Kamala Harris Said Trump Admired Hitler. Do Voters Care?

Kamala Harris

Wise speakers adapt to their audience: their listeners’ values, goals, fears, and ambitions. Effective public speaking begins with the audience. Always. Public speaking teachers have taught that for, literally, millennia. Why don’t politicians figure it out? Why doesn’t Kamala Harris figure it out?

Unfortunately, we see Kamala Harris repeating Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign mistakes. As we should recall, Clinton spent much of her campaign pointing out Trump’s association with and appeal to evil people. For example, she ran advertisements linking Trump’s agenda to the Ku Klux Klan’s agenda. That was pointless. Donald Trump’s supporters had long since made peace with the man’s deep moral flaws. After all, they had heard the Billy Bush tape, where Trump boasted about committing sexual assault: “I moved on her like a bi--h.” They knew that Trump’s crowd had chanted, “Hail, Trump” while flashing Nazi salutes. 

Clinton’s advertising campaign proved that Trump was evil. His supporters already knew that. Did they care?

Along the same lines as Hillary Clinton, at an October 24, 2024 campaign event in Clarkston, Georgia, Kamala Harris made a valid point that embodied a rhetorical mistake. She complained about Trump’s alleged admiration for Adolf Hitler. She said:

“In fact, just this week, America heard from John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, who was Trump’s White House chief of staff, who said that, as president, Trump praised Hitler — take a moment to think about what that means — that Trump said, quote, ‘Hitler did some good things’ —

“AUDIENCE: Booo —

“THE VICE PRESIDENT: — and that Trump wished he had generals like Hitler’s, who would be loyal to Trump and not to America’s Constitution.”

Although I do not have a particularly high opinion of John Kelly, I do trust him to tell the truth on matters like this. But what political difference do his claims make? Not much. That is because conservative voters have quit agonizing about Trump’s moral flaws.

John Kelly's Speech about Frederica Wilson: How to Lose Credibility, and Fast


The social sciences help us understand why. Linguist George Lakoff explains that liberal voters gravitate toward candidates who express a “nurturing mother” metaphor, while conservative voters are looking for a “strong father.” Candidates like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, or (although male) Joe Biden offered their supporters a nurturing mother metaphor: they offered a nation of justice, support, and goodness. Those qualities do not dominate conservative thinking.

Instead, Donald Trump offers power. He does not talk about bringing justice to immigrants: he talks about expelling them. He does not talk about fixing the immigration system; he talks about closing the border. He does not talk about reforming government; he talks about ripping it up. He calls the United States government “the Deep State.” That does not mean that all conservative voters prefer evil and disorder. That would not be true. What is true is that conservative voters want their leaders to protect them from real and imaginary dangers. That is why voters in North Dakota, more than a thousand miles from the Mexican border, treat immigration as issue number one.

So, Kamala Harris made Trump’s seeming admiration for Hitler into a central campaign point. Core Democratic voters, obviously, are offended. Conservatives, in contrast, ask, “so what?”

Do you want proof? According to recent polls, General Kelly’s revelations seem to have made little difference in this closely contested election. Some of Trump’s supporters, no doubt, think that a new Hitler would be great. The bulk of Trump’s supporters have found ways to rationalize Trump’s anti-American views, and there we are.

Trump’s voters simply rationalize his wickedness. That is why Kamala Harris cannot budge them by reminding them that Trump spreads evil ideas. They already know that. They have known that for years. “I’m not voting for a preacher,” they say, over and over, like a mantra. They complain that Kelly is a traitor, or that Democrats are big meanies. They can then swallow hard and accept that Trump admires Hitler.

What Trump’s supporters could never accept, however, would be that Trump is weak. (Do you remember when his crowd booed as Trump recommended vaccination?) If Harris wants to budge shaky Trump supporters, she needs to talk about his whining and equivocating. She needs to point out Trump’s weaknesses: his terrible presidential record on the economy, his griping about the election, his fear of electric boat batteries, and so forth. Those things show Trump to be weak. Trump’s supporters might care about those things.


Does Donald Trump Lead His Supporters, or Do His Supporters Lead Him? Oops, He Asked Them to Take a Vaccine.


People who value social justice already support Harris. People who fear Hitler’s reincarnation already support Harris. If she wants to pick up undecided voters, or to sway any of Trump’s less committed, supporters, Harris needs to focus on what they care about. What they care about is strength. And weak leaders terrify them. It is pointless for her to tell undecided voters that Trump is evil. She needs to show them that Trump is weak.

If a speaker wants to persuade people, it’s time to identify what the audience cares about. Nothing else matters.

The First Trump-Biden Debate: Do Coronavirus Masks Show Weakness?

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

by William D. Harpine

____________

PS: Is Trump another Hitler? Of course not. Hitler wrote his own book.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

The First Biden-Trump Debate: Power, or Nurturance?

Donald Trump

During the first Joe Biden – Donald Trump presidential debate of 2024, Trump said that Biden was weak:

“He opened the borders nobody’s ever seen anything like.”

Later, Trump, who was nearing 78 years of age, volunteered that:

“I think I’m a very good shape. I feel that I’m in as good a shape as I was 25, 30 years ago.”

That is, Trump promised to be strong, while he said Biden was weak.

In contrast, Biden promised to be compassionate and caring:

“I’m going to make sure we have childcare. We’re going to significantly increase the credit people have for childcare. I’m going to make sure we do something about what we’re doing on lead pipes and all the things that are causing health problems for people across the country.”

Joe Biden

As never before, this 2024 debate displayed the two candidates’ moral character. Their words displayed their goals. Political debates are not about facts: political debates are about values. Linguist George Lakoff says that conservatives and liberals prefer distinct kinds of leaders. Conservatives seek what Lakoff calls a “strong father.” Liberals, however, want a “nurturing mother.” The June 27, 2024 debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden offered voters that exact choice. Trump told more lies than a carnival barker (no offense to barkers!), while Biden tried to show that he cared about Americans. That was the debate’s essence.


Trump, the Strong President?

For example, talking about the border policy, Trump highlighted his strength versus Biden’s weakness:

“And he didn’t need legislation because I didn’t have legislation. I said, close the border. We had the safest border in history. In that final couple of months of my presidency, we had, according to Border Patrol – who is great, and, by the way, who endorsed me for president. But I won’t say that. But they endorsed me for president.

“Brandon, just speak to him.

“But, look, we had the safest border in history. Now we have the worst border in history. There’s never been anything like it. And people are dying all over the place, including the people that are coming up in caravans.” [Italics added]

The name “Brandon” has, for inexplicable reasons, become conservatives’ insulting nickname for Joe Biden. Insult aside, Trump’s historical comment was false. My grandparents simply got off the boat in 1906 and made their case at Ellis Island. Indeed, for most of the 19th Century, the United States had no controls restricting white immigrants, and immigration controls were minimal in the early 20th Century – but facts are never Trump’s selling point. His selling point was strength. Trump sought to contrast his strength versus Biden’s purported weakness.

Nor did Trump offer details. Did he really close the border? I live near the border. I saw nothing of the kind. Is the border wide open today? Again, no. A fact check on NBC News noted that the Trump administration oversaw a massive influx of undocumented immigrants:

“In 2019, the last year before the Covid-19 pandemic brought down border crossings, there were roughly 860,000 illegal border crossings, far more than in any year during the Obama administration.”

Unfortunately, Trump never intended to give facts. Fear erases facts. Trump’s approach was simple and stark: fear (fear of immigrants) – protection (“close the border”) – more fear (“worst border in history”) – well, you get the point. Trump wanted us to think that he was a strong leader who protected the United States from hordes of immigrants. Biden, Trump said, opened the border to immigrant caravans, while Trump will close it again. It made no difference whether the things Trump said were real. He wasn’t talking about reality. He was talking about fear, strength, and protection.


Biden, the Nurturing President?

While Trump promised to protect the United States against fearsome hordes of immigrants, Biden boasted of positive internal improvements. These improvements did not necessarily protect people against external dangers, real or imaginary, but instead sought to improve the nation’s domestic policies. Biden talked about healthcare:

“We made sure that they [minority communities] have health insurance. We have covered with – the ACA has increased. I made sure that they’re $8,000 per person in the family to get written off in health care, but this guy wants to eliminate that. They tried 50 times. He wants to get rid of the ACA again, and they’re going to try again if they win.”

The threat against which Biden warned was not an external invasion, but rather that Trump would roll back healthcare benefits:

So, Biden gave the television audience a choice: elect the nurturing president who protected healthcare access, or the dangerous president who would callously roll healthcare back to the dark ages. Presenting another nurturing benefit, Biden discussed progress in jobs and hiring: 

“We provided thousands of millions of jobs for individuals who were involved in communities, including minority communities.”

Biden took extra credit when he said “we provided,” for the president himself did not provide “thousands of millions of jobs” to anyone. The fairer point would be that job opportunities improved under his leadership. Biden remarked that his policies protected minority communities, who are among the most vulnerable members of our society. I don’t know whether “thousands of millions” was hyperbole, or simply a bizarre math error. (“Thousands of millions” calculates to more people than inhabit the entire surface of the earth, and no American president has ever been that nurturing!)

 

Foreign Policy

The strong father versus nurturing mother metaphors broke out in an interesting way when the two candidates examined foreign policy. Biden emphasized that the United States’ security depends on our foreign alliances, especially from the protection that we receive from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Biden promoted strength through unity: 

“This is a guy who wants to get out of NATO. You’re going to stay in NATO or you’re going to pull out of NATO?

“The idea that we have – our strength lies in our alliances as well. It may be a big ocean, but we’re – (inaudible) able to avoid a war in Europe, a major war in Europe. What happens if, in fact, you have Putin continue to go into NATO? We have an Article Five agreement, attack on one is attack on all. You want to start the nuclear war he keeps talking about, go ahead, let Putin go in and control Ukraine and then move on to Poland and other places. See what happens then.

“He has no idea what the hell he’s talking about.” [italics added]

That is, does United States expect a single strong leader to protect our foreign policy? Or, like Biden, do we see strength in unity?

Trump took a quite different view about the United States’ foreign alliances. He boasted that he asserted strength even over our allies. He explained that he forced NATO members to increase their financial contributions, else he would refuse to support them against Russia:

“But the big thing I changed is they don’t want to pay. And the only reason that he can play games with NATO is because I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars. I said – and he’s right about this, I said, no, I’m not going to support NATO if you don’t pay. They asked me that question: Would you guard us against Russia? – at a very secret meeting of the 28 states at that time, nations at that time. And they (sic) said, no, if you don’t pay, I won’t do that. And you know what happened? Billions and billions of dollars came flowing in the next day and the next months.” [italics added]

Trump was laying out an uninformed fantasy (NATO countries do not pay us to protect them) although he did, indeed, get the NATO countries to increase investment in their own defense. Unfortunately, no one in the media or during the debate noted Trump’s inaccuracy. In any case, Trump didn’t care about accuracy. His goal was to show strength. Trump’s message was that he strong-armed our North Atlantic allies. Trump did not tell us that he was an expert: he told us that he was strong. He got things done. He, the strong father, wrestled our allies to the floor. Compared with that strength and power, the fact that Trump knew less about NATO than a well-versed high school student paled into insignificance.

Conclusion

I could go on, and at times the debate got so muddled it was hard to say what positions the two candidates advocated. The key point is that a conservative politician advances by convincing the voters that he or she will be a strong leader who protects them from threats. In contrast, a liberal politician tries to show that he or she will help people reach into their resources and improve their lives. A quick listen to video of the debate confirms the message: Trump was loud and forceful. Biden spoke quietly and often degenerated into details and picky facts of the sort that make voters’ brains glaze over. At times, Biden was so quiet that one could barely hear him. Maybe that carried the nurturing mother metaphor too far: Democrats might want to be nurtured, but they don’t want to be lullabied. 

When pundits complained that Trump lied constantly during the debate, they were right, but they missed the point. Trump’s core supporters don’t want facts. They want a strong leader to protect them. When pundits complained that Biden dwelled too much on data, well, they also missed the point. Social change requires attention to detail: no details, no policy! 

Overall, although this was a terrible debate on both sides, it did offer the American people a choice: pick a strong, forceful leader, or a leader who cares about them and wants to improve their lives. Judging from the polls, public opinion splits about equally between the two candidates, and that split arises precisely from Lakoff’s distinction. The American people might not face the best choice, but they have a clear one. They will not choose according to issues. The choice comes down to values: strength versus compassion.

Earlier Post:

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Both Suffered from Talking Points Disease When They Discussed Abortion in their Third 2016 Debate

Earlier post about this debate: 

Biden versus Trump, the June 27, 2024 Presidential Debate, a Study in Character

______________


P.S. The press has made much out of Biden’s ineffectual vocal delivery during this debate. Does that signify cognitive decline? Maybe (his appearance was disturbing), but I don’t necessarily see it. When I read the debate’s transcript, Biden made at least as much sense as Trump – maybe more. That’s not a high standard, but that is the choice the public faces. Biden delivered facts, many of which were true. He stated various specifics and punched out several childish but pointed barbs. I don’t see how a cognitively distressed man could have done that. Although I would still like to know more about Biden’s health, anyone who is concerned about Biden’s thinking ability on June 27 should put aside the video and read the debate transcript.

Preliminary polling suggest that Trump made a far more favorable impression during the debate than did Biden. Still, preliminary polls mean almost nothing (voters are nothing if not fickle), so let us not rush to judgment. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright ©  2024, William D.  Harpine

Images of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, official White House photos

Why Do Republicans Praise Vladimir Putin in Their Speeches?

Map of Ukraine

Why are Republican leaders so fascinated by Russian President Vladimir Putin? In this post, I look at Republicans’ own words from their own speeches. What have they said about Putin – openly, and publicly – and, as I said, in their own speeches? (I am not looking at what the mainstream media says about the Republicans, nor am I reading between the lines. I’m looking at their exact words.) And what we find is that certain powerful Republicans have long praised Putin in odd and yet compelling ways. They do not talk about Putin’s moral goodness – how could they? Instead, they praise him as strong and clever. Maybe they mean “crafty” rather than clever. That, in turn, tells us something about the difference between conservatives and liberals. Linguist George Lakoff explains that liberal rhetoric tends to work with what he calls “nurturing mother” metaphors, while conservative rhetoric more often speaks in what he calls “strong father” metaphors. I’m sure that sounds sexist. All the same, Lakoff shows us that conservatives seek forceful leadership, while liberals prefer leaders who will care about them and try to do the right thing. Are conservatives wise to think that strong leaders will protect them? Well, no, and I will write about that at the end.

So, to be clear, Republicans never say that Putin is either a good man or wise leader. They often, however, admire his strength. Since conservatives feel safer if a strong man (rarely, if ever, do they mention a strong woman) protects them, they come to admire Putin. Unfortunately, Putin’s cruel invasion of Ukraine gave Republicans a moral dilemma of their own making. 


Putin Invaded Ukraine

On February 21, 2022, Putin ordered Russian troops to attack Ukraine, supposedly focusing on two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine. Russian troops attacked regions of eastern Ukraine on February 24, and soon assaulted the entire country.

This posed a political problem for Republican leaders, several of whom have long given Putin their close but uneasy admiration. In any case, as the war in Ukraine becomes increasingly brutal, many Republicans are backpedaling about Putin. Well, good for them, and better late than never.


Trump Admired Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine

Putin recognized the independence of Ukraine’s breakaway provinces on February 21, 2022. Former President Donald Trump promptly showed up on the right-wing Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. Trump said that Putin’s decision to annex parts of eastern Ukraine was “genius.” Commenting about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Trump said: 

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion ... of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent.”

Lest anyone think that Trump just tripped over his tongue, he also said:

“So, Putin is now saying, ‘It’s independent,’ a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s [the] strongest peace force.”

Trump continued that United States President Joe Biden should show the same kind of strength on the United States border with Mexico. Trump said about Putin:

“Here’s a guy who is very savvy. We could use that on our southern border.”

Strong, savvy, and a genius. That’s what Trump said about Putin. 

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 26, 2022, just five days later, Trump harshly criticized the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That was to be expected, since the invasion had become so brutal that for Trump to continue to support it would seem irrational. Consistency has never been his strong point. Trump nevertheless reiterated that Putin was “smart.” Trump continued to compare Putin’s supposed great talent against the supposed weakness of American leaders:

“The real problem is that our leaders are dumb. . . . [Putin] is playing Biden like a drum, and it’s not a pretty thing to watch.”

Trump’s Past Rhetoric about Putin

Trump’s effusive praise should surprise no one. As far back as 2015, Trump told broadcaster Bill O’Reilly that Putin was an exceptional leader:

“I will tell you that I think in terms of leadership, he is getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well.”

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump also said:

“We’re going to have a great relationship with Putin and Russia.”

Speaking at a campaign rally a few weeks later, Trump praised Putin as a “strong leader,” contrasting him against President Barack Obama. He also encouraged closer friendship with Putin’s Russia:

“I respect Putin. He is a strong leader, unlike what we have. We have a pathetic leader, pathetic. You don’t have a leader. The word ‘leader,’ you put leader in quotes. We don’t even have a leader. Wouldn’t it be nice to get along with Russia? Wouldn’t that be nice?”

Notice, of course, that Trump emphasized strength. He did not call Putin wise or good. He called him “strong.” The theme continues!

During another 2016 campaign rally, Trump was only slightly less gushing. He repeated that the United States should get along with Russia:

“Putin said Donald Trump is a genius and next great leader of the United States. They wanted me to disavow what he said. How do you call me a genius? How dare you call me a genius, Vladimir? Wouldn’t it be nice if we would get along with Russia?”

Trump was, however, back at full throttle during an Ohio campaign rally when he attacked Hillary Clinton for, of all things, being too tough on Putin:

“She speaks very badly of Putin, and I don’t think that’s smart.”

Trump continued:

“How do you speak so badly of someone?”

Going even farther, Trump continued to praise Putin in a September 2016 Town Hall:

“Well, he does have an 82 percent approval rating, according to the different pollsters, who, by the way, some of them are based right here. Look, look...”

Pressed by the moderator, Trump became even more effusive:

“If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him. I’ve already said, he is really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, oh, isn’t that a terrible thing -- the man has very strong control over a country.

“Now, it’s a very different system, and I don’t happen to like the system. But certainly, in that system, he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader.”

Again, Trump emphasized Putin’s strength – his power as a leader, his “very strong control over a country.” While disagreeing with Putin’s system of government, Trump admired Putin’s strength.

Okay, that’s enough about Trump. What have other American conservatives said about Putin?


Other Republican Leaders Praised Putin

Former Vice President Mike Pence has said various odd things about Putin. Like Trump, Pence contrasts Putin, as a supposedly strong leader, against Democrats, who he considers to be weak. During the 2016 campaign, Pence offered this remarkable comment about Putin:

“He’s been a leader far more than our president has been a leader.”

Isn’t Pence’s phrasing interesting? Pence neither praised nor criticized Putin’s political ideas or accomplishments. Instead, he focused on strength, as if strength should be a leader’s main, or only, quality.

Prominent Republicans continued to praise Putin as late as January and February 2022, with dark clouds of impending war already hanging over Ukraine. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo extolled Putin, while expressing hope that President Biden could be equally strong:

“He is a very talented statesman. He has lots of gifts. He was a KGB agent, for goodness sakes. He knows how to use power. We should respect that.”

“Power,” Pompeo said. “He knows how to use power.” It was Putin’s strength, not his wisdom, that Pompeo admired. Stunningly, the once-great National Review published an article trying to spin Pompeo’s comments as a warning, not as the fawning praise that they were. 

Most astonishing of all, Fox News host Tucker Carlson delivered a television monologue on the eve of the Russian invasion, savagely attacking Putin’s critics. Carlson compared Putin’s implied goodness against evil things that Carlson thinks liberals have been doing. He even implied that American public health restrictions were worse than what Putin was doing:

“What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my children to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity? Does he eat dogs?”

Carlson’s rant implied value judgments. In Carlson’s moral universe, pandemic restrictions sounded worse than a threatened invasion. In a loud, angry voice, Carlson continued:

“These are fair questions, and the answer to all of them is no. Vladimir Putin didn’t do any of that. So why does permanent Washington hate him so much?”

Carlson sneered that the impending Russian invasion was merely a “border dispute.” Predictably, Russian television made a big deal of Carlson’s pro-Putin comments. Of course, as Russia’s invasion became increasingly brutal, Carlson soon flip-flopped as if he had never made the above comments. Instead, only a few days later, he viciously criticized Putin:

“Vladimir Putin started this war. So, whatever the context of the decision that he made, he did it. He fired the first shots. He is to blame for what we are seeing tonight in Ukraine.”

Conservatives are nothing if not flexible.


It’s Not All Bleak

Republicans have not universally praised Putin. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example, recently criticized Putin in harsh terms. More pointedly, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that those of his fellow Republicans who supported Putin were nearly traitors. He condemned his fellow Republicans for shillyshallying in their attitudes toward Putin. Romney continued that some of his fellow Republicans were “almost treasonous:”

“Well, a lot of those people are changing their stripes as they’re seeing the response of the world and the political response here in the U.S. But how anybody in this country which loves freedom can side with Vladimir Putin — who is an oppressor, a dictator, he kills people. He imprisons his political opponents. He’s been an adversary of America at every chance he’s had. It’s unthinkable to me. It’s almost treasonous, and it just makes me ill to see some of these people do that. But of course, they do it because it’s shock value, and it will get them more eyeballs and make a little more money for them and their network. It’s disgusting. I’m hopeful you’re seeing some of those people recognize just how wrong they were.”

So, Romney gave the Republican Party a brief taste of patriotism.

What is strange about this is that Republican voters are not particularly pro-Putin. In a recent YouGov opinion poll, 88% of Biden voters had an unfavorable view of Putin, while 76% of Trump voters shared that unfavorable view. Only 5% of Biden voters had a favorable view of Putin, while 9% of Trump voters also had a favorable view of him. So, although Trump voters are slightly more favorable toward Putin than Biden voters, opposition to Putin was high in both groups. Whatever is going on with Republican politicians, they are not pandering to their base voters.


The Politics of Strength

How can we summarize this? First, I took all of this from Republican leaders’ own speeches and other spoken statements. I gave you their own words. Second, from former President Trump on down, many, although not all, prominent Republicans have frequently praised Vladimir Putin. They often compare Putin favorably against Democratic leaders. This praise arises from their perception that Putin is smart, manipulative, and, most of all, strong. Republican politicians are reluctant to endorse Putin’s policies, which they seem to separate from their admiration for him as an individual. Which matters to them more? Putin’s strength, which they admire, or his brutal policies, which they occasionally condemn? I’m not sure that they know the answer themselves.

What Republican leaders often show, however, is a yearning for a strong leader. If we think of a strong leader as decisive and wise, that’s one thing. When we think that strong leadership means to smash people under a tank’s treads, that’s something else. When people perceive danger – and conservatives perceive danger around every corner – they sometimes seek a strong person to defend them.

Do strong leaders keep us safe? If you want to know the answer, you might want to ask the ghosts of the 3.5 million people who died in Stalin’s pogroms, the 11 million murdered in Hitler’s concentration camps, or the untold millions who perished in Pol Pot’s Cambodia purges. You might ask Talat Paşa’s Armenian genocide victims. You might ask the victims of the massacres in Rwanda. Strong leaders typically wreak havoc. 

That’s not the exception. That is the norm. If you want to pretend to feel safe from enemies, real or imaginary, vote for tyrants. If you want to stay safe in real life, avoid leaders who boast of their strength as if they carry the plague. Let’s go back to the strong father metaphor. You might want a strong father, but you don’t need a cruel, tyrannical father. That isn’t true strength. A true father is loving, nurturing, and reliable. Not violent, unpredictable, and vicious.

And, no, I don’t think I misunderstand what Republicans mean when they talk about “strong leaders.” They have been quite emphatic. What they don’t understand is this: a true leader inspires people to be better than they already are. A true leader inspires a nation to go forward, not back into the past. Remember that.

And I convey my hope that the people of Ukraine, my maternal grandparents’ homeland, will soon enjoy peace and justice.

_______________

European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Why Didn’t Vladimir Putin Deny That He Had Compromising Information about President Trump?

_______________

Image: US Dept. of State