied about alleged savings from the Department of Government Efficiency and fentanyl shipments from Canada—among other falsehoods.

Now, think about it. After all, how many readers are going to study 12 (or more) seemingly nit-picking fact checks? Or look at several fact checkers? Or examine scientific and historical literature for themselves to verify every throwaway claim that Trump blustered out? Even the fact checkers got exhausted, which is why different fact checking websites covered different claims. It takes time; it takes effort. Isn’t it easier just to dismiss the fact checks as “liberal propaganda” or, maybe, “all politicians tell lies, who cares?”

And that is how the Firehose of Falsehoods overwhelms our critical processes.

Unfortunately, a barrage of lies overwhelms people’s critical capacities. I spent hours just looking up the fact checks that I cited above, and I hardly scratched the surface of Trump’s onslaught. If I didn’t want to write this blog post, would I spend that much time on it? Not likely.

For it was not just one lie. It was a firehose. Suppose someone lies to you and you check them. Fine. But what if someone pumps out dozens of lies? Some of them will slip through. Keep in mind, of course, that many of Trump’s falsehoods have long circulated on Fox News, talk radio, and social media. The Firehose of Falsehoods floods our search for truth. Quantity has a quality of its own.

I have posted previously about the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, developed by psychologists Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. Their theory claims how people process and respond to persuasive messages. They show that when people use the Central Route to process a persuasive message, they gather information and think critically. However, the Central Route takes time. It takes effort. It often requires skills that not everyone has.

The alternative is the Peripheral Route. When people lack the time, ambition, or skill to use the Central Route, they might look at the source’s attractiveness or perceived expertise, or simply the frequency with which messages are received, or other trivial criteria. That is where Trump’s cascade of lies works. People who use the Central Route will quickly reject Trump’s ludicrous claims. People who use the Peripheral Route might be impressed by Trump’s self-confidence, charismatic speaking style, and, most of all, the relentless firehose of misinformation. At that point, sadly, quantity takes on a quality of its own, and, audiences can get overwhelmed.


Conclusion

Trump’s rhetoric could never persuade wise, careful listeners, but wise, careful listeners are not his audience. To be fair, no one has the time or ability to study and verify every single persuasive message. Trump obviously knows that. By presenting a deluge of obvious, easily discredited lies, Trump carried his listeners on a roller coaster ride of bluster, suspicion, paranoia, and absurdity. As a master of those dark arts, Trump follows the path of the Big Lie. As Goebbels demonstrated in the previous century, if you want to tell lies, go big.

by William D. Harpine  

____________

Research Note: 

Here is the original article about the Firehose of Falsehood. Any current persuasion textbook will discuss the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Richard Perloff's book is worth a look. I have blogged about the Elaboration Likelihood Model several times. This post about Paul Ryan seems apropos to the moment:

Paul Ryan Gave a Speech about Civility, but Are We Listening?

Image: Official White House photo

Copyright @2025 by William D. Harpine