George W. Bush's Speech at VMI: Peace through Wisdom

George W. Bush at VMI

“After 1945, said United States President George W. Bush, “the United States of America was the only nation in the world strong enough to help rebuild a Europe and a Japan that had been decimated by World War II. Today, our former enemies are our friends.” 

Can we once again make our enemies into our friends?

Bush, the United States’ architect of the War on Terror, reminded the cadets at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) on April 17, 2002, that military force alone never brings security. No, security requires justice, compassion, and forgiveness. Commemorative speeches like this rarely lay out exact policies; instead, rising to a higher level, the speaker declares the values from which wise policies must arise. Bush’s theme was not peace through strength, but peace through strength working hand-in-hand with wisdom. Have we, today, forgotten that lesson?

Bush warned that terrorists are terrifying enemies. His speech reviewed the horrors of “massacres committed by the Taliban last year, victims who lie in mass graves.” He told the cadets that “we are called to defend freedom against ruthless enemies.” Bush also discussed the ongoing efforts to free Yemen from terrorists and to protect the Philippines’ elected government from militant terrorists. Those were ambitious goals. Furthermore, unlike the United States’ current leaders, Bush cautioned that the War on Terror could never be short, that victory would never be simple:

“Yet, it's important for Americans to know this war will not be quick and this war will not be easy.”

VMI's Barracks

Nevertheless, Bush’s key argument addressed questions of value, not nuts and bolts policy. He explained that wise policies could not arise from military force alone, but only if guided by justice, dignity, individual rights, and tolerance:

“The way to a peaceful future can be found in the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. Dignity requires the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, equal justice, religious tolerance. No nation owns these principles. No nation is exempt from them.”

Is it not remarkable that Bush insisted on universal values: “No nation owns … No nation is exempt?”

Perhaps this remarkable speech bridged the gap between policy (deliberative) and ceremonial (epideictic) speaking. Bush laid out the threat that international terrorism poses to the world, thus engaging in Step One of a problem-solution policy speech. Instead, however, of laying out specific policies, he turned the cadets’ attention toward moral values. Maybe he was implying that moral values are the problem’s only solution.

George W. Bush's 9/11 Oval Office Speech: Values versus Reality?

George W. Bush on 9/11: A Message of Unity

Although his VMI speech detailed few specific anti-terrorist policies, the particular policies that Bush did pursue were controversial at the time and remain disputed today. I for one, was never a fan, and, here in 2026, justice in western Asia remains inconsistent and elusive. One must, however, admire Bush’s forthright stand that only strong moral values create security, and that all nations, the United States and its enemies alike, need to follow them. 

Let us hope and pray that humanity’s common bonds can restore themselves. Let us hope that the United States can, as we did after World War II, make our enemies into our friends. Can we resist terrorism with force, but also participate in justice and reconciliation with our enemies? Bush argued that only when we reaffirm our values, only when we are moved by justice, rather than fear, can we move toward specific actions. A strong foreign policy does not need to degenerate into mindless vengeance. The more we seek universal, uplifting values, the more we seek wisdom, the more we, as human beings, can contribute to peace on our troubled globe. 

George W. Bush and the American Vision

by William D. Harpine

___________________

Personal Note: I have often visited both VMI’s stark campus and its neighbor, Washington and Lee University. Indeed, in my youth, I considered applying to Washington and Lee before choosing a different school. Lexington, Virginia stands among the nation’s most charming towns. Both schools uphold high standards, produce outstanding leaders, and contribute to the state’s culture. During my long-ago career as a College of William and Mary debater, our team often vied with superb debaters from both schools. 

For more of my posts about ceremonial or epideictic speaking, click this link. 

My continuing thanks to AmericanRhetoric.com, founded by my late classmate and editor Martin Medhurst. That invaluable website has preserved countless speech texts and, often, videos. 

Copyright ©2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of George W. Bush speaking at the Virginia Military Institute, 
official White House photo by Tina Hager, public domain

Image of Virginia Military Institute’s barracks,
Historic American Buildings Survey, National Park Service, 
via Wikimedia Commons, public domain 

John F. Kennedy Spoke for World Peace at American University

John F. Kennedy

“I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.”

On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy stood on a stage at American University in Washington DC and spoke these words. He also said that to speak of peace is: “to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived—yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.”

In this particular speech, President Kennedy praised, not a person, but the moral value of a higher peace.

All good ceremonial speeches convey values: what is good, and what is bad? What should we praise, and what should we condemn? So it was with Kennedy’s speech that day. Although most commencement speeches offer personal reflections or give the graduates life advice, Kennedy guided his audience toward Universal values. He spoke for peace, progress, and hope. In today’s more cynical milieu, we need to remember his message all the more. For Kennedy spoke of moral excellence, not national arrogance. He spoke of setting a good example for other nations, not of dominating other nations. He reminded the graduates, and the nation, and the world, that true world peace requires justice, morality, and hope. Instead of dreaming of the wonderful past, Kennedy looked forward to an inspiring future. Kennedy guided his audience – the graduates, the nation, and the world – toward a future of higher values.

John Kennedy Spoke for World-Wide Freedom and Independence in his 1962 Fourth of July Speech

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address: A Call to Service

Commemorative Plaque at The American University

First, Kennedy redefined the word “peace.” To Kennedy, peace was not merely the absence of war. Peace did not mean that the United States would wield military power to enforce an uneasy peace on a reluctant world:

“What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.”

No, in contrast to that limited definition of peace, Kennedy offered a higher value. To Kennedy, peace meant an opportunity to thrive, for everyone to have better lives: 

“I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women—not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”

Phrases like “America First,” proudly shouted by antisemites in the 1940s, and repeated by today’s Republican Party, imply domination. The America First Committee of 1940-1941 called Jews warmongers and echoed Nazi ideology. “America First” implies isolation and a bit of arrogance. In contrast, President Kennedy, a decorated combat veteran of World War II, saw a better way. As he concluded his speech, he rejected war and its horrors:

“The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough—more than enough of—war and hate and oppression.”

“As the world knows,” Kennedy insisted. I shudder to ask: does the world still know that today?

Kennedy did not mistake peace for weakness, for the nation must always be prepared for war:

“We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it.”

Instead, Kennedy sought world peace that arose, not from selfishness or arrogance, but from justice and security:

“But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on—not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.”

And, with that assurance, Kennedy concluded. He did not give the graduates insights into how to get a job or to live a satisfying personal life. Instead, he advised the graduates about their moral place in the universe. This speech led directly to treaties limiting nuclear arms. Alas, Kennedy spoke for a time, that has, I fear, vanished in the mists, when peace arose not from power, but from justice.

Yet, Kennedy taught a lesson that the world needs to remember even as I write. It is a lesson that every American needs to remember on every election day. It regards a value that requires us to let hope replace fear.

No, John Kennedy was no more perfect than anyone else. He did, however, understand that the United States of America must use its power, influence, and values for the greater peace. That forgotten wisdom still lingers. Let us pursue that value today. 

by William D. Harpine

Joe Biden's 2022 University of Delaware Commencement Speech Reminds Americans that Our Nation Was Founded on an Idea

Ronald Reagan Spoke about Freedom, Friendship, and Hope at Moscow State University

____________

Theoretical Note: In rhetorical theory, a ceremonial speech (or epideictic speech) either praises or blames, and usually expresses values for the audience to emulate. Some of the greatest speeches, with Lincoln's Gettysburg Address serving as the pinnacle, have fallen under this genre.

Personal note: My father, Casper Allen Harpine, Jr., received his law degree from the Washington College of Law at American University in 1956. American University is one of several outstanding universities found in the United States of America’s capital city.

Copyright ©2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of John F. Kennedy, official White House photo, public domain

Image of commemorative plaque, The American University, used by permission

Lawrence Wong's Commemorative Speech: Inspiring People with Personal Stories

Lawrence Wong

“As we learn from history, let us always look ahead to the future and move forward for the common good.”

Such was the lesson taught by Lawrence Wong, Singapore’s Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, speaking at a ceremony on August 27, 2015 to commemorate the 70^th anniversary of the end of World War II. 

To commemorate Singapore’s liberation, Wong wisely looked back at the past and toward the future. After all, we learn from the past. We also understand that individual people experienced every heroic act and every brutal event. We know that each scintilla of hope exists only because a human being carries it. By shining forth the examples of people from the past and present, Wong served the highest value of commemoration. It was not his purpose to lecture people about events they already knew; no, his purpose was to inspire--to teach by relating personal stories. 

World War II, history’s most awful war, created suffering and heroism that defy human understanding. The island of Singapore, which was a British colony at the time, suffered Japanese invasion and occupation. After a few months of fighting, the Japanese captured Singapore’s massive seaport and solidified their control of the region’s sea lanes. The Japanese occupation was notably cruel. More than 30,000 captured Allied troops eventually died in Japanese captivity.  

To emphasize history's lessons, Wong cited personal stories from the past and present. By bringing up his family’s war experience, praising a war hero, and then praising a young student who looked to the future, Wong gave a speech that exemplified the epideictic genre. Epideictic oratory, that is, ceremonial speaking that honors people for their past accomplishments, uses examples to inspire our future actions.

Lessons from the Past

Speaking from the same room in Singapore’s National Gallery where Lord Mountbatten accepted Japan’s 1945 surrender in the Southwest Pacific, Wong began with stories of wartime suffering.

“It was my late grandfather, who would share with us stories of the Occupation – the food shortages, the illnesses they suffered, and also the lives lost, including that of his brother, my granduncle. He was rounded up with several young men in the village by soldiers then, late at night, and they never returned.”

 Continuing, Wong pointed out how important it is to remember the past:

“So we rely on memories like these, as well as the accounts we have just heard from people like Major Singh and Professor Thumboo. We remember the past in this dark and difficult period of our history.”

Those personal stories carried emotional meaning that would have eluded dry historical summaries. In addition, Wong recognized the sacrifices of the heroes who fought for Singapore’s freedom. Toward that end, the event’s organizers had gathered survivors to sit in the front row for the ceremony. Wong told the story of one Singaporean war hero: 

“One example is Captain Ho Weng Toh, who is 95 this year, and is here with us today. Captain Ho trained in the States with the US Army Air Force, and became a pilot with the Chinese-American bomber squadron known as the ‘Flying Tigers’. They were based in the Shanxi province in China, fighting against the Japanese forces then.”

As Wong continued, he explained that Captain Ho was a symbol of the “countless others” who “inspired us through their actions.” Bringing the point to a climax, Wong emphasized that, “We owe them a debt of gratitude that cannot be repaid”

Wong then asked the veterans to stand for applause.

Lessons for the Future

We wisely revisit the past so we can learn lessons and do better in the future. That is why, after praising the heroes of the past, Wong underlined that the occupation taught Singapore to gain strength and compassion: 

“The common experience of Occupation strengthened the people's mettle. It shaped their resolve to ensure that their children should never suffer in the same way. It catalyzed the building of our nation and forged a common identity out of a community of diverse immigrants.”

To emphasize the future, Wong introduced a 17-year-old student, Jamie Ng. He credited her with introducing the idea for the 70^th anniversary commemoration. Drawing from her experience and wisdom, Wong taught a lesson of peace and friendship: 

“Jamie has a keen interest in World War II history, and I understand her grandparents experienced the war. She shared with us that the most important thing her World War II studies have taught her is the need to prevent war, and to preserve harmony, understanding and friendship between nations.”

So, Wong moved from lamenting the war’s horrors, to praising the past’s heroes, and finally to the values that can guide Singapore’s future.

"A New Era:" General Douglas' MacArthur's Speech on the USS Missouri

George W. Bush on 9/11: A Message of Unity; Have We Forgotten?

The Lesson Learned

Wong advised the audience to learn from history and to move toward the time ahead, standing up for one’s values along the way. Good advice for any commemoration: 

“So as we learn from history, let us always look ahead to the future and move forward for the common good. Let us be a people that keeps faith with our past; a nation that stands up for its values; a Singapore that we will always be proud to call home.”

Wong’s approach was vastly more potent than a dry, academic recital of statistics. He could have remarked that perhaps 50 million people died in World War II. He could have stated how many thousands of Singaporeans died during the war, or how many starved, or how many were brutally murdered by Japanese forces. Mere statistics, however, rarely move the human heart. No, it is personal stories that move the heart. Thus, Wong wisely chose to emphasize the personal. His stories of his grandfather, Captain Ho Weng Toh, and student Jamie Ng touched the soul as well as the mind.

by William D. Harpine

___________

P.S. Lawrence Wong has since assumed office as the Prime Minister of Singapore. He is a member of Singapore’s People’s Action Party, the centrist regime that exercises Singapore’s government. Given Singapore’s de facto one-party rule, Freedom House rates Singapore at 48/100, “Partly Free,” as compared with the United States, 84/100 (“Free”) or Canada, 97/100 (“Free”). Finland rates 100/100, so the rest of us have room to improve. 

Research Note: For readers who want to know more about the often-underestimated genre of epideictic rhetoric, Professor Dale Sullivan wrote a terrific article on the topic. More ambitious readers might look at the relevant sections of The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, by Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. I have been lucky enough to publish a few pieces about epideictic rhetoric; click on the ribbon link above for William D. Harpine's Publications.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Lawrence Wong: United States Department of Defense, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons  

"A New Era:" General Douglas' MacArthur's Speech on the USS Missouri

Douglas MacArthur on the USS Missouri

“Today the guns are silent. A great tragedy has ended. A great victory has been won.”

So said General of the Army Douglas MacArthur eighty years ago, as he spoke over the radio from the battleship USS Missouri in Tokyo Harbor on September 2, 1945. The Pacific war was over. And MacArthur offered the United States, the assembled delegates – and the world – wisdom for the future. Wisdom that we have, I regret to say, sadly forgotten. Ceremonial speeches praise what is good and condemn what is bad, while offering values that can guide us. MacArthur urged people to build a world of spiritual and humanitarian growth.

In that vein, although World War II was an unfathomable cataclysm, MacArthur offered an opportunity and a warning:

“A new era is upon us. Even the lesson of victory itself brings with it profound concern, both for our future security and the survival of civilization.”

As a shaky world emerged from the war’s horrors, MacArthur offered, not fear, not hatred, but a “new era.” Unlike many world leaders from past to present who celebrated victory as vengeance, MacArthur instead called for peace and preservation:

“We must go forward to preserve in peace what we won in war.”

With the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only a few weeks in the past, MacArthur warned that, not war, but only spiritual and moral awakening could preserve humanity. The disaster that authoritarian governments had wreaked upon the world proved, MacArthur explained, that:

“We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.”

Harry Truman’s Atomic Bomb Speech Revealed “The Power of the Laboratories”

Adolf Hitler's Speech in the Berlin Sportpalast: God and Power

Note, please, that MacArthur admired human advances in knowledge, art, industry, and culture, but those advances were, he reminded us, not sufficient. To avoid destruction, humanity must revitalize the spirit. We must, he insisted, have a spiritual rebirth. It would not be enough merely to preserve the human character – for, as he knew all too well, human character had created World War II – but we also needed an “improvement of human character.” His lesson was that the new technologies that have been created in peace and war alike will serve us only if we improve our souls.

Eleanor Roosevelt's Speech about the Struggle for Freedom

MacArthur’s warning, however, called us to hard reality. Hitler and Nazi Germany had promised to create the Master Race. They created only ruin. Japanese war dogma preached the doctrine of indomitable fighting glory. They only created radioactive rubble. That is why MacArthur began his speech by praising democracy and freedom. And that is why his final point resonates today, when he called for a world:

“...based upon a tradition of historical truth as against the fanaticism of an enemy supported only by mythological fiction.”

So, as he summed up with a militaristic metaphor, MacArthur stated the cause of peace and justice:

“Today, freedom is on the offensive, democracy is on the march.”

However, in 2025, is freedom still on the march? As you look back, have we fulfilled MacArthur’s vision for “a new era?” MacArthur gave our forebears cause to reflect. If we ever think to retreat into ourselves, to shirk compassion and to eschew responsibility, will MacArthur’s vision have been in vain? In a larger context, have we in 2025 achieved the “improvement in human character” which MacArthur advocated? Or have we, in the United States, fallen victim to conspiracy theories (what MacArthur’s speech called “mythological fiction”), which lead overconfident people to tremble in terror from make-believe dangers? Do we want democracy and freedom to march forward, or shall we instead cling to our memories of a glorious past that never really existed? Do we constantly seek to improve our character and spiritual health, or will we, as so many nations have done throughout history, sink into cold indifference? Will we waste what MacArthur called “our last chance?” Such are the value questions that MacArthur addressed. 

Indeed, every good ceremonial (or epideictic) speech espouses values and offers at least generalized advice for the future. Speaking eighty years ago, MacArthur said much that can inspire us today. Can we honor the sacrifices of World War II and continue to build “a new era?” Heaven help us if we do not.

On a personal note, many American families can recall tales of selfless sacrifice. My father, Sergeant Casper Allen Harpine, Jr., earned battle stars for Operation Torch and Operation Dragoon. My father-in-law, Gunner’s Mate Third Class Jesse Doyle Clanton, was a disabled veteran of the Battle of the Atlantic. My mother’s brother, Private First Class Peter Feduska, died fighting Nazis in the Ardennes forest at Christmastime, 1944. Countless thousands of such stories can be told. Those men and women served to bring about “a new era.” We can best honor the Greatest Generation’s memories by seeking MacArthur’s vision: to “go forward to preserve in peace what we won in war.”

by William D. Harpine   

_____________________

Historical Note:

During his long career, Douglas MacArthur had many military triumphs (like the Inchon landing) and his share of disasters (like the failed invasion of North Korea). The public admired MacArthur’s eloquent speaking and strong sense of values. Presidents worried about his publicity-seeking egotism. He was at times disciplined, and, at other times, despicably insubordinate. In my view, however, his greatest accomplishment was that he and his staff organized the postwar occupation of Japan to create a lasting parliamentary government that respects human rights and became a force for peace and prosperity in the western Pacific. That alone was accomplishment enough for a lifetime.

Image: US Navy photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

King Charles III's Christmas Speech Called for the "Life-Giving Light"

King Charles III

As political tensions spread across our globe, and authoritarian impulses are taking over too many world governments, let us reflect on Christmas is a time of harmony, service, and mutual love.

On December 25, 2022, King Charles III broadcast a radio message across Great Britain. After mourning his mother’s recent death, he talked about the universal values that Christmas can represent for us. Those values, the values of light, goodness and compassion, are shared by good people everywhere, regardless of religious or political views. Charles explained:

"It is a belief in the extraordinary ability of each person to touch, with goodness and compassion, the lives of others, and to shine a light in the world around them.

"This is the essence of our community and the very foundation of our society."

Charles emphasized that we live in community with one another and that we all have the “extraordinary ability” to reach out “goodness and compassion:”

"It is a belief in the extraordinary ability of each person to touch, with goodness and compassion, the lives of others, and to shine a light in the world around them.

"This is the essence of our community and the very foundation of our society."

Without that sense of light, how can we live together in society?

The Harpine Family Christmas Tree

All too often, we think that religion limits us. We say, "my religion is better than yours,” or, worse, “only people who agree with me can receive the blessings that my religion promises.” Charles stressed that, although Christmas is a sectarian holiday, all of us can, and must, maintain the same basic values. Regardless of our religious views, we can contend that light should always overcome darkness. The king continued:

"While Christmas is, of course, a Christian celebration, the power of light overcoming darkness is celebrated across the boundaries of faith and belief.

"So, whatever faith you have, or whether you have none, it is in this life-giving light, and with the true humility that lies in our service to others, that I believe we can find hope for the future. 

"Let us therefore celebrate it together, and cherish it always."

From unity, we can receive hope. By reflecting on what we share, and not how we differ, we can work together and move forward.

I hope that all my readers enjoy this season, which is holy to Christians around the world, and I extend those wishes to all of you: for, no matter what religious beliefs you might, or might not hold, regardless of whether we agree or do not agree politically or religiously, we all sojourn on this planet together. Let us reach out toward the light, with understanding and empathy, and, as King Charles said, “celebrate it together.”

Peace. 

by William D. Harpine

Earlier Post: Pope Francis' Christmas Message

Earlier Post: Governor Greg Abbott Didn't Know the Christmas Story

Image of King Charles III, White House photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Christmas Tree image, William D. Harpine, copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

What Did the Gettysburg Address Really Say?

Abraham Lincoln, 1863

The United States of America’s most famous speech, Abraham Lincoln’s November 19, 1863, Gettysburg Address praised the thousands of young men who gave their lives to repel Robert E. Lee’s invasion of the North and, according to some, turn the tide of the American Civil War.

Lincoln gave no vacuous speech uttering empty praises for the war’s dead. No, he called for policy. He called for action. He asked the nation to continue the war.

Standing on a platform at the cemetery’s muddy excavation site, Lincoln spoke with surpassing eloquence. American schoolchildren learn his famous phrases:

“Four score and seven years ago.”

“Conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

But let us not miss the point. In this most magnificent of all epideictic speeches, Lincoln called passionately for a controversial and bloody policy: to continue the Civil War until the Union was restored and justice could reclaim the American ethos. The American Civil War’s appalling bloodshed and brutality shocked the nation, as hardly a household anywhere in the North or South had escaped the grief of losing a husband, brother, son, or cousin. Lincoln was not, in 1863, a popular man. 

Today, such vague, almost spiritual, value-laden rhetoric seems strangely unfamiliar. Indeed, in our cynical, technocratic 21st century, we expect to decide policies by nitpicking analysis, statistics, proof, and expert testimony. Lincoln offered none of that. Instead, he discussed values. His central value was simple. Brave men had consecrated Gettysburg’s hillsides with their blood – as they fought for the Union and against the cruel institution of chattel slavery. It was their values, the value of freedom, the value of justice, of equality, of wise and just government, that justified continuing the war.

By this point in his presidency, Lincoln had overcome some of his initial reticence and was hinting more and more boldly about the evils of slavery. Keep in mind that, although cynical southern apologists frequently saw slavery as a positive good, no one with a conscience could possibly believe them. The idea that human beings could be captured, kidnapped, and beaten, to force them to work for nothing, appalls everyone who knows right from wrong. Reasoned argument was not the point. The time for reasoning was over. It was time for justice: that is why Lincoln’s key point, which was so often overlooked when we read this speech, comes down to these arguments:

First, Lincoln, the great sovereign of words, said that actions count more than words:

“The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.” [italics added]

Second, he said that the dead, no longer able to fight, implicitly asked us to continue their noble struggle. That is a policy. That is action:

“It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain…”

Third, and, finally, out of the horrors of war, the nation had an opportunity – a God-given chance – to reform itself, to regain union according to justice:

“That this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Government “of the people, by the people, for the people” was no empty phrase. Wise, just government never appears by accident. According to Lincoln, only after the United States pursued its bitter conflict and paid the horrible price for the wickedness of slavery, at which he hinted in this momentous speech – then, and only then could we have government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

From values, we get policies. From suffering, we learn terrible lessons. From justice, we hope to reconcile.

Sadly, according to what I read in the news, that lesson has still not been fully learned. There can be, however, no greater lesson for a president to teach. And this, my dear readers, is why Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president. 

by William D. Harpine

Prince Harry Talked about Sacrifice and Freedom at the 2018 Invictus Games

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

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

____________________________________

This remarkable picture is the only known photograph of Lincoln at Gettysburg. It appears to have been exposed some time before his speech. Lincoln's head is in the marked red box. 

Interestingly, Lincoln's friend Edward Everett was the day's featured speaker, and Lincoln was invited as an afterthought. 

Portrait of Abraham Lincoln by Alexander Gardner, 1863, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Lincoln at Gettysburg, unknown photographer, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Barack Obama’s Speech about Fatherhood: Building upon a Rock

Barack Obama

On Father’s Day, June 15, 2008, future President Barack Obama told fathers to build upon a rock. He advised fathers to uphold their responsibilities (like men, not boys, he said). He encouraged government and society to support fatherhood and family life instead of oppressing them. He gave this speech at the First Apostolic Church of God in Chicago, a largely African American megachurch. Like all ceremonial speakers, Obama praised and blamed. He praised good fathers. He urged negligent fathers to fulfill their duties. Like all good ceremonial speakers, his praise promulgated values and led to policy: for, after all, why should we praise something unless we seek to emulate it?

Obama began by quoting the Bible (Matthew 7:24-25): “Whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock.” Building on that theme, Obama said that Jesus Christ was the rock, but so was the church’s founding Bishop, and, for the occasion, so were fathers.

Father’s Day was, according to Obama, a day to recognize that family is society’s rock, and the father is part of the family’s rock. He did not misogynistically place the father at the pinnacle, but, rather, as an essential part:

“Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.”

Continuing, Obama lamented that too many fathers disappear from their families’ lives:

“But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.” 

Unlike pure liberals, who blame everything on society; unlike pure conservatives, who blame everything on individuals, Obama called for broad-spectrum reform. We must, he said, help our children in every way:

“Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more after-school programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.

“But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child — it’s the courage to raise one.”

“The courage to raise” – “courage,” Obama said, a rock-like word on which to build our children’s future.

Turning to public policy, Obama encouraged societies to support families. He said that government should make “it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid them.” He called for the end of marriage penalties. He encouraged training, opportunities, and government programs to help families raise children:

“We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income.”

Continuing, Obama discussed the gift of hope. We must, implied, build our families upon that rock. So, as he ended, Obama praised fathers, asked irresponsible fathers to transform themselves, and invited society to support families instead of abandoning them to face their problems alone. Just before his concluding prayer, Obama reminded families of their most basic obligation:

“That is our ultimate responsibility as fathers and parents. We try. We hope. We do what we can to build our house upon the sturdiest rock.”

Ceremonial speakers praise and blame. But why? Remember, when we praise, we should emulate. Is it enough to praise? Shouldn’t we also learn? Indeed, what purpose do we serve if we learn and fail to act? The alternative is to abandon hope in an empty world, an world of cynicism and despair. To live as a healthy nation, we must have responsible parents and a caring society. Neither, standing alone, is enough. Those are rocks on which to build.

Obama did not build his policy proposals on statistics, expert opinion, or subtle analogies. He built them on values.

The history of rhetoric offers us too few speeches about fathers. (Or about mothers, for that matter!) If we abandon family responsibility, do we have a rock left on which to build?


In memory of my own father, a man so devoted and too little appreciated. Special thanks to all fathers. Happy Father's Day!

by William D. Harpine

Earlier Posts:

Kristin Urquiza's Brief Story about Her Father

Ayanna Pressley's Mother's Day Speech: How Did She Use Language to Make Her Point?

Copyright © 2024, Willliam D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo

Ayanna Pressley's Mother's Day Speech: How Did She Use Language to Make Her Point?

Ayanna Pressley

In a brief speech on the United States House of Representatives floor, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley used a ceremonial occasion, the approaching Mother’s Day, to urge Congress to pass better policies for mothers. She used the rhetorical figure of anaphora to link a series of accusations. Anaphora means to link sentences with a common word or phrase, such as when Scotty on Star Trek said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Pressley’s anaphora made her speech seem elegant and, well, rhetorical. The repeated phrases tie her points together.  Nevertheless, her speech would have carried more punch if she had better managed the anaphoric sentences.

Pressley accused American policy of praising mothers while refusing to support them. She headlined that we need to act, not just talk:

“Mr. Speaker, mothers across America don’t want a Hallmark card. They want policy change.”

She then gave a series of statements, all in parallel language:

“We tell mothers that caregiving is their greatest contribution, and then undermine them at every turn.

“We tell women that motherhood is aspirational and the greatest contribution they will ever make, while for many a safe pregnancy is a privilege and not a right.”

Each “we tell” stated an unfulfilled goal that society offers to mothers. Each statement then showed how society suppresses those same goals.

Anyway, Pressley continued:

“We tell mothers that the work of keeping that baby warm, safe and fed is the highest calling, and then we allow negligence and policy gaps to create a baby formula shortage in the midst of a pandemic as mothers panic to meet a most basic need.”

Notice right away, however, that Pressley’s overwhelming verbiage suppressed her emotional impact. She could, for example, have said: “We tell mothers that it is a high calling to keep the baby fed, but we negligently allow mothers to panic during a baby formula shortage.” Same point, but sharper. The shorter, crisper sentence sounds more like a public speech, and less like a government report. More memorable.

Continuing, Pressley said:

“We tell mothers that they must work like they don’t have children and parent like they don’t work, while we fail to pass a universal paid leave policy thrusting mamas and caregivers back into the workplace and mere weeks after their babies are born.”

That’s an excellent point and I heartily agree. The “we tell” reminds listeners that society makes promises to mothers, one after the other, but fails to fulfill them. Again, wordiness buried the message. Maybe this instead? “The lack of paid maternity leave thrusts mamas and caregivers back to work much too soon.” A good speaker knows that you should never use 20 words if 10 words will do the job better.

Pressley actually said “we tell” seven times in a speech of less than six minutes. That was potentially formidable. However, we liberals tend to overstate our points, don’t we? Good speakers try to be sharp and crisp. Memorable phrases need to stand out without getting buried under unnecessary words. Most good speakers use short sentences, with an occasional long sentence for variety. The “we tell” phrases would have carried more power if they had been crisper, which would have packed them together with less stuffing in between.

Let us think about how pithy statements help us remember great speeches. Lincoln: “Of the people, by the people, for the people.” Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Roosevelt: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” No wasted words there!

Yes, sometimes we need to explain our points. Of course. But before we explain them, we must state our purpose clearly, sharply, and precisely. Our spoken words must strike for attention. Our words must be clear. Our words must be concise. Our words must show power.

Finally, let me wish a wonderful Mother’s Day to all the mothers out there. Loving and attentive mothers. Mothers who can’t function because life has crushed them. Good mothers. Mothers who struggle. Adoptive mothers. Foster mothers. Older siblings who raise their brothers and sisters. A wonderful Mother’s Day to all mothers blessed with adoring children. A wonderful Mother’s Day to mothers whose children have forgotten them. A wonderful day to every woman who wanted to be a mother but never had the chance. Thank you, every one of you; we wouldn’t be here without you. 

Remember that it is fine to recommend policies during a ceremonial speech. Speakers do that all the time (see links below). Thank you, Ayanna Pressley, for reminding us how important mothers are. 

Happy Mother’s Day 2024!

by William D. Harpine

___________

Earlier posts:

Vice President Mike Pence's Speech at the Marine Barracks: Policy without Proof?

Lady Gaga Spoke and Sang for National Unity in 2017

Tyler Perry at the 2019 BET Awards: "Helping Someone Cross" as a Metaphor for Reaching Out to Help

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Ayanna Pressley's congressional website

Joe Biden Organized His Holocaust Remembrance Day Speech to Place Values in Context

Biden on Holocaust Remembrance Day

“During these sacred Days of Remembrance, we grieve. We give voice to the 6 million Jews who were systematically targeted and murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War Two.”

Speaking in Emancipation Hall in the United States Capitol, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, May 7, 2024, United States President Joe Biden addressed the ongoing Gaza war with a classic persuasive speaking pattern: he started with the general theme, moved to the specific, and then shifted back to the general. Moving through that pattern, Biden placed the ongoing horrors into a historical and moral context. As he did so, Biden offered implicit support for Israel’s Gaza war's policies. 

Never ignore a ceremonial speech’s persuasive impact!

The General Point

The Holocaust survivor's slogan, “never forget,” signifies that history’s cruel lessons are too easily forgotten. Biden therefore wisely reviewed the Holocaust’s basic historical facts. Thus, following his opening comment about “6 million Jews who were systematically targeted and murdered,” Biden offered some personal experiences. This was, after all, a day of remembrance, not a political situation per se. Biden then reminded the assembled audience that antisemitism fueled the Nazi party’s rise to power:

“Germany, 1933. Hitler and his Nazi party rise to power by rekindling one of the world’s oldest forms of prejudice and hate: antisemitism.”

Biden then warned his audience that the Holocaust spread throughout Nazi-controlled territory because the rest of the world ignored the terror and suffering:

“With the indifference of the world, Hitler knew he could expand his reign of terror by eliminating Jews from Germany, to annihilate Jews across Europe through genocide the Nazi’s called the ‘Final Solution’’ — concentration camps, gas chambers, mass shootings.”

Biden’s general message: “never forget,” he said.

Hitler, the Harbinger of the Modern Christian Right, Gave His Inaugural Speech

The Specific Point

Specific events underlie every generality. So, for his next points, Biden related antisemitism to the horrible war in Gaza. Demonstrators on college campuses across the United States have protested Israel’s violent attacks in Gaza, attacks that have caused dreadful civilian casualties. Biden’s specific point was to remind his listeners that the war began when Hamas, the political movement that governs Gaza, attacked concentrations of civilians in Israel. Biden tied Hamas’ violence directly to the ancient bigotry that led to the Holocaust:

“Driven by ancient desire to wipe out the Jewish people off the face of the Earth, over 1,200 innocent people — babies, parents, grandparents — slaughtered in their kibbutz, massacred at a musical festival, brutally raped, mutilated, and sexually assaulted. Thousands more carrying wounds, bullets, and shrapnel from the memory of that terrible day they endured. Hundreds taken hostage, including survivors of the Shoah.”

Biden Speaking in Emancipation Hall

Israel, as is well known, responded with a massive attack against Gaza.

Biden complained that Jewish students have been harassed on college campuses. Relating the Holocaust to Hamas’ October attack against Israel, Biden tied the ongoing suffering to the Holocaust itself:

“Too many people [are] denying, downplaying, rationalizing, ignoring the horrors of the Holocaust and October 7th, including Hamas’s appalling use of sexual violence to torture and terrorize Jews.”

With those words, Biden connected the Gaza war to the larger context of antisemitic violence.


Back to the General

It is, however, the general point, not the specific one, that arbitrates moral judgments. So, in this Holocaust Remembrance Day speech, Biden brought us back to a more general point. Never quite saying so aloud, Biden stated the basic value that the United States of America bears a sacred obligation to guard civilization. He implied that guarding civilization includes opposing antisemitic violence. So, as he neared his conclusion, Biden called on a greater value:

“Great American — great Jewish American named Tom Lantos used the phrase, ‘The veneer of civilization is paper thin. We are its guardians, and we can never rest.’

My fellow Americans, we must — we must be those guardians. We must never rest. We must rise against hate, meet across the divide, see our common humanity.”

Dr. Margaret Chan Organized Her Public Health Speech for Success

Dina Pronicheva’s Testimony at a Nazi War Crimes Trial: A Lesson Learned?

Joe Biden's Juneteenth Speech Used Values to Support Policies

A Lesson Learned?

In a ceremonial speech like Biden’s, an audience rarely wants a point-by-point policy discussion. This wasn’t the time. Instead, a ceremonial speaker makes a point by reviewing the moral values that lead us to praise and condemn. Praise and blame then give our decisions ethical guidance. We condemn the Nazis. We condemn antisemitism. Those are value statements.

Then, by placing the Gaza war into that larger context, by reminding us of the ongoing evils of antisemitism, Biden gave his audience a larger view. As he began the speech, Biden honored the Holocaust’s victims and condemned, not only the Nazi perpetrators, but also the indifferent world that stood silent as the Nazis cruelly ravaged Europe’s Jews. Only then did Biden remind the audience that Hamas itself began the current war by attacking, raping, and kidnapping Israeli civilians. Concluding, Biden returned to general moral values, urging the United States to guard the world’s freedom.

After all, values guide our policies. We can disagree about values (just as we disagree about policies), but we must never ignore them.

by William D. Harpine

_____________

Theoretical note: Communication scholars place ceremonial speeches in the epideictic genre. An epideictic speech (literally, a speech that “shows forth” or “enlightens”) offers praise or blame, often implying moral guidance. My colleague Dale Sullivan wrote a fine article explaining epideictic rhetoric. 

More generally, rhetorical critics typically examine deep-thinking issues, analyzing a speaker’s cultural principles, language use, or historical context. Those matters deserve our attention. Too often, however, we communication researchers ignore the speech’s organization. Is that an oversight? Organization can reveal a speaker’s priorities and motivating principles. In this case, Biden may have said more with organization that he did with content.

P.S. On a personal note, I support the basic justice of Israel’s plight in the Gaza war. Nevertheless, given the ongoing disaster that continues to afflict Gaza’s civilian population, the question still arises, has Israel gone too far? That question troubles me, and it is a question that Biden’s speech ignored. What do you think?

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Images of Biden speaking in Emancipation Hall: White House YouTube channel

Bill Clinton's Speech about the Columbine Massacre Asked Us to Reflect

Bill Clinton

“We know somehow that what happened to you has pierced the soul of America.”

Those were President Bill Clinton’s words in his speech to survivors of the Columbine High School massacre. A month earlier, on April 20, 1999 (25 years ago today) two Columbine High School students had killed twelve of their fellow students and a teacher. After an hours-long standoff with a tepid police response, the two shooters committed suicide.

A Speech About Values

Many subsequent post-massacre speeches and angry statements for and against gun control have filled the news. In contrast, Clinton focused on the United States of America’s moral focus. Maybe that is where we needed to focus all along. He asked his audience (his audience was not just the students and parents in front of him, but also the entire nation) to think about what is right and what is wrong, to look for ways to overcome darkness, to find ways to reconcile differences, to overcome grievances and to do the things that are right to do. Clinton talked about the future:

“… a future where what we have in common is far more important than what divides us.”

Clinton’s message speaks to us in 2024. In no other nation on earth, rich or poor, big or small, democratic, communist, or fascist, do mass school shootings occur with the horrible ferocity that has become commonplace in the United States. The satirical website The Onion comments after almost every school shooting that there is “‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”

Maybe, as liberal speakers have often said, the problem is too many guns. In response, conservative speakers ask whether we need more good guys with guns. Neither approach will solve the problem, though, until we recognize what is right and what is wrong.

. What is right and wrong is not just a matter of how one acts, but of what moral values a person holds dear. That was President Clinton’s message.


Joe Biden's Emotional Gun Control Plea: "Enough!"

Wayne LaPierre's Speech Opposes Gun Control with a Dark Vision

That is why, in this brief speech’s key passage, Clinton talked about overcoming the “dark forces” that make people into murderers, as well as the forces in human society that prevent us from working together:

“These dark forces that take over people and make them murder are the extreme manifestation of fear and rage with which every human being has to do combat. The older you get, the more you’ll know that a great deal of life is the struggle against every person’s own smallness and fear and anger and a continuing effort not to blame other people for our own shortcomings or our fears.”

All human beings, as Clinton reminded us, struggle with dark forces. Can we overcome the “smallness” of our thinking? Can we not recognize that fear leads to anger, but we can control our fear and anger?

Yes, Clinton briefly mentioned that the nation needs to keep firearms out of dangerous peoples’ hands. That, however, was not his main point. His main point was for us to examine our morals.

Clinton’s larger, moral context persuaded few people at the time, and would probably persuade fewer today. We cannot move forward with reasonable gun control until we understand our fear and anger. We cannot resolve school violence until we view education as something greater than getting good scores on computer-graded multiple-choice tests. A few generations ago, schools knew that part of their job was moral education: to teach tolerance, to make people aware of their history and culture, and to instill such all-American values as freedom of expression and religion. My intermediate school principal called our school campus “a plant,” as if the school were an industrial operation, rather than a cultural institution. I have not heard that bizarre term recently, but our nation has still not figured out what functions it wants schools to serve.

Anywhere Could Become Columbine

Clinton’s Columbine speech was not, however, just about one school in Colorado. Clinton reminded his audience that:

“We know if this can happen here, it can happen anywhere.”

Indeed, Clinton remarked about the “fundamentally strong values and character” of the people of Jefferson County, Colorado. He was right about that! Yet, for that solid community, “Columbine” is forever engraved on American memory as a symbol of violence, social disorganization, and moral failure. Indeed, school massacres have become a nationwide affliction, as fear and anger continue to tear apart many of the United States’ seemingly most stable neighborhoods. When they happen, we say that they are “another Columbine.”

Any number of policies might help. Should we control gun ownership by people who are known to be dangerous? We might ask, how do teenagers build bombs in their parents’ garage, and no one notices? What about school bullying? Can we recognize mental health issues before they lead to disaster? Do we need better trained, more organized police? Progress on all those fronts continues to be slow, if not nil, twenty-five long years later.

Emma González at the "March for Our Lives" Rally

Clinton’s Larger Purpose

Public speaking’s highest purpose is to awaken our moral sensibilities.

So, Clinton pointed out that before we can solve the detailed issues of policy, we must settle a more fundamental point. Clinton’s Columbine speech cried out for us to reflect. Clinton was right that the United States needs to determine what it stands for. Unfortunately, we seem to have wandered even farther from that determination than we were 25 years ago. Do we stand for each other, or do we want to destroy one another? Heaven help us.

by William D. Harpine

______________

Research note: Ceremonial speeches (the old term is epideictic speech) often talk about values, while subtly encouraging the audience to think of actions that fulfill their values. I have written about epideictic rhetoric a number of times; here is a free preprint of one of my papers on the topic. For more, click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” at the link above. 

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: National Archives, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

President Ursula von der Leyen Attacked Antisemitism

On December 11, 2023, during the lighting of the Euro-Chanukah, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen quoted the traditional saying:

“The darkness of the whole world cannot swallow the glowing of a candle.”

This European ceremonial lighting marked the start of the Jewish celebration of the lights. Addressing the horrors of antisemitism, von der Leyen redefined the controversial concept of diversity. Drawing unity from diversity, she stood in the long tradition of speakers who find truth in the rhetorical trope of paradox.

Von der Leyen began her brief speech by extending the Jewish tradition to all peoples:

“Chanukah is of course an ancient Jewish tradition. But I believe it speaks to all human beings.” [italics added]

Von der Leyen’s simple statement contradicts our usual concept of diversity. For we most often say that we must find a way to create unity despite diversity. She insisted, instead, that diversity creates unity.

A paradox reveals hidden truths behind a seeming contradiction. Diversity and unity would seem to undermine one another. Yet, von der Leyen insisted that religious diversity created unity in European political affairs, that it pulled Europeans together. Thus, antisemitism becomes, in contrast, a cruel force that tears Europeans away from one another.

Having stated that basic value, von der Leyen remarked about the horrifying rise of antisemitism in Europe:

“An old evil is resurfacing in Europe. Swastikas have been painted on the homes of Jews. Synagogues have been vandalised. Jewish children have been locked in their schools because the streets are not safe for them.”

Earlier Post: Donald Trump's Awkward Speech about Antisemitism

Von der Leyen reminded her audience that the festival represented Jewish freedom of religion against persecution. This argument led her to speak for a public policy, she advocated protecting all places of worship, beginning with synagogues. She also advocated policies that suppressed hate speech on the Internet. Like many ceremonial speakers before her, she used values to support a political program.

Finally, von der Leyen returned to her opening paradox, to find “unity in diversity:”

“Europe stands for ‘united in diversity’. For centuries, European Jews have shaped our common heritage. Think of Marc Chagall and Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Rahel Hirsch and Hannah Arendt. And you still do shape our common heritage. This is why we will create a new award to celebrate Jewish cultural heritage. Because Jewish culture is a blessing to Europe, and we should all know more about it.”

Opposition to diversity, in general, and antisemitism, in particular, does not just strike at Europe. For, in the United States of America, the very concept of unity has openly created anger and discord. Von der Leyen did not merely say that we should accept diversity. She said that diversity created unity. She said that the fact that we have different religions and beliefs creates strength, not division. It was antisemitism, she insisted, not diversity, that drove people apart.

This thought led von der Leyen to look toward a hopeful future in which we would return to an “age-old value:”

“We must bring new energy to our age-old value of unity in diversity. This is also the spirit of Chanukah. It is not only a celebration of the past but a time to renew our hopes for the future with the confidence that ‘weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning’.”

Her quotation was from Psalm 30 in the Hebrew Scriptures. At no time did von der Leyen deny the growing horrors of antisemitism. Instead, she looked for hope by returning to ancient values.

As a United States citizen, I found myself struck by the calm, morally assured vision that von der Leyen brought to the growing religious and political conflicts that seek to disrupt the modern world. She redefined how we think about diversity. She gave a rhetorical lesson that the entire world can heed. Are we listening?

Earlier Post: Ursula von der Leyen Warned Us of the Totalitarian Winds

Earlier Post: The Solution to Climate Change Is in the Cities: President Ursula von der Leyen's Speech at the European Energy Award

___________________

Theoretical note: A trope (such as “paradox”) is a linguistic device that changes the way we use or think about a word or phrase. This article gives a quick rundown of tropes. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine