Donald Trump's 2020 RNC Acceptance Speech: American Carnage, Revisited?

In last night’s Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech, President Donald Trump described a political vision that he thinks will propel him to reelection. That vision had nothing to do with facts, but was something else entirely.

My two previous posts pointed out that speakers at the recently-concluded Republican National Convention said untrue things one after the other. Fact-checkers mainly complain when politicians speak falsely, and yet fact-checkers never seem to nudge public opinion. The Pulitzer-Prize winning website PolitiFact.com has so far examined 834 of Donald Trump’s statements, rating only 4% to be True, while 9% were Mostly True, 13% Half True, 20% Mostly False, 35% False (the largest category), and 15% Pants on Fire. That’s appalling.

Earlier Post: Do Republican National Convention Speakers Care About Fact Checkers?

Nevertheless, to the amazement of political pundits, Democratic voters, and many of my colleagues who study political communication, Donald Trump remains popular, and stands a reasonable chance of winning the upcoming presidential election. To understand that, we need to look at the vision that Trump presents, a vision that persuades many voters. Trump’s vision is not about facts or policy analysis. No, indeed, Trump’s vision, dark as it is, gives the United States a stark choice. He laid that vision out early in the lengthy speech:

“And this election will decide whether we will defend the American way of life or whether we will allow a radical movement to completely dismantle and destroy it. That won’t happen. At the Democrat National Convention, Joe Biden and his party repeatedly assailed America as a land of racial, economic and social injustice. So tonight, I ask you a simple question, how can the Democratic Party ask to lead our country when it spent so much time tearing down our country?”

What is going on here? 

First, the Threat of Destruction

That was a hostile paragraph. Trump said, “the Democrat National Convention,” when “Democratic National Convention” would be correct. Republicans, both on social media and in speeches, often say “Democrat Party” instead of “Democratic Party.” They presumably want to stress the “rat” sound at the end. Social media people often spell it “DemocRAT” just to make sure you get the point. Trump’s supporters would not overlook the dog whistle “Democrat National Convention.” 

But why would Trump think the Democrats are dangerous? By definition, conservatives want to keep things the same. Trump warned that, not only do Democrats want to change the nation, but they want to “dismantle and destroy it.” 

Earlier Post: Donald Trump Said That MAGA Loves Black People, But Did He Mean It? 

Trump’s vision went beyond race, however. He warned apocalyptically that Democrats intended to take people’s guns, abolish the police, and spread violence through our cities. None of that passes fact-checking, but that is not Trump’s point.


Second, the Fear of Criticism

It’s not that conservatives fear being criticized; instead conservative philosophy requires people to think about criticism in a different way than liberals. By definition, liberals find parts of society that can be improved and urge changes. Conservatives don’t want to change. If they wanted to change, they would be liberals.

Still, in the wake of several police shootings of African-Americans, Democrats are calling for increased racial justice. When they say this, however, they either say or imply that we don’t have racial justice now. That is a criticism, and if the criticism is true, all decent people should want to change. Conservatives think of themselves as decent, so what’s the problem?

That leads us to the second half of Trump’s paragraph: “At the Democrat National Convention, Joe Biden and his party repeatedly assailed America as a land of racial, economic and social injustice.” Faced with evidence of problems, the Democrats have called for the nation to do better. Trump, however, takes a different view. Democrats have – inexcusably, he thinks – criticized the United States.

In Trump’s vision, Democrats are unqualified to lead for the simple reason that they criticize the United States. So, that is why Trump’s paragraph ended this way: “how can the Democratic Party ask to lead our country when it spent so much time tearing down our country?” In Trump’s vision, no one who criticizes the United States is qualified to lead the United States. Loyalty, commitment, and devotion must be absolute and unquestioning. This creates a perfect conservative circle: liberals cannot fix our problems – cannot be allowed to fix our problems – because they say we have problems.

Trump, however, criticized the United States when he talked about “American carnage” in his 2016 Inaugural Address. Is that different? 

Earlier Post: Donald Trump’s Inaugural Address: American Carnage

 
Conclusion

Millions of Americans fear change, value stability, and mistrust minorities. Change is never easy and we can never predict its results. Better, Trump implied, is never to admit that injustices exist.

If my roof leaks, I have two choices: I can spend thousands of dollars to fix it, or I can rage against anyone who criticizes my roof. How dare they condemn my house! Spending thousands of dollars is unpleasant, and, if I ignore the leak, maybe it will go away by itself. Or not.

Many years ago, my wife took a job at a small, isolated Virginia town. As we walked around together after work, a child rode up to us on a bicycle and asked, “Are you all moving in new?” We said no. He said “good” and bicycled away. Change disturbs some people.

Seriously, there are several questions. Have the nation’s problems become so bad that we need to change? Do protesters of the right and left wings offer rightful complaints? What compromises should we make, and where should we stand firm?

By the way, I have long believed that tradition has much to offer us. Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above and you can read some of my pro-tradition research. It is, however, a terrible risk when we cling to traditions that no longer work, or that have unjust effects. It would, I think, be better if President Trump did not offer such a stark choice. We do not really face a choice between “American carnage” on the one hand, and the unchanged status quo on the other. Surely there is middle ground where everyone would be better off. Are President Trump and his supporters willing to seek that middle ground? Time will tell, but it does not look promising.

At the same time, however, no one should underestimate the powerful vision that President Trump gave us in his Acceptance Speech. The press has decried Trump’s dark vision, but they overlook how important it is that he has a vision. They ignore how compelling his vision is to many Americans. 

As before, thanks to rev.com for preparing a verbatim transcript of Trump’s speech as he delivered it.

Image: Donald Trump, White House photo

Joe Biden's 2020 Acceptance Speech: Comforting, but Not Safe

Joe Biden

Joe Biden’s acceptance speech last night was comforting, almost parental, but he didn’t play it as safe as people thought he did. His pointed comments lay concealed under his gentle language and parental demeanor. 

Here are things he said that sounded parental

 Contrasting his character with Trump’s, Biden mildly said: 

“Character is on the ballot. Compassion is on the ballot. Decency, science, democracy.”

He expressed empathy for those who have heartache: 

“I know how it feels to lose someone you love. I know that deep black hole that opens up in your chest. That you feel your whole being is sucked into it. I know how mean and cruel and unfair life can be sometimes.”

And Biden promised to be a president for all Americans, not just his supporters, and this rather eloquent passage: 

“But while I will be a Democratic candidate, I will be an American president. I will work as hard for those who didn’t support me as I will for those who did. 

“That’s the job of a president. To represent all of us, not just our base or our party. This is not a partisan moment. This must be an American moment. 

“It’s a moment that calls for hope and light and love. Hope for our futures, light to see our way forward, and love for one another.”

  “Light and love.” Sounds good?

 

Here are things he said that did not play it safe

Despite his theme of “light and love,” which came from his opening quotation, Biden did not play it safe. Biden’s opening passage cited civil rights leader Ella Baker:

“Ella Baker, a giant of the civil rights movement, left us with this wisdom: ‘Give people light and they will find a way.’

“Give people light. 

“Those are words for our time.”

 With issues like the Voting Rights Act and George Floyd’s death in the news, civil rights have become controversial again. And that is where Biden started his speech. People notice a speech’s beginning and end. Biden began by talking about a woman civil rights leader. He quoted her about “light,” which is parental and comforting, but civil rights is an issue. His next section attacked President Trump, combined with an appeal to unity:

Only then did he speak for unity:

“Here and now, I give you my word: If you entrust me with the presidency, I will draw on the best of us not the worst. I will be an ally of the light not of the darkness. 

“It’s time for us, for We the People, to come together. 

“The current president has cloaked America in darkness for much too long. Too much anger. Too much fear. Too much division.”

Yes, that was an appeal for unity, but it had a bite: “Too much fear. Too much division.” It was attack unity, not Kum ba ya unity. 

Biden also talked about the coronavirus epidemic, pointing out that the United States has been harder hit than other major nations, attacked President Trump because he “refuses to lead,” defended the Affordable Care Act, and stated policies to make things better.

Conclusion

President Trump calls his opponent “Sleepy Joe Biden.” Last night's speech, however, was sharp and crisply delivered. Trump can continue to spew out his infantile insults, but they are now going to be less credible.

Biden reassured listeners with a calming intent, but, against expectations, he did not play it safe. From the beginning, he tried himself to traditional Democratic party coalitions, including African-Americans and women, while he attacked President Donald Trump. Still, he talked about national unity and harmony. Although he read a text, Biden spoke in a conversation style that eludes many political speakers. He projected a calm, confident manner that contrasted with Donald Trump’s in-your-face delivery style. In short, he gave the American voters a choice between two styles of presidencies. 

Image: Official VP Portrait

Kamala Harris Acceptance Speech at the Virtual DNC Convention: Breaking Ground with Caution

Kamala Harris

As much as anything, I think that Kamala Harris did not want to give a memorable speech last night. Instead, she gave a safe speech. 

Kamala Harris’ speech at the virtual Democratic National Convention broke ground because of who she was. Her presence was dramatic in itself. After all, she is the first minority woman nominated by a major party to be Vice President of the United States. Harris’ presentation was scripted, cautious, and accessible. The Democrats’ convention goal seems to be to show that they are the sober, careful party that can heal the nation and restore order. Harris reached out to all Americans, while, at the same time, touching base with the traditional Democratic Party  voters.

Harris' Theme

Harris’ theme was “equality, liberty, and justice for all.” Her point was to include everyone. The American flags arrayed behind her reinforced that she was taking heart from those Jeffersonian values. She stated that thesis right off:

“That I am here tonight is a testament to the dedication of generations before me. Women and men who believed so fiercely in the promise of equality, liberty, and justice for all.”  

She started talking about women voters, especially Black women voters. She jumped into the the 19^th  Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote: 

“This week marks the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment. And we celebrate the women who fought for that right.

"Yet so many of the Black women who helped secure that victory were still prohibited from voting, long after its ratification.

"But they were undeterred.

"Without fanfare or recognition, they organized, testified, rallied, marched, and fought—not just for their vote, but for a seat at the table. These women and the generations that followed worked to make democracy and opportunity real in the lives of all of us who followed.” 

Harris then mentioned several female heroes of the Civil Rights movement: “Mary Church Terrell and Mary McCleod Bethune. Fannie Lou Hamer and Diane Nash. Constance Baker Motley and Shirley Chisholm.”

Harris told inspiring family stories and mentioned her South Asian heritage. This was important in two ways: first, she noted the historic fact of her nomination, while, at the same time, she headed off the ongoing racist smears about her ethnic background. 

Continuing the theme of inclusiveness, she noted “structural racism,”  which she said caused these evils: 

“...inequities in education and technology, health care and housing, job security and transportation.

“The injustice in reproductive and maternal health care. In the excessive use of force by police. And in our broader criminal justice system.

“This virus has no eyes, and yet it knows exactly how we see each other—and how we treat each other.

“And let's be clear—there is no vaccine for racism. We've gotta do the work.”

Calling racism “this virus,” she drew attention about the coronavirus without mentioning it. Harris also made an implied dig against President Trump’s sexual proclivities when she reviewed her career as a prosecuting attorney: 

“I've fought for children, and survivors of sexual assault. I've fought against transnational gangs. I took on the biggest banks, and helped take down one of the biggest for-profit colleges.

“I know a predator when I see one.”

 “Predator?” Oops. Can't miss that one. 

Harris repeatedly emphasized voting, for example:

“People of all ages and colors and creeds who are, yes, taking to the streets, and also persuading our family members, rallying our friends, organizing our neighbors, and getting out the vote.

“And we've shown that, when we vote, we expand access to health care, expand access to the ballot box, and ensure that more working families can make a decent living.” 

She was right about that. The ballot box is what matters in our political system.

Language Style 

First, unlike the intellectual speeches we heard from Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Harris’ carefully-scripted speech was accessible. Her speech ran between the sixth and seventh grade level on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level measurement. Since not all voters are highly educated, Harris and her speechwriters were wise to tone down the big words. 

Earlier Post: Did Bernie Sanders Talk over People's Heads at the 2020 Democratic Convention?

Second, although Harris’ speech was more readable than Sanders’, it was not totally listenable. The text still reads like an essay, not like a speech in oral style. Although Harris' rich, pleasant voice was expressive and personable, it was still obvious that she was reading. Some speakers can read a speech and sound conversational. Harris isn’t good at that. 

Consider, for example, this stilted sentence from her speech: 

“That's the vision that our parents and grandparents fought for. The vision that made my own life possible. The vision that makes the American promise—for all its complexities and imperfections—a promise worth fighting for.” 

Does anyone talk like that? Of course not. Does anyone, even in a formal meeting, say things like “for all its complexities and imperfections – a promise worth fighting for?” You know that they don’t. No one does. That’s written style, not oral style. The sentence twists too many ways to sound good out loud. 

Finally – and here comes one of my pet peeves – no one should ever begin a public speech by saying something so trite as, “It is truly an honor to be speaking with you.” Stale. Overused. Wordy. Hackneyed. If, heaven forbid, I were ever to run for public office, I would fire any speechwriter who wrote something like, “It is truly an honor…” Ny friend and colleague, Professor David Ritchey, said that when you use an adverb, the reason is that you’re using the wrong verb.  Furthermore, “truly” is one of the English language’s worst adverbs. It sounds fine in the King James Bible, but nowhere else. If you want to say something true, just say it. Don’t remind people that it’s true by saying "truly." Good speakers always choose the opening sentence with care, and no careful speaker should start by saying, “It is truly . . .”  

In other words, as my high school music teacher said, you need to begin and end well. The audience won’t care if you mess up in the middle, but they do notice a bad beginning or ending. 

To give her credit, Harris' ending gave a dramatic call to action. She said that actions count more than words:

"And we will tell them. We will tell them, not just how we felt.

"We will tell them what we did."

Conclusion

Kamala Harris’ acceptance speech reached out to a broad group of Democratic voters, encouraged people to vote, and attacked Donald Trump. She mostly tried not to be polarizing. Although her personable delivery helped, her speech was stilted, which is bad, but safe and inclusive, which is what she wanted. 

Presidential nominee Joe Biden speaks tonight. His job is to be safe and memorable. Let's see what happens! 

Image: US Senate photo