Patrick Henry Was Right: Donald Trump, the Army, and a Growing Monarchy

“Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance?”

So thundered Patrick Henry in 1788, speaking at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in Richmond. Henry's warning passes from his time to ours, through the centuries. That message is eternal. Such is the way of great speeches. He spoke for liberty. As a lawyer, Henry knew how to look for loopholes, and he noticed a huge loophole in the Constitution. That loophole, which afflicts us this very day, is that a twisted president can apply military force to rob us of our liberty.

Patrick Henry warned that the president, in command of the army, and able to call up the militia, could at any moment become an irresistible tyrant. Looking to the future, with wisdom, insight, and fear, Henry’s words remind us in the 21st century about government’s true purpose. A government’s purpose is, he said, to protect, not prosperity, but our liberty:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

Indeed, harping on the theme of liberty, Henry made that one value his paramount goal:

“You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.”

Still, in this speech against the United States Constitution, Patrick Henry prophesied against the Constitution’s hidden dangers. He warned that the Constitution enabled the president to seize full power:

“Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority.”

Yes, he warned us about Donald Trump. President Trump recently nationalized the District of Columbia National Guard to move into Los Angeles and Washington DC and rid them of a supposed crime wave. Tennessee, a state that supported Trump, kindly dispatched its National Guard to help. Trump now threatens to nationalize the Illinois National Guard to control Chicago. This is political domination, not an anti-crime move, for Trump carefully ignores Memphis, Tennessee, St. Louis, Missouri, and Jackson, Mississippi, all of which have much higher crime rates than Washington or Chicago, but are in states that supported him in the last election. California, the District of Columbia, and Illinois, in contrast, voted for the Democratic presidential candidate and thus seem ripe for a military takeover.

Now, when we think about checks and balances, we might side with James Madison and think about how the states check the president, the president checks Congress, the courts interpret the law, and so forth. Politics, however, ultimately comes down to power: and that is why Patrick Henry alerted the young nation. He warned that it was necessary to have a check against the president’s command of military power. Indeed, he insisted, the best check was to have no president at all.

“Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress?”

That was accurate, for the United States Constitution does, indeed, empower the federal government to call up the state militias:

 

That, indeed, is exactly the constitutional weakness that Trump is exploiting at this moment. The militias (now called the National Guard) operate under state control, but the Constitution provides for the federal government to call them up.

In our own time, President Trump’s political opponents have repeatedly (and, in my view, correctly) accused him of breaking the law: of stealing government documents, encouraging an attack on the United States Capitol, and arresting people without due process. Yet, he remains free. So what? Patrick Henry warned us that no mere court ruling could be enough if the president commanded an army:

“If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him.”

Henry's comment about “Mr. Chief Justice” was pure sarcasm for, as Henry quickly explained:

“If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push?”

Is this not happening today? In our time, obedient to the president’s authority, the United States military can help Donald Trump intimidate, if not control, cities that resist him politically. It seems that the courts rule against Trump but cannot stop him. Henry’s point: a president with an army can flout the law. 

Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?

Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” Speech: Greater than the Legend?

Furthermore, Henry warned, once the checks and balances break down under military force, who could stop the president as he marches to absolute power? For Henry gave the lie to the entire constitutional framework. That is, he pointed out the giant loophole in the Constitution’s checks and balances:

“But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition?”

That is why Patrick Henry condemned the presidency: for the army would obey the president as commander in chief, while the Constitution gave him power to command the militias:

“Away with your President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?”

Yes, recently, Illinois’ Governor JB Pritzker has promised to resist Trump’s military occupation, but what can he do, really? With the Illinois National Guard nationalized under Trump’s authority, the state can object but not resist. The Republicans in Congress have long abandoned any influence independent of Trump’s.

Rhetorical Flourishes in JB Pritzker's Speech against Militarizing Chicago

Now, some may say that I’m overreacting, and maybe I am. But Patrick Henry’s warning was prescient, and Trump is following the path that Henry warned about. Faced with opposition in the courts, and uncooperative behavior from Democratic states, Donald Trump has begun to abandon persuasion in favor of force: not the ballot, nor the gift of eloquence, but the power of the rifle.

No one can say that Patrick Henry lacked eloquence. He stated the danger in terms that no one could miss: “away with your President;” “absolute despotism;” “trample on our fallen liberty.”

Yet, Americans today apathetically fret over the price of eggs while a potential despot, who appears neither to understand nor appreciate the Constitution, mobilizes armies against his political enemies. Patrick Henry warned against that lukewarm attitude:

“Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe.”

Patrick Henry’s speech prophesied, and the prophesied future arrives. Let us never take our liberty for granted. The United States Constitution has served us well and might yet serve in the future. I tremble at any attempt to tamper with its noble, nearly sacred principles. All the same, the Constitution has its loopholes. A president who notices the loopholes, but who lacks a conscience, can work them to nefarious advantage. The courts cannot stop him. A Second Civil War should be avoided, for it would ravage the nation even more than the first one. Neither, however, do I wish to live under a king. The United States must remain the land of the free, and the Statue of Liberty still guards New York Harbor. Can we preserve our liberty?

Liberty. That word was, after all, Henry’s theme. Nearing his speech’s end, Henry reminded his audience – as he reminds us today – of government’s true purpose:

“The most valuable end of government is the liberty of the inhabitants.”

This speech reaches to our time, for Patrick Henry’s warnings are eternal. Henry's eloquence was neither beautiful nor inspiring: no, it was terrifying. Patrick Henry knew perfectly well that the convention would ratify the Constitution. He understood that his speech was futile. Indeed, he apologized for its length. After he finished, Virginia’s Governor Edmund Randolph (who had served at the Constitutional Convention) immediately complained that the speeches had grown so long as to impede the convention’s business: “it will take us six months to decide this question.” Well, we probably have all attended meetings like that, haven’t we? So, I don’t think Patrick Henry was really speaking just to the convention. He was speaking universally. He was warning us. He warned us about loopholes. Will we listen?

by William D. Harpine

____________

N.B. Yes, like other Virginian leaders of that era, Henry owned slaves. Like most of them, he rested uneasily as to whether enslaved persons were entitled to liberty. It took a horrible civil war to settle that question. Pray that we avoid another one.

Unlike Henry's more famous "Liberty or Death," which was reconstructed many years after the speaker's death, most of this speech to the Ratifying Convention was recorded live by a shorthand reporter. Thus, we are blessed with a good text of what he actually said. 

Research note: The Belgian theorists Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca explain that an audience is best viewed as a construction of the speaker's mind. Patrick Henry was not merely speaking to the delegates, but also to the public audience that swarmed into the building. His words of universal wisdom also reach across time. So, let us not take a narrow view of what an audience is.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Portrait of Patrick Henry, US Senate, public domain

"A New Era:" General Douglas' MacArthur's Speech on the USS Missouri

Douglas MacArthur on the USS Missouri

“Today the guns are silent. A great tragedy has ended. A great victory has been won.”

So said General of the Army Douglas MacArthur eighty years ago, as he spoke over the radio from the battleship USS Missouri in Tokyo Harbor on September 2, 1945. The Pacific war was over. And MacArthur offered the United States, the assembled delegates – and the world – wisdom for the future. Wisdom that we have, I regret to say, sadly forgotten. Ceremonial speeches praise what is good and condemn what is bad, while offering values that can guide us. MacArthur urged people to build a world of spiritual and humanitarian growth.

In that vein, although World War II was an unfathomable cataclysm, MacArthur offered an opportunity and a warning:

“A new era is upon us. Even the lesson of victory itself brings with it profound concern, both for our future security and the survival of civilization.”

As a shaky world emerged from the war’s horrors, MacArthur offered, not fear, not hatred, but a “new era.” Unlike many world leaders from past to present who celebrated victory as vengeance, MacArthur instead called for peace and preservation:

“We must go forward to preserve in peace what we won in war.”

With the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only a few weeks in the past, MacArthur warned that, not war, but only spiritual and moral awakening could preserve humanity. The disaster that authoritarian governments had wreaked upon the world proved, MacArthur explained, that:

“We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.”

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

Adolf Hitler's Speech in the Berlin Sportpalast: God and Power

Note, please, that MacArthur admired human advances in knowledge, art, industry, and culture, but those advances were, he reminded us, not sufficient. To avoid destruction, humanity must revitalize the spirit. We must, he insisted, have a spiritual rebirth. It would not be enough merely to preserve the human character – for, as he knew all too well, human character had created World War II – but we also needed an “improvement of human character.” His lesson was that the new technologies that have been created in peace and war alike will serve us only if we improve our souls.

Eleanor Roosevelt's Speech about the Struggle for Freedom

MacArthur’s warning, however, called us to hard reality. Hitler and Nazi Germany had promised to create the Master Race. They created only ruin. Japanese war dogma preached the doctrine of indomitable fighting glory. They only created radioactive rubble. That is why MacArthur began his speech by praising democracy and freedom. And that is why his final point resonates today, when he called for a world:

“,,,based upon a tradition of historical truth as against the fanaticism of an enemy supported only by mythological fiction.”

So, as he summed up with a militaristic metaphor, MacArthur stated the cause of peace and justice:

“Today, freedom is on the offensive, democracy is on the march.”

However, in 2025, is freedom still on the march? As you look back, have we fulfilled MacArthur’s vision for “a new era?” MacArthur gave our forebears cause to reflect. If we ever think to retreat into ourselves, to shirk compassion and to eschew responsibility, will MacArthur’s vision have been in vain? In a larger context, have we in 2025 achieved the “improvement in human character” which MacArthur advocated? Or have we, in the United States, fallen victim to conspiracy theories (what MacArthur’s speech called “mythological fiction”), which lead overconfident people to tremble in terror from make-believe dangers? Do we want democracy and freedom to march forward, or shall we instead cling to our memories of a glorious past that never really existed? Do we constantly seek to improve our character and spiritual health, or will we, as so many nations have done throughout history, sink into cold indifference? Will we waste what MacArthur called “our last chance?” Such are the value questions that MacArthur addressed. 

Indeed, every good ceremonial (or epideictic) speech espouses values and offers at least generalized advice for the future. Speaking eighty years ago, MacArthur said much that can inspire us today. Can we honor the sacrifices of World War II and continue to build “a new era?” Heaven help us if we do not.

On a personal note, many American families can recall tales of selfless sacrifice. My father, Sergeant Casper Allen Harpine, Jr., earned battle stars for Operation Torch and Operation Dragoon. My father-in-law, Gunner’s Mate Third Class Jesse Doyle Clanton, was a disabled veteran of the Battle of the Atlantic. My mother’s brother, Private First Class Peter Feduska, died fighting Nazis in the Ardennes forest at Christmastime, 1944. Countless thousands of such stories can be told. Those men and women served to bring about “a new era.” We can best honor the Greatest Generation’s memories by seeking MacArthur’s vision: to “go forward to preserve in peace what we won in war.”

by William D. Harpine   

_____________________

Historical Note:

During his long career, Douglas MacArthur had many military triumphs (like the Inchon landing) and his share of disasters (like the failed invasion of North Korea). The public admired MacArthur’s eloquent speaking and strong sense of values. Presidents worried about his publicity-seeking egotism. He was at times disciplined, and, at other times, despicably insubordinate. In my view, however, his greatest accomplishment was that he and his staff organized the postwar occupation of Japan to create a lasting parliamentary government that respects human rights and became a force for peace and prosperity in the western Pacific. That alone was accomplishment enough for a lifetime.

Image: US Navy photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

John F. Kennedy's 1960 Labor Day Speech

John F. Kennedy

“American labor has insisted upon, and won, the highest wages and best working conditions in the world.” 

So said future president John F. Kennedy on Labor Day in 1960, as he launched his successful campaign for president. Most Labor Day speeches are political, for the rights of workers raise political questions. John Kennedy transcended the nickel and dollar economic issues, which were important enough in themselves, and insisted that only organized labor could protect the United States of America’s democratic form of government.

In this speech, pointedly delivered at Cadillac Square in Detroit, home of the motor vehicle industry and its unionized workers, John Kennedy called the Dwight Eisenhower administration anti-labor. President Eisenhower was not running for reelection, but the Republican Party had nominated Eisenhower’s vice president, Richard Nixon, to be their candidate.

Blaming economic downturns on the administration, Kennedy asked his pro-labor crowd to separate pomposity from economic troubles:

“But not even the rose-colored glasses monotonously peddled by the present administration with Madison Avenue slogans can hide the problems. There have been two recessions within 7 years, and there are economists who believe a third is coming.”

Then, building to his theme, John Kennedy insisted that the labor union movement protected the United States from dictatorial rule. The labor union movement

Cadillac Square in 2022

protected, he said, the rights of working people:

“Collective bargaining has always been the bedrock of the American labor movement. I hope that you will continue to anchor your movement to this foundation. Free collective bargaining is good for the entire Nation. In my view, it is the only alternative to State regulation of wages and prices–a path which leads far down the grim road of totalitarianism.”

That slippery slope may seem overstated, but Kennedy, the future president, insisted that collective bargaining by labor unions protected, not only the United States’ economy, but, indeed, the entire political system. That is a bigger issue indeed:

“Those who would destroy or further limit the rights of organized labor - those who would cripple collective bargaining or prevent organization of the unorganized - do a disservice to the cause of democracy.”

Following a well-worn rhetorical path, speaking 75 years ago, Kennedy transcended the immediate issue. By calling organized labor the foundation of American government, Kennedy elevated the issue past the question of bargaining for wages.

Then, turning the tables on the Republicans, he complained about economic stagnation. He accused the Republicans of turning American prosperity into a political game:

“The administration has played politics with this issue–as well as with the minimum wage, health care for the aged, school construction, and housing programs.”

In his conclusion, on Labor Day in 1960, Kennedy raised his transcending argument to a spiritual level:

“In the crucial years ahead, organized labor will have much to contribute to the cause of democracy. May I say, then, God bless you in your efforts. May they be rewarded in the creation of a better world for all who seek freedom.”

We hear rhetoric like this all the time, although John Kennedy did an excellent job of it. Politicians say things like, We are not just talking about education! We are talking about the foundation of civilization, or We are not just talking about one church’s rights. No, we are talking about the entire First Amendment. And so forth.

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address: A Call to Service

On the one hand, transcending arguments boost a speech’s power. Transcending arguments give political policies an ideological context. On the other hand, transcending arguments obstruct our attempts to debate policy issues. We are no longer talking about whether we should raise the minimum wage, or whether a church has the right to violate health or building codes. Once the argument has transcended, we need to confront the ideology before we can discuss practical actions. When arguments transcend practical issues, the transcendence harms the already challenging need to discuss, debate, and compromise.

Nevertheless, was not John Kennedy prescient? In the years since, a series of conservative economic policies have, indeed, suppressed the minimum wage, limited workers’ rights, and reduced protections for collective bargaining. Kennedy stated a judgment between workers’ rights, compared with the rights of the people who conservatives call “job creators.” We are always tempted to say that our opponents are not merely wrong, but evil. However, when at that point, how do we work together? The political and economic conflict between workers and owners remains with us today. Are there any easy answers? I don’t see any.

Still, by staking himself to the labor movement, John Kennedy celebrated Labor Day in its inevitably political vein and began his successful march to the White House.

by William D. Harpine  

___________________

Personal Note:

Many thanks to the hard-working people whose labor makes America great. Fond memories of Grandfather Michael Feduska and Uncle Harry Waslo, who worked in Pennsylvania's steel mills, and Grandmother Anna Feduska, who raised chickens. Less fond memories of my own brief, long-ago employment collecting people's trash for $1.80 an hour. 

Happy Labor Day to all! 

Research Note:

Professor Suzanne McCorkle wrote brilliantly about transcending arguments in her 1980 article, “The Transcending Claim as a Strategy of Pseudo-Argument.” She posits that transcending arguments create the false impression that speakers have proven something when they have merely changed the issue, or that they have proven something more important than what they want their listeners to think. She makes a good point. Something to consider. Her article is behind a paywall, but a good library might find a copy for you.

Professor David Zarefsky offers a more positive view of transcendence in argument. His essay is a chapter in Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. If the book seems too expensive, you might find it in a large university library.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of John F. Kennedy: Official White House photo, public domain

Image of Bagley Fountain, Cadillac Square by w_lemay, Creative Commons License,

 via Wikimedia Commons 

Rhetorical Flourishes in JB Pritzker's Speech against Militarizing Chicago

JB Pritzker

“I am ringing an alarm,” said Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, speaking on August 25, 2025, to oppose President Donald Trump’s threat to federalize the National Guard to suppress crime in Chicago, Illinois.

Responding to that prospect, Pritzker held his August 25 press conference to speak against Trump's plan. He combined factual analysis with rhetorical language. Each of his rhetorical figures aimed to show that Trump’s actions conflicted with traditional American values. Not only did Pritzker’s rhetorical figures and tropes elevate the speech, but they also highlighted liberty. Liberty is, after all, what Patrick Henry once called America’s “precious jewel.” After all, language is not decoration: we think with words! Language defines how we think. 

Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?

So, let us look at how Pritzker used rhetorical figures, not to decorate his speech, but to persuade his listeners. 

Parallel Language

Parallel language (like Caeser’s “I came, I saw, I conquered”) connects ideas to show a pattern. Early in the speech, Pritzker’s parallel language helped him link several accusations into a chain:

“What President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted. It is illegal. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.”

Note the parallel language: “is unprecedented… It is illegal… It is unconstitutional… It is un-American.” The linguistic repetition showed the audience a common theme of wrongness. “Unprecedented,” Pritzker’s first criticism, separated Trump from the conservative philosophy that he supposedly represents. The conservative core is to avoid new things, and something that is unprecedented doesn’t sound conservative. “Unwarranted” stated that Chicago does not need Trump’s intervention. Escalating the rhetoric, “Illegal” and “unconstitutional” placed Pritzker on the side of the law and Trump against it. Finally, “un-American” summarized Pritzker’s argument: after all, things that are unwarranted, illegal, or unconstitutional do not sound very American, do they? 

Hidden in Pritzker’s brief statement was the rhetorical trope of “climax:” the final, culminating point, that Trump’s policy is un-American, put Pritzker’s protest on the altar of patriotism. “Un-American” became the culminating point, the principle that united Pritzker’s criticisms. Quite potent.

Donald Trump's 2017 Inaugural Address: Parallel Phrases

 
Jim Thompson, the Anti-Corruption Governor of Illinois: A Rhetorical Obituary

Rhetorical Question

Pritzker’s very next sentence asked a rhetorical question (like Shakespeare, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”): 

“If this was really about fighting crime and making the streets safe, what possible justification could the White House have for planning such an exceptional action without any conversations or consultations with the governor, the mayor, or the police?"

Pritzker then answered his own question: 

“Let me answer that question: This is not about fighting crime.”

Pritzker’s rhetorical question implied a paradox. He accused Trump of concealing his true motive, for, if Trump wanted to fight crime, he would have worked with the police.


More Parallel Language!

Continuing, Pritzker contrasted Trump’s purported goal against what Pritzker said was the true goal:

“This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to deploy the military in a blue city, in a blue state, to try and intimidate his political rivals.

“This is about the president of the United States and his complicit lackey, Stephen Miller, searching for ways to lay the groundwork to circumvent our democracy, militarize our cities and end elections.” [italics added]

Pritzker’s phrase, “This is about,” sought to uncover Trump’s real motives. Pritzker had already stated that Trump was not really interested in law and order. Instead, the military intervention is about Trump’s real motive: to undermine our system of government. By this point, Pritzker had pictured Trump as the enemy of that precious jewel, Liberty. Pritzker’s figure of speech distinguished Trump’s overt motive against the covert purpose.

Pritzker said “This is about” twice. Since Pritzker had already argued that the occupation was not about law enforcement, it was instead about (1) intimidating “his political rivals” and (2) circumventing “our democracy.” The repeated phrase showed the audience that Trump’s two hidden motives were as closely related as two cousins.

Let us not overlook Pritzker’s invective (like the classic, “my opponent is lower than a snake in the grass”) against Stephen Miller, the “complicit lackey.” Rarely do personal attacks elevate a speech, but is this an exception?


Comparison and Contrast

Comparison and contrast (Chaucer, “His horses were good, but he was not gaily dressed”) gives issues their context. Comparing and contrasting puts language to work analyzing problems. So, continuing, Pritzker contrasted crime in Chicago, which is a real problem, against the even worse crime problem that, he asserted, afflicts conservative regions:

“Like every major American city in both blue and red states, we deal with crime in Chicago. Indeed, the violent crime rate is worse in red states and red cities.”

Pritzker did not prove that point—it would have been wonderful if he had—but merely assumed that his listeners had followed the media’s crime reports. As Arianna Johnson points out in Forbes magazine, states that voted for Trump have murder rates 12% higher than Democratic areas. In 2020, of the 10 states that have the highest murder rates, eight consistently vote for Republican presidential candidates. For example, conservative Mississippi and Louisiana are at this writing ranked #1 and #2 in firearms mortality. Overall, conservative states have been more dangerous and crime-ridden than blue states. Yet Trump only threatened to occupy cities in states that voted for Biden. Does that make sense? It is that paradox that Pritzker addressed by comparing and contrasting. 

That is how Pritzker dispelled Trump’s pretense that he was attacking crime. Instead, the numbers showed that Trump was on an anti-liberal state agenda. Compare and contrast! Once again, these figures of speech were not decoration: the figure of speech carried a persuasive idea. Once again, Pritzker’s figure of speech highlighted Trump’s threat to liberty, that “precious jewel.”


Turning the Tables

The most powerful of all debating tactics is to turn your opponent’s argument around. During the last presidential campaign, Republicans repeatedly (and dubiously) accused President Biden and other Democrats of defunding the police.

Countering this in a bold stroke, Pritzker cited facts to show that it was Trump, not the Democrats, who cut police funding. In a lengthy section, Pritzker cited several ways that Republicans have downgraded law enforcement:

“If Donald Trump was actually serious about fighting crime in cities like Chicago, he, along with his congressional Republicans, would not be cutting over $800 million in public safety and crime prevention grants nationally, including cutting $158 million in funding to Illinois for violence prevention programs that deploy trained outreach workers to deescalate conflict on our streets. Cutting $71 million in law enforcement grants to Illinois, direct money for police departments through programs like Project Safe Neighborhoods, the state and local Antiterrorism Training Program, and the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative, cutting $137 million in child protection measures in Illinois that protect our kids against abuse and neglect.”  [Italics added]

Pritzker’s opening phrase “If Donald Trump” attacks Trump’s honesty. If is a powerful word; it makes us think. I hope that, by this point, the reader noticed the linguistic power of saying “cutting” over and over. Repetition has a power of its own, like the repeated blows that nail two boards together. Indeed, nailing down his argument, Pritzker then mocked the Republican Party’s talking point:

“Trump is defunding the police.”

Wielding Trump’s own phrase against him! So, now, who is on the side of law and order? By Pritzker’s argument, it certainly is not Trump. Turning the Tables regularly works, simply because the speaker uses the other side’s argument against them. Other than blustering, how could Trump respond? Could Trump suddenly say that it is good to defund the police? Not likely. 

Thesis and Antithesis

If we want to contrast two opposing philosophies, if we want to establish a moral opposition, we state a point and then its opposite. Thus, Pritzker specifically rejected Trump’s clarion call:

“Earlier today in the Oval Office, Donald Trump looked at the assembled cameras and asked for me personally to say, ‘Mr. President, can you do us the honor of protecting our city?’ Instead, I say, ‘Mr. President, do not come to Chicago.’”

Thesis: Trump requested an invitation to Chicago. 

Antithesis: Pritzker said, “do not come to Chicago.” 

The contrast clarified the conflict. 


Conclusion

Throughout this speech, a speech that history should preserve, Pritzker stood for freedom against tyranny. Pritzker’s parallel language piled Trump’s moral failings one on top of the next. His comparison and contrast highlighted the conflict between Trump’s pretend values and true motivations.

Pritzker’s rhetorical figures were neither beautiful nor inspiring. He didn’t talk like Abraham Lincoln or Daniel Webster. He talked like a fighter. Pritzker’s figures of speech linked his arguments the way a prizefighter links one-two punches. Pritzker’s invective invited his audience to condemn politicians who subvert their own values to serve an overlord. He scraped raw the difference between Trump’s actions and the goals that Trump only pretended to uphold. Overall, Pritzker’s rhetorical figures uncovered Trump’s hypocrisy and attacked his policy’s ethical failings. Pritzker’s rhetorical figures did not elevate his speech by lifting the soul or thrilling the heart. Instead, the figures elevated Pritzker’s speech by forcing us to think. By forcing us to face hard truths. It isn’t just what a speaker says: it is also how the speaker says it. 

by William D. Harpine

_________________

Research Note:

Over the centuries, rhetoricians have cataloged literally hundreds of rhetorical figures and tropes. Stanford University Professor Jonah Willihanganz has collected a nice summary of some of them. 

Of course, Patrick Henry’s wonderful metaphor of liberty as a “precious jewel” may be the most powerful figure that I mentioned in this essay! 

Ironically, Patrick Henry called liberty a precious jewel precisely because he opposed adopting our Constitution, fearing that the president would one day become a king. Did he have a point, after all? What do you think? “Will the abandonment,” Henry asked, “of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else.”

Several philosophers have commented on the ways that language expresses and influences the way we think. One of the most readable works on that theme is Suzanne K. Langer, Philosophy in a New Key.

Are you interested in Illinois politics? You might be interested in my otherwise unpublished paper, “A Cog in the Machine? Mike Howlett's Image in the 1976 Campaign for Governor of Illinois.” 

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of JB Pritzker, Maryland GovPics, Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

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

Hiroshima Peace Dome

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

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

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

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

In his speech, Truman called the atomic bomb:

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

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

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

Thus, Truman highlighted science’s power:

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

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

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

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

Harry Truman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

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

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

Eleanor Roosevelt's Speech about the Struggle for Freedom

Eleanor Roosevelt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Children studying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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

by William D. Harpine

__________________

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright ©2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Eleanor Roosevelt: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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

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

John Denver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was, Denver insisted:

Rocky Mountains

“Obviously a clear case of misinterpretation.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another speech at the same hearing!

Frank Zappa Delivered Shock Rock to a Senate Committee

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

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

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

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

Frank Zappa Delivered Shock Rock to a Senate Committee

Nazi Book Burning

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Ladies, how dare you.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harrison Ford's Climate Speech Used Language and Voice Skillfully

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

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

by William D, Harpine

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

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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

President Lula, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by William D. Harpine  

___________

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

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

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

via Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons license