Showing posts with label State of the Union Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State of the Union Speech. Show all posts

Saturday, March 9, 2024

A Nice, Quiet Heckle

James Lankford
A gentle heckle is worth a thousand shouts! Senator James Lankford whispered a heckle and shook up the United States’ border controversy.


Biden Lashed Out at Republicans

Making one of the first points in his March 7, 2024 State of the Union speech, President Joe Biden lashed out at the Republicans in Congress for defeating what appeared to be an extremely conservative border control bill. The bill was drafted by Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Republican James Lankford, and Democrat Chris Murphy. Murphy agreed to a conservative border bill as a compromise to increase aid to Ukraine. Biden called the bill:
“…a bipartisan bill with the toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen.”
Joe Biden, 2024 State of the Union
The Republicans howled as if one body. (In fact, they heckled loudly throughout the speech.) Biden quickly ad-libbed:
“Oh, you don’t think so? Oh, you don’t like that bill, huh, that conservatives got together and said was a good bill? I’ll be darned. That’s amazing.”
Biden detailed the bill’s provisions:
“1,500 more security agents and officers, 100 more immigration judges to help tackle a backload of 2 million cases, 4,300 more asylum officers, and new policies so they can resolve cases in 6 months instead of 6 years now.”
Anyway, Biden pounded on and on in that vein. In the midst of Biden’s broadside attack, Lankford quietly mouthed:
“That’s true.”
Reportedly, former president Donald Trump had told Republicans to oppose the bill, presumably because he wanted to whine about the border during the presidential campaign.
__________

Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address

__________


Poor Lankford


Republicans had, for weeks, been turning against Lankford for helping to write the bill. Back in February, after the bill was roundly defeated, losing votes even from its strongest erstwhile supporters, Lankford commented:
“I’m disappointed we didn’t get it done, ... I don’t know if I feel betrayed, because the issue is still there. It’s not solved.”
Burned by his own party’s flip-flopping, Lankford’s pretty much inaudible heckle (it required lip reading) gave his understandable reaction to the betrayal. He and his colleagues had worked hard to write a strict border control bill, and to see his work upended so casually would plague even the most cynical politician.
__________

The Lost Art of Heckling: How to Heckle and Not Sound Like an Idiot
__________
 
Trying to salvage his evidently wrecked political career, Lankford promptly issued a lengthy statement criticizing every part of Biden’s speech. Too little, too late. The Republicans have abandoned him, and he has become a pariah—for the unforgivable crime of momentary integrity. His brave, honest, whispered heckle expressed, however, an unusual, though achingly brief, display of spine and conscience in the United States of America’s increasingly polarized and dishonest political environment.

And he didn’t need to shout.

by William D. Harpine


Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Images:  U.S. Congress, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain; 

Sunday, December 31, 2023

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

The freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear: those were the four freedoms that United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed as he concluded his January 6, 1941 State of the Union Speech to Congress. Roosevelt re-imagined government and world power as forces that would help people flourish. Unlike libertarians who just want governments to get out of the way, Roosevelt said that world governments should spread new freedoms. His controversial vision, which was dramatically new in 1941, shakes world and national opinion even today.


Roosevelt’s Vision

As Roosevelt spoke, World War II (which the United States had not yet joined) raged across three continents. The world was still shaking from the Great Depression, and Roosevelt rewrote the word “freedom.” Here is Roosevelt’s vision of Four Freedoms:
“The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

“The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

“The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

“The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.”
What motivated Roosevelt’s vision? First, the free enterprise economic system had collapsed in 1929 and the world, shaking from the fear of hunger and despair, increasingly turned to dictators to save them: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo. Never a good idea, but too many world citizens figured they had nothing to lose.


What Is Positive Freedom?

Now, the United States Constitution mostly protects negative freedoms: the government cannot do this; the government cannot do that. The government cannot establish a religion. The government cannot pass ex post facto laws. The government cannot force people to speak at their own trials. The government cannot randomly search your home or impose “cruel and unusual punishments.” And so forth. Those are negatives: things that the government is forbidden to do.

Roosevelt, instead, proposed positive freedoms: the freedoms that enable successful lives. While negative freedoms only ask the government to get out of the way, positive freedoms require group vision.

Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms gave a positive vision. He gave a vision of a world that could be free from the horrors that he felt had led to worldwide collapse. Can the reader disagree? How many people have died in religious wars? How often do cruel dictators suppress free speech? How often do nations turn to war only because they fear someone else? And does not want (hunger—homelessness—despair) become a terrible force that drives people to desperate acts?

So, although Roosevelt did lay out policies that he wanted Congress to support, his real point was to offer a new concept. How, he asked, could we restructure the world to give people more successful lives? That is a positive vision. It is a vision that resonates today. It is a vision that leads to sharp disagreements today.

Earlier Post: Ronald Reagan Spoke on the Fourth of July: Celebrating Freedom, Shared Values, and Diversity


Four Freedoms Today?

As 2023 draws to its close, nations across the world—Hungary, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and others unwisely turn away from republican government to adopt authoritarian attitudes. In January 2021, the United States itself threatened to abandon constitutional government. Poverty still wracks even the most prosperous nations, and the marketing and unpacking of armaments rattles the world’s peace. Authoritarian forces are banning library books in the United States. Countless American children (not to mention world children) go to bed hungry. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms remain a distant, still-unattained goal. 


A Commitment to Freedom

All the same, it is a speaker’s privilege to propose seemingly unattainable goals. Roosevelt projected a seemingly remote future in which the world would seek economic and political justice. Roosevelt gave a vision. Can we, in our coming new year, move forward, as a world, to improve all our lives? Or will we let fear and jealousy rule use? The world is richer than ever, but can we learn to respect one another? To help one another? To Roosevelt, this was a positive vision. It was not a vision of mealy-mouthed liberal weakness, but a vision of power and strength.

For, behind the Four Freedoms, Roosevelt pledged his nation’s moral and military vigor. Accordingly, he concluded his vision of positive freedom with these breathtaking words:
“Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

“To that high concept there can be no end save victory.”
Roosevelt taught a powerful lesson to a world that was shattered by poverty, injustice, and war. He gave a powerful lesson to a world that, in 1941, faced unspeakable disaster. His lesson reaches us in the 21st Century. Will we listen? Or not?

Earlier Post: Abraham Lincoln and the Definition of “Liberty:” A Lesson for Our Time

Let us never forget the disaster of the 1940’s, nor let us forget the horrors that “strong” leaders inevitably create. Let us never forget the massive sacrifices that eventually brought a smashed world to a shaky peace. My own father received two battle stars in World War II, serving in North Africa and southern France. He survived uninjured; some of his best buddies were not so lucky. My father-in-law was a combat-disabled World War II veteran, torpedoed by a Nazi submarine. My mother never again enjoyed Christmas, not after her 19-year-old brother lost his life fighting Nazis on December 26, 1944 at the Battle of the Bulge. Perhaps 50 million people died before the war ended. The largest part of the dead were massacre victims. If the nation, the world, returns to authoritarianism, it will have callously discarded their sacrifices. If we fail to uplift one another in a positive way, we will have discarded Roosevelt's lesson. 

For, as Roosevelt told us, freedom means more than just being left alone. Freedom is not “just another word for nothin' left to lose.” Freedom, Roosevelt said, means to live in a world of justice.

__________________

Research Note: Several scholars have written about positive versus negative values. Kenneth Burke's The Rhetoric of Religion is a good place to start. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine

Wednesday, February 8, 2023

Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address: The Republicans Fooled Only Themselves

Joe Biden at 2023 State of the Union
At last night’s State of the Union Address, delivered to the United States Congress, President Joe Biden proved that bullies never win. The rhetorical issue was heckling. Biden correctly accused some Republicans of seeking to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. Conservative firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene heckled, “liar!” Then, in a brilliant rhetorical move, Biden promptly took Social Security and Medicare cuts completely out of the national discourse. Be careful when you heckle . . . for effective heckling requires great skill, while the speaker always gets the last word.

As a matter of public speaking skill, Biden’s exchange worked because he adapted to his audience and responded to the moment. Helpfully, Biden had those obnoxious things—facts—mostly on his side. The Republicans’ heckling failed, not just because they were rude, but also because they were unprepared to discuss policy. By the time he was finished, Biden not only turned the tables on the Republicans' heckling, but, for the moment, the Republican Party’s clumsy attempt to cut Social Security and Medicare.
 

So, here is what Biden said and how the Republicans heckled him

About halfway through the speech, Biden brought up the debt limit crisis, Social Security, and Medicare: 
“Let us commit here tonight that the full faith and credit of the United States of America will never, ever be questioned. Some of my Republican friends want to take the economy hostage — I get it — unless I agree to their economic plans. All of you at home should know what those plans are. Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I am not saying that is a majority. Anybody who doubts it, contact my office and I will give you a copy of the proposal.” [italics added] 
A large group of Republicans promptly booed. Greene shouted “liar.”

Biden quickly dropped his hammer:
“I am glad you see it. I enjoy conversation. That means if Congress doesn’t keep the programs the way they are, those programs will go away. I don’t think it is a majority of you, I don’t even think it is significant. I am politely not naming them, but it is being proposed by some of you. Folks, the idea is that we are not going to be moved into being threatened to default on the debt if we do not respond.” [italics added]
A bunch of Democrats then cheered.

Seeing no reason to quit while he was winning, Biden then pointed out the (sudden) bipartisan agreement:
“So folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare off the books now, right?” [italics added] 
Bang! Taking advantage of the hecklers, Biden shoved the Republicans’ main talking point right off the table. He then announced that the Republicans had reached a bipartisan, indeed, unanimous agreement:
“All right. We got unanimity. Social Security and Medicare are a lifeline for millions of seniors. Americans have been paying into them with every single paycheck since they started working. So tonight, let’s all agree — and we apparently are — let’s stand up for seniors. Stand up and show them we will not cut Social Security. We will not cut Medicare. Those benefits belong to the American people. They earned them. If anyone tries to cut Social Security — which apparently no one is going to do. If anyone tries to cut Medicare, I will stop them. I will veto it. [italics added]
"I will not let Medicare be taken away, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. But apparently that will not be a problem.”
“But apparently that will not be a problem” sounded suspiciously like gloating. Grasping the moment’s importance, Biden emphasized that both sides had now agreed. The Republicans agreed with Biden by booing and heckling. How remarkable. Note that Biden also summarized why Medicare and Social Security made a big difference for Americans. He reminded Congress that American workers have paid into these programs with “every single paycheck.” He promised that he would stop anyone who tried to cut these programs. Time for a victory lap! The debt limit battle was now over except for some mopping up and handwringing.


What about heckling?

Now, witty, clever, and to-the-point heckling is a time-honored rhetorical tradition. Nevertheless, my graduate school mentor Kurt Ritter insisted that boorish heckling should never be tolerated. Biden brilliantly not only shut the boorish hecklers down, but he actually used their heckling against them to nail down his policy proposals.

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





Did Republicans really want to cut Medicare and Social Security?

The fallback position when Greene shouted “liar!” was for Republicans to pretend that they had never wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare. That, on the one hand, is good for policy. Medicare and Social Security cuts have now been swept off the bargaining table. But had they threatened to cut Social Security and Medicare? Of course they had. And when Republicans denied that they wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare, well, they themselves were the liars. Let’s look at that.


Let’s start with basic math.


Math shows that the massive cuts that Republicans seek can only be obtained by cutting “entitlement” programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (See the Treasury Department chart.) We know perfectly well that Republicans will never vote to cut National Defense. Discretionary spending (national parks, border enforcement, the FBI, and so forth) represents only a small part of federal expenditures. That leaves entitlement cuts. Policy-wise, Republicans have painted themselves into a corner: their elderly voting base depends on Social Security and Medicare, not to mention Medicaid (which didn’t come up yesterday). Tax cuts for the rich have been a hallmark of Republican policy for more than 40 years. Fiscal responsibility, by which they mean balancing the budget like a family checkbook, has been a hallmark of Republican rhetoric since forever. Alas, those goals don’t add up, setting the stage for Biden’s anti-heckling.


Do Republicans seek Social Security and Medicare cuts?

Oh, yes, despite Greene’s heckle, a powerful Republican core has long sought to rip up Social Security and Medicare. In 2010, for example, conservative Senator Mike Lee said this on video:
“I’m here right now to tell you one thing you probably have never heard from a politician: it will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it up from the roots and get rid of it.”
Liars, be warned: in the 21st Century, there’s always a video!


Lee is not alone. Last summer, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham warned that the United States needs to make cuts (“reforms”) in “Medicare and Social Security and other entitlement programs.” He absurdly said that “entitlement reform is a must for us not to become Greece.” Graham correctly noted that discretionary funding can’t be cut enough to balance the budget.


Indeed, just last week, former Vice President Mike Pence brought up a DOA proposal to replace Social Security with private investments for future retirees. Ludicrously, Pence called this a “modest reform.”


Why did the Republicans collapse?

So, yes, many Republicans want to chop up Social Security and Medicare. One presumes that this is because their anti-government doctrine requires them to oppose entitlements. All the same, their voting  base is elderly, stuffing the Republicans into a self-created quandary. Reacting, they neither took a coherent position nor did they defend their ideas. Instead, they heckled. Now, effective heckling needs to be witty and intelligent. The Republican’s heckling was neither. I very much fear that the Republican Party has become so enamored of its own dogmatic talking points that they are no longer either willing or able to conduct even the simplest policy analysis. Lindsey Graham’s careless interview expressed a tiny bit of truth. If, indeed, the United States wants to balance the federal budget entirely by making cuts, Medicare and Social Security need to be on the table.

That begs two important questions. First, is balancing the federal budget an important policy goal? Although politicians act as if it is, knowledgeable economists, liberal and conservative alike, do not see this as a simple issue. Second, why is taxing billionaires such a terrible idea? There are no easy answers in economics. We fall into the abyss if we pretend otherwise.


Do Republicans still want to cut Social Security and Medicare?

What a silly question. Will they give up just because Biden bludgeoned them at the State of the Union? Of course they aren’t giving up. Biden humiliated them and temporarily shut them down and will now win the debt limit fight, but that doesn’t mean that Republicans have finished.

Remarkably, even after the Republican debacle at the State of the Union speech, Jim Geraghty, writing for the National Review Online, which is the closest that we have to a responsible conservative publication, responded that Democrats and Republicans alike were in “collective denial” about the need to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. Geraghty cited official figures that Medicare and Social Security would eventually be unable to pay full benefits.

Just as promptly, in the same publication, Philip Klein explained that what he called fiscal responsibility required cutting Social Security and Medicare. Klein complained about the “grotesque bipartisan moment.” Horrified, not by the boorish heckling, but by the way Republicans caved, Klein said: 
“There were plenty of things to dislike in President Biden’s State of the Union speech, but the most grotesque moment actually was one of the most bipartisan: when both Republicans and Democrats stood with Biden to applaud the idea of not touching Social Security and Medicare, which both desperately need to be pared if there is any hope of the United States escaping a fiscal crisis.” [italics added] 
Before I get back to public speaking issues, let’s remember two obvious math points:

First, one way to make sure that Social Security and Medicare will be funded in the future is to cut benefits. That obviously continues to be the conservative agenda.

Second, increased revenue accomplishes the same goal. Could we tax the billionaires, for example, as Biden advocated in his speech?


Conclusion

So, the Republicans’ heckling failed, not only because they were rude, not just because they were not witty, but also because they failed to inform themselves. Not only were they uninformed about basic economics, but, worse, they also did not even know their own public policy positions.

In contrast, Biden’s anti-heckling offered basic facts. He cited the Republicans’ own bargaining position. Once the Republicans heckled themselves into a corner, Biden tightened the issue down with force. He said, not once, not twice, but over and over, that he was glad the two sides had reached unanimity. He literally tricked the Republicans into bipartisanship! In the face of the Republicans' heckling, Biden remained upbeat, positive, and complimentary of his opponents. 

The United States still faces a debt limit squabble, but the Republicans’ negotiators now face a big problem, a deep, self-inflicted wound that incapacitates their position. They hurt themselves because they did not know how to heckle (or, in this case, when not to heckle). If they had just zipped up their mouths, they could have continued with their policy goals. Biden in contrast, demonstrated extraordinary anti-heckling technique.

“I enjoy conversation,” Biden said. All communication entails interaction. Politicians forget this basic rule at their peril. 

________________

P.S.: Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy had warned his caucus to behave themselves during Biden's speech. It didn’t help.


Images: White House webpage, US Department of the Treasury