July 10, 2009: The Day When Hecklers Destroyed the Old Republican Party

Mike Castle

The Republican Party of old died on July 10, 2009, when Republican Congressional Representative Mike Castle made a routine campaign stop to speak to a group of elderly voters in Delaware. Castle was running for the United States Senate in a special election. A perfectly standard, old-school Republican, Castle came to discuss his usual platitudes. He then offered to answer questions. A woman in red raised her hand to ask Castle about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. She shouted:

“I want to know. I have a birth certificate here from the United States of America saying I’m an American citizen, with a seal on it, signed by doctor, with the hospital administrator’s name, my parents, my date of birth, the time and date. I’m gonna get back to January 20th and I want to know, why are you people ignoring his birth certificate?”

A heckler yelled, “Yeah!” The crowd clapped and cheered. A heckler screamed, “he was born in Kenya.”

The woman in red said that her father was a World War II veteran, a member of “the greatest generation.” She shrieked, “I want my country back.” More cheers and applause.

Looking as if his eyes were glazed over by car lights, Castle calmly commented:

“He is a citizen of the United States. You’re referring to the president there, he is a...”

Well, that was the end of that. The crowd stood, almost as a body, and loudly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Castle checked his watch and tried to move on to another questioner.

Someone soon posted a grainy cell phone video of the event on the Internet. The video went viral. Castle subsequently lost the Republican primary to an ill-equipped opponent, who in turn lost the general election.

Evidently, various Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories had been circulating on talk radio, conservative television, and the Internet for weeks before Castle’s speech. The elderly, apparently all-white crowd had obviously absorbed the conspiracy theory’s every bizarre detail. In contrast, Castle had, as far as I can tell, never heard of the nonsense. In more general terms, Castle discovered that day that rational discourse has no standing in a speech community that is ruled by unreason.

The birth certificate conspiracy theory did not prevent Barack Obama from being reelected in 2012. Nevertheless, Mike Castle’s explosive experience demonstrated the stunning extent to which unfounded beliefs, many of them conspiratorial and racist, have come to dominate the Republican Party. Donald Trump’s 2016 election was driven largely by denying that Obama was born in the United States. Since then, conspiracy theorists have defeated basic public health measures, called climate change a myth, and warned of the supposed Great Replacement of white people. The unfounded belief that Democrats stole the 2020 election was a predictable outgrowth. The nation’s real problems are increasingly ignored as millions of voters drown themselves in a sea of absurdity.

Never Humiliate Your Opponent: Obama Ridiculed Trump's Conspiracy Theory

Castle never had a chance. The crowd drowned out his response. They interrupted him by shouting, clapping, and bellowing the Pledge of Allegiance. Political discourse gave way to rude, boorish heckling. Castle’s timid attempt to introduce reality into his campaign appearance met, not only denial, but derision and disrespect. His crowd listened to only one perspective: a perspective founded entirely on lies. 

Castle’s appearance before what should have been a friendly crowd at a seemingly innocuous event marked a pivotal rhetorical shift. On that sad day, the Republican Party’s discussion of genuine issues gave way to conspiracy theories. The party shows no sign of recovery. Mike Castle’s political destruction at the hands of conspiracy theorists taught Republican politicians a lesson that they have not forgotten: reality no longer wins conservative hearts. After all, politicians are simple creatures who only want to win elections. Furthermore, the birth certificate conspiracy theory, the origin of all present-day conservative conspiracy theories, did not represent just one political smear. On July 10, 2009, Republican politicians learned to bow down to their party’s most despicable elements. Since that day, they face a harsh choice: support the conspiracy theorists, or face absolutely certain electoral defeat. Mike Castle’s disastrous campaign appearance ended Republican politicians’ willingness to embrace the truth. Heaven help us.

Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

"OK, Boomer:" Chlöe Swarbrick Teaches Us How to Put a Heckler Down Flat

_________________

P.S. The origin of the birth certificate conspiracy theory is that Hawaii, like many other states, has computerized its vital records to improve efficiency and security. FactCheck.org examined Obama’s birth certificate in August 2008. They concluded:

“FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as ‘supporting documents’ to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”

Hawaii’s Director of Public Health and Governor both personally inspected Obama’s birth records and found that they were correct. Hawaiian newspapers had published a report of Barack Obama’s birth the next day. The birth certificate conspiracy theory lacks even the remotest merit. 

All the same, while truth desperately grasps for a tenuous foothold, birth certificate conspiracy theories continued to circulate as late as 2023.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: U.S. House of Representatives, via Wikipedia

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

Cancel Culture Gone Amok: Governor Brian Kemp Was Shouted Down by His Own People

Gov. Brian Kemp, Official Photo

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a conservative Republican, was almost booed off the stage when he spoke yesterday at the Georgia Republican Party’s state convention, held at a resort on one of the state’s beautiful coastal islands.

He was booed by his own people. This signifies a radical turn toward increasing political polarization. Polarization means that you have fewer supporters, but your supporters are more fanatical. Absolute loyalty to Trump is becoming a Republican Party requirement. 

I have written earlier about terrible instances in which conservative rabble-rousers have chased liberal speakers off the stage, or liberals have shouted conservative speakers off the stage. What happened yesterday was different. Brian Kemp is a radical conservative whose policy positions should satisfy anyone who opposes abortion, government-financed health care, or basic pandemic precautions. Indeed, he got his biggest cheers when he reminded the audience that Georgia was the first state to reopen during the pandemic.

Earlier Post: Liberals Shouted Down Milo Yiannopoulos

Earlier Post: Milo Yiannopoulos Helped to Shout Down a Liberal Speaker

Kemp, however, made one enormous political mistake. He honestly certified the obviously accurate election results that gave Georgia’s electoral votes to Joe Biden. We all know that former President Donald Trump and his supporters have constantly and wrongly accused Georgia of mis-counting the votes. Trump’s false claim that he won the election has become the test for loyal Republicans across the country. 

During his speech, Kemp reminded his noisy audience about Georgia’s restrictive abortion laws. “We passed heartbeat legislation,” he explained. But a heckler immediately shouted, “Boo! What about the voting machines?” He reminded the crowd that he opposed critical race theory and vaccine passports. That kind of ignorance should have pleased them. Apparently it didn’t.

Kemp’s failure – his inability even to be heard at his own convention – tells us several things about Georgia’s Republican leadership:

First, it’s not all about the issues. Kemp reminded the crowd that he was rabidly conservative on every possible issue. So what? It seems that, to many in the Georgia Republican Party’s leadership today, it is all about Trump – and nothing else. If you are not 100% pro-Trump, nothing else matters.

Second, the Republican Party is becoming a house divided, a party polarized within itself. It’s not just that Republicans are polarized against Democrats. Moderate Republicans are polarized from conservative Republicans. Republicans like Kemp, who are conservative but even marginally honest, are polarized from Trump Republicans. For example, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who is running for re-election, wasn't even invited to the convention. Instead, appallingly, the convention censured him for certifying the 2020 election. 

The people who attended the Republican state convention were, pretty much by definition, the most dedicated party loyalists. They were not necessarily typical of all Republican voters. They were, however, the leadership. Photographs and video showed that the crowd was almost all-white and coronavirus masks were nowhere to be seen. And, although the audience included many Kemp supporters, they could not control the pro-Trump fanatics.

Earlier Post: Trump and the Maskless Crowd  

It didn't help that Trump has been roundly condemning Kemp every chance he gets. Some conventioneers cheered Kemp even as others booed him. Will Kemp's political career survive the onslaught? Time will tell. 

Polarization is a standard tactic of radical rhetoric. The idea is that you will have fewer supporters, but your supporters will be more dedicated. As the Republican Party systematically expels all but its most radical members, it also shrinks its voting base. Thus, it might lose any honest election. The booing crowd’s entire point was that they didn’t want an honest election. They seemed to feel that it was the governor’s job to certify a Trump victory regardless of the actual votes. Kemp explained to the crowd that the law and the Constitution required him to certify the votes. That misses the point. The conventioneers who booed Kemp showed no concern about either the law or the Constitution.

A polarized minority of the electorate cannot persuade a majority of the voters. However, many in the crowd rejected Kemp because their main goal, at this point, was to prevent honest election counting. And that, dear readers, is how a polarized minority can win elections.

No one can dispute Kemp’s conservative credentials. His conservative credentials made no difference. The anti-Kemp crowd at Jekyll Island wasn’t thinking about issues. They were thinking about power.


Earlier Post: Trump's Polarizing Rally in Kentucky: It's All About Getting People to Vote 


Technical note: the best source for people who want to understand radical rhetoric is still The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control by Bowers, Ochs, and Schulz. 

Chapter 4 of my book about the 1896 presidential campaign shows how the Democratic candidate's radical rhetoric helped him win the nomination but doomed him in the general election. Could the same happen to Republicans in upcoming elections? I would not be surprised. 

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

Liz Cheney, US Congress

Never take freedom for granted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read: Senator Jeff Flake Spoke against Trump's Falsehoods

Read: Reagan versus Trump, Unifier versus Divider

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

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

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



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

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

The Golden Trump at CPAC 2021: Why Is the Christian Right Silent?

Sometimes, it’s what you do not say that matters most. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was once a simple event where conservative pseudo-intellectuals gathered to spout ill-conceived ideologies. In 2021, it transformed into a quasi-religious celebration of Donald Trump. At the conference’s outset, an artist wheeled in a golden statue of Trump, wearing red, white and blue shorts and waving a magic wand. The Christian evangelical leaders, who supported Trump so strongly throughout his political career, still remain silent. No word of protest from them. Their silence, I think, sends a message: a message that they have sold their Christianity to a false god. They are so quick to condemn the tiniest religious slight from liberals, but not a word about the Golden Trump? How remarkable.

About 80% of white Christian evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and they continue to provide his most reliable support. Yet, we read in the Bible that, during the Exodus, while Moses was on Mount Sinai collecting the 10 Commandments, the prophet Aaron commanded the people to melt their gold jewelry to create a calf statue. They held a festival for the golden god they made, “and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.” When Moses saw the calf, he destroyed it and a murderous civil war broke out among the people. All things considered, the golden calf didn’t go well.

This wouldn’t be so striking except that political cartoonists have for years mocked white evangelical Trump supporters for worshiping the golden calf. Most famously, Los Angeles Times artist David Horsey’s 2017 cartoon shows Moses descending from the mountain, carrying two stone tablets covered with Bible verses, while the people worship a golden bull bearing Trump’s face. The people pointed to the tablets and shouted, “Fake News!” At the time, we all thought his cartoon was a bizarre exaggeration. Little did we know that it would come true at CPAC in 2021.

Rhetoric of Silence: What You Don't Say Matters - The Minnesota Mosque Bombing

Yet, Trump’s leading evangelical supporters stun us with their silence. Reverend Franklin Graham has not only offered Trump unyielding support, but once compared Barack Obama to the Christian-oppressing Roman emperor Nero. Yet, I see no sign that Graham has condemned the Golden Trump statue. He has, however, found time to condemn equal rights for LGBT persons, which he thinks would “discriminate against people of faith.” Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress has been one of Trump’s strongest supporters. Yet, even as the Golden Trump rolled out, Jeffress wrote that he would support the most anti-abortion party, while political issues like immigration were “secondary.” I find not one word from him about the Golden Trump.

Nor have Reverend Paula White’s views about the Golden Trump appeared. Not a word, indeed, as far as I can see, from any of the top Christian evangelical leaders who have boosted Trump. Nothing in the news, and nothing in their Twitter feeds. Even if the Golden Trump failed to trouble them, maybe they could have seen the magic wand as a blasphemy against their religion.

Donald Trump at the Values Voters Conference: Defender of the Faith?

Liberal Christians’ ridicule of the Golden Trump spreads across social media, with one Twitter user sarcastically commenting that, “If only there were some sacred text, one most people at CPAC claim allegiance to, that very explicitly warns against making golden idols.”

Often enough, what we don’t say matters more than what we do say. Silence is always ambiguous. Its meaning is never clear. Are these supposedly Christian leaders silent because they are not paying attention? Unlikely. Are they silent because they are appalled, but their political ambitions override their moral awareness? Possibly. Or, maybe, could it be that they lack any moral awareness at all? That would not surprise me. I don’t suppose we will ever know.

Still, the Golden Trump statue cries out for religious commentary, and yet we are not hearing it from the people who should be shouting about it the loudest. At this point, we run into the common law principle: “silence gives consent.” Are the Christian Right’s leaders on board with the Golden Trump? Sometimes it is good to be silent. Sometimes silence should alarm us.



P.S. Despite Trump’s America First philosophy, artist Tommy Zegan made the statue in Mexico. It took him six months.

P.P.S. I find it hard to believe that people like Reverend Jeffress read the same Bible I do. Otherwise, how does one call immigration, a subject on which the Bible repeatedly emphasizes a liberal and tolerant attitude, a “secondary” question? Yet these same people find abortion, on which the Bible is silent, to be central to the faith. To each their own, I guess, not my place to judge them. Yet the Bible teaches, “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).

P.P.S. I wrote an existentialist analysis of the rhetoric of silence in Chapter 7 of my book about the 1896 presidential campaign. Interested readers can find the book in large research libraries or for purchase. My point was that, when speech is called for and yet is not forthcoming, the silence means something.

Update March 4, 2021: it's now reported that the statue was made in China, but this information was withheld because of Trump's antipathy toward China.