Kamala Harris 2024 Convention Speech: Tradition and Progress

Kamala Harris

“We are,” said Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in her August 22, 2024 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, “the heirs to the greatest democracy in the history of the world.” Harris’ liberal policies emerged from an ideology of constitutional tradition. Harris gathered her progressive policies and grounded them in a tight net of conservative values. Like many liberal speakers before her, Harris called on the United States of America to live by its traditional values, such as freedom, opportunity, and dignity. 

People do not remember presidential nomination acceptance speeches for the policies that they mention. No, it is the speaker’s values that resonate. 

In contrast to the conservative view, however, Harris’ tradition pointed to a positive future, a future in which we all can triumph, while some conservatives cling tenaciously to a past that never really existed. The progressive idea of tradition echoes from the Declaration of Independence, stating that we are all equal, but there is also a tradition which holds (to paraphrase George Orwell), that some people are more equal than others. Tradition’s duality resonates throughout our history. 


Harris Rejected Zero-Sum Politics

Politics often seems like a game, in which some people win while others lose. Should we put the tax burden on working people, or soak the rich? Do we support immigration or reject immigrants? Do we give minority people a chance? Or do we fear and reject them? Harris rejected that entire attitude.

Those of us who study political discourse know that voters only pretend to vote based on issues. Values drive the voters. So, Harris spoke for: 

“An America, where we care for one another, look out for one another, and recognize that we have so much more in common than what separates us.” 

Harris went so far as to accuse conservatives of running down the nation that they claim to praise:

“… none of us has to fail for all of us to succeed. … in unity, there is strength. Our opponents in this race are out there every day, denigrating America, talking about how terrible everything is. Well, my mother had another lesson she used to teach. Never let anyone tell you who you are. You show them who you are. America, let us show each other and the world, who we are and what we stand for: freedom, opportunity, compassion, dignity, fairness, and endless possibilities.”

“In unity, there is strength,” she said, and that unity was found in traditional values like “freedom, opportunity . . . and endless possibilities.”

Harris Spoke for Liberty and Equality

Continuing, Harris reminded her cheering crowd that the United States’ basic values are “freedom and liberty,” and that we must look forward to a growing future:

“... on behalf of our children and our grandchildren, and all of those who sacrificed so dearly for our freedom and liberty, we must be worthy of this moment.”

“Heirs,” she said: we have an inheritance to preserve. “Our children and our grandchildren,” who should share that inheritance – in the future. Although many people reflect fondly about the wonderful past, Harris asked us to look forward. But she did not ask us to look forward with blindness. Instead, she said to let the founding values guide us toward an even better future:

“It is now our turn to do what generations before us have done, guided by optimism and faith to fight for this country we love, to fight for the ideals we cherish, and to uphold the awesome responsibility that comes with the greatest privilege on earth: the privilege and pride of being an American.

“So let’s get out there. Let’s fight for it. Let’s get out there. Let’s vote for it. And together, let us write the next great chapter in the most extraordinary story ever told. Thank you. God bless you and may God bless the United States of America.”

Harris looked hopefully toward a better future: “the next great chapter.” In contrast, her opponent Donald Trump preaches: “Make America Great Again.” Make America great again is the motto of someone who thinks America’s greatness rests in the past, while Harris’ “the next great chapter” says that the greatest days lie ahead. Despair versus hope. Look backwards for guidance, but to the future with confidence?

So, Harris came back to the starting point! Her traditional values lead to the future. Trump’s traditionalist anxiety, she implied, leads into the past – to restore what we he thinks we once had.

If we stay mired in the 18th century clinging to the past, as Trump calls us to do, equality for all is lost, abandoned. The United States of America’s founding values created a vision of a new kind of nation – “conceived in liberty,” said Abraham Lincoln. If Harris is right – and I think she is – we should let our values, not our fears, move us forward to face our problems and improve our lives. 

For, contrary to her critics, Harris’ speech did not reject the values of United States of America's founders. She embraced those values. She called for the United States to choose those values – freedom, opportunity, and equality. She argued that those values would determine, not only the election, but the United States’ future. She offered an idealistic vision for our cynical age. Harris presented her candidacy as a chance to remember the old values.

Other Posts About 2024 DNC and RNC Convention Speeches

Pete Buttigieg Called for Uplifting Politics. Donald Trump Disagreed.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

Trump's "Jekyll and Hyde" Convention Speech Promised Fierce Leadership

Did West Virginia Governor Jim Justice Just Advocate Violent Revolution?

by William D. Harpine

_______________

Research note: the argument from tradition is more helpful than many people realize. I’ve written about tradition in some of my academic publications; check the link to “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above. Readers might also want to look at James Darsey’s prize-winning book, The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America. Darsey argues that radical speakers often tie their policies to tradition by quoting the Hebrew prophets. Also see a superb prize-winning monograph, The American Ideology: Reflections of the Revolution in American Rhetoric, by my mentor Kurt W. Ritter and his colleague James R. Andrews, which shows how the ideologies of freedom and liberty have permeated American rhetoric throughout history. Although it is out of print, most large research libraries should have it on their shelves, and don't forget about used bookstores.  

Special thanks to rev.com, a commercial transcript service, for preparing quick and accurate transcripts of this and many other public speeches. 

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image of Kamala Harris: official White House photo, public domain

Oprah Winfrey's Eulogy for Rosa Parks: A Speech about Opposing Traditions

With Black History Month underway, let’s look back at Oprah Winfrey’s eulogy for Rosa Parks. Parks is the woman who refused to give up her seat to a white man, triggering the Montgomery bus boycott. Parks came to symbolize the heroism of ordinary people who inspired the civil rights movement. Speaking in 2005 at the Memorial African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington DC, Winfrey compared and contrasted two different kinds of tradition. We had, on the one hand, a southern tradition that Black people should defer to white people. But, on the other hand, Rosa Parks started a new tradition. Although her actions shocked southern racists in the 1950s, Parks’ new tradition inspired generations to come.


The Old Tradition: Racial Oppression

We often think that things are good just because they are old. Well, many old things are good. Time and tradition have tested Shakespeare’s plays, homemade ice cream, and the First Amendment. When something works for many years, we think that is good.

At the same time, however, tradition can never excuse injustice or wrongful deeds. A long tradition, enshrined in Alabama law, had deprived African Americans of basic rights. One of those was the simple right to occupy a bus seat that one has paid for. Indeed, just because we have done a wrong thing for a long time does not mean that we should continue to do it. Winfrey explained:

“So I thank you again, Sister Rosa, for not only confronting the one white man whose seat you took, not only confronting the bus driver, not only for confronting the law, but for confronting history, a history that for 400 years said that you were not even worthy of a glance, certainly no consideration. I thank you for not moving.”

Yes, time had tested a 400-year tradition. But when that tradition proved to be wrong, over, and over, and over, it was time to change. Rosa Parks, in her turn, started a new tradition.


A New Tradition Arose

Yes, when Rosa Parks refused to leave her seat, she rejected the old tradition. What she did was new. In Jim Crow Alabama, it was almost unprecedented. But Oprah Winfrey thanked Rosa Parks for making possible new opportunities and new traditions:

“That day that you refused to give up your seat on the bus, you, Sister Rosa, changed the trajectory of my life and the lives of so many other people in the world. I would not be standing here today nor standing where I stand every day had she not chosen to sit down. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that, and I honor that.”

In part because of Parks’ actions, the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s has now been enshrined in law and (often, but not always) in the way Americans treat one another today. What was once new has become accepted. Every tradition started with an innovation. In her brief eulogy, Oprah Winfrey acknowledged the courage and wisdom of the woman who started the new tradition.


Will We Forget?

This does not mean that the battle has ended. Across large parts of the United States of America, angry people – white people – attend school board meetings to scream in rage because their children are being taught Black history. Many schools are backing down, removing essential parts of American history from their bookshelves for fear of offending white people who don’t want to remember people like Rosa Parks. So, the danger still exists that the evil tradition against which Parks protested could rise like a murderous zombie. Yes, racism can be violent. Black people who confronted law enforcement in the 1950s South often disappeared into jail, never to be seen again. Never underestimate Parks’ courage.

A eulogy’s purpose is to honor a person’s life by showing how that person can inspire us today. It is not enough to honor Rosa Parks. People today need to find the courage and wisdom to stand up against the forces of wickedness, no matter how old – how traditional – those forces might be. That is why Winfrey ended her speech with these defiant words:

“I owe you – to succeed.

“I will not be moved.”

__________________

Barack Obama’s Eulogy of Clementa Pinckney

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech, "Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience"

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

__________________

P. S. “I will not be moved” referred to the old Christian hymn, “I Shall Not Be Moved.” Winfrey’s audience surely picked up the illusion instantly.

The Memorial African Methodist Episcopal Church was also the home church of Frederick Douglass. Located a few blocks north of the White House, it is on the National Register of Historic Places.

I continue to express my gratitude to my graduate school classmate, the late Martin Medhurst, and the other good people at Americanrhetoric.com who assembled such a treasure house of American public speeches.

__________________

Research Note: Howard Kahane’s book, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, introduced the idea that it is a fallacy to appeal to tradition. In contrast, Boyd and Richerson’s book, Culture and the Evolutionary Process, argues that people are not very good at reasoning and are often wise to rely instead on tradition. I’m on the fence: I think that tradition is often valuable – if you click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above, you’ll see that I’ve often written that tradition helps us make decisions. At the same time, Kahane is right that something is not necessarily good just because it is old. Racial oppression is traditional, but it is always wrong.

Image: Ahmer Jamil Khan, via Wikimedia

Martin Luther King's Speech “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience:” The Radical Tradition

Martin Luther King, Jr., whose national holiday we celebrate today, gave his most influential speech on November 16, 1961. This speech is called “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience.” Like many speakers before and since, King showed that his seemingly radical ideas rested on strong traditions and historical precedents. He showed that people stand in an ancient tradition when they break unjust laws.


A Thoughtful Speech

The speech, which he presented to a group of student civil rights workers, did not rise to the heights of thrilling oratorical excellence for which King was remembered. So, why do I say that it was influential? That’s because “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience” was a carefully reasoned speech that shaped, justified, and explained the principle of nonviolent resistance to racial oppression. This speech, now largely forgotten, guided the Civil Rights movement. That movement would reach its climax three years later, during the Birmingham demonstrations, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the now-gutted Voting Rights Act of 1965 soon to follow.

In my previous post, I explained how this speech laid out the Civil Rights’ movement’s philosophical and moral foundation. The speech also justified the principle of nonviolent resistance to unjust laws. While King’s philosophical foundation relied heavily on Christian theology, his principle of nonviolent resistance owed more to Mohandas Gandhi and New England transcendentalism. Like many speakers before and since, King showed that his seemingly radical ideas rested on strong traditions and historical precedents.

Radicals, like King, seek social change. Conservatives look to tradition. Paradoxically, King combined the two opposing ideas. His agenda, which called for sweeping social and legal change, were considered radical in 1961. They would still be considered radical in 2022.

Yet, King’s astute persuasive tactic helped make his methods seem – well, not radical at all. By tying nonviolent resistance to history and tradition, King implied that his movement’s actions were traditional. More than that, however, he turned his critics’ arguments against them. It was they and not King, who rejected tradition – the tradition of civil disobedience. This was King’s subtext.


The History of Civil Disobedience

To begin with, King started with Greek philosophy. “There is nothing new about this,” King insisted. Indeed, he said that “We go back and read the Apology and the Crito, and you see Socrates practicing civil disobedience.” King also appealed to religious tradition, pointing out that early Christians also refused to obey unjust laws:

“The early Christians practiced civil disobedience in a superb manner, to a point where they were willing to be thrown to the lions. They were willing to face all kinds of suffering in order to stand up for what they knew was right even though they knew it was against the laws of the Roman Empire.”

How many conservative Christians have thought about that? About a time when the very act of worshipping as a Christian was civil disobedience? Not stopping there, King reminded the students that the United States of America has a long history of civil disobedience. He mentioned the Boston Tea Party and the work of pre-Civil War abolitionists:

“And even let us come up to America. Our nation in a sense came into being through a massive act of civil disobedience, for the Boston Tea Party was nothing but a massive act of civil disobedience. Those who stood up against the slave laws, the abolitionists, by and large practiced civil disobedience.”

The point here? Few of King’s opponents in 1961 would try to say that slavery was just. The abolitionists, who were the radicals of the 1850s, worked against the monstrous laws that perpetuated slavery. History now admires them. They became heroes – to later generations – by helping slaves to escape. However, they were heroes only because they broke the law. That obvious fact gave King a powerful historical and moral precedent.

There is, however, the other side. Are laws not supposed to be the guardians of public order and morality? Are we doing the right thing when we follow the law? Sometimes, King said, we are not.

 

What Is Legal Isn’t Always Right

In other words, that something is legal does not, in King’s philosophy, mean that it is right. Indeed, the law might require you to do something wrong. That was a radical concept – it is hard to imagine a more radical idea – and yet King’s logic seems inescapable. Throughout large parts of the United States in 1961, racial discrimination and oppression were actually required by law. Did that make it right? Was it right for people to obey such laws?

King offered a powerful rebuttal, founded on history and yet tied to the present day. King insisted that actions are not always righteous just because they are legal. He asked people to rise above popular morality and legal principles. He said that we should instead live by conscience. That is a difficult challenge, to which few of us ever rise.

For example, King reminded the students that Nazi Germany applied the force of law to commit acts of stunning evil. Evil people created Nazi law for evil purposes. King called for his workers to have the courage to reject legal but monstrous evil like Hitler’s:

“We must never forget that everything that Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal.’ It was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew, in the days of Hitler's Germany. But I believe that if I had the same attitude then as I have now I would publicly aid and comfort my Jewish brothers in Germany if Hitler were alive today calling this an illegal process.”

King also reminded the students that the Union of South Africa was, in 1961, a white supremacist nation. In South Africa, racial justice was actually a crime. King expressed support for the resistance that Black-majority leaders offered against South Africa’s cruel, but legal, regime:

“If I lived in South Africa today in the midst of the white supremacy law in South Africa, I would join Chief Luthuli and others in saying, break these unjust laws.”

For, yes indeed, apartheid (which was legally required racial oppression) was enshrined in South African law. Yet, it was obviously wicked and unjust.

What Is Legal? What Is Right?   

These examples led King to a powerful but daring conclusion. He insisted that the students in his audience, who were organizing nonviolent resistance, actually represented tradition. That claim utterly conflicted with conventional attitudes. Yet, King gave his opponents a chance to ask themselves some hard questions. Would they have supported Hitler? South African apartheid was legal. But was it right? King put his opponents in difficult position. Were they prepared to defend some of the century’s most horrible laws? Were they prepared to defend oppression in the United States?

Two years later, King would write his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” That letter, which I recommend in the highest terms, laid out, in much more detail, the same historical and philosophical principles that King had already explained in “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience.” King’s speech made nonviolent resistance into a moral obligation. King tied civil disobedience to tradition, while rejecting unjust laws. And it was in this now-forgotten speech that King laid out the philosophy that guided the Civil Rights movement for years to come. 

________________

 

Related Public Speaking Posts: 

Read First Post about King's speech: 

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech, “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience:” The Civil Rights Movement’s Philosophical Foundation

Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Mountaintop in Memphis, Tennessee: A Speech for the Ages

French President Macron Reminds the USA of Its Traditions

Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana’s Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?

________________

Research Note: Radicals often look for ways to tie their ideas to tradition. In his award-winning book, The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America, Professor James Darsey shows how radical speakers often quote the Hebrew prophets.

Was “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience” totally neglected? No, not entirely. It was reprinted in several editions of an advanced communication textbook, Contemporary American Speeches, which was co-edited by my professor Richard L. Johannesen.