Pete Buttigieg Called for Uplifting Politics. Donald Trump Disagreed.

Dirty political talk is as old as politics itself. On the same day that Pete Buttigieg asked American voters to choose “a better politics,” former President Donald Trump boasted that he thrives on the political dark side.


Pete Buttigieg Asked the United States to Choose Dignity

Pete Buttigieg

During his August 21, 2024 Democratic National Convention speech, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg asked the United States of America to upgrade its political talk. He said, “I just don’t believe that America today is in the market for darkness.” Instead, it is time, he told us, to take politics seriously. Positive politics, he explained, invite us to make positive national choices:

“Yes, politics at its worst can be ugly, crushing, demeaning, but it doesn’t have to be. At its best, politics can be empowering, uplifting. It can even be a kind of soul craft.”

Buttigieg asked voters to decide what tone they want their political leaders to use. Now, in my experience, most people say that they prefer dignified political discussion. Nevertheless, their values and actions don’t seem to connect; in real life, the nastiest candidates often get more votes. Buttigieg begged us to take a stand: darkness or light? He emphasized that choice: 

“So, this November, we get to choose. We get to choose our president. We get to choose our policies, but most of all, we will choose a better politics. A politics that calls us to our better selves and offers us a better every day.”

Buttigieg asked his audience to think about how politics can improve our lives. He reminded us that we do not vote in November to choose the winner of a reality show contest. Instead, we are choosing what kind of lives we choose to live:

“I don’t presume to know what it’s like in your kitchen, but I know, as sure as I am standing here, that everything in it, the bills you pay at that table, the shape of the family that sits there, the fears and the dreams that you talk about late into the night there, all of it compels us to demand more from our politics than a rerun of some TV wrestling death match.”

The October 15, 2019 Democratic Primary Debate: Superficiality Ruled the Stage

Buttigieg’s message: we should choose positive politics because we want to live better lives.

Alas, not everyone agrees.

Donald Trump Boasted about the Dark Side

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump scorned uplifting politics at a North Carolina campaign rally that same day. Trump announced that he would henceforth call the Democratic nominee “Comrade Kamala.” In fact, to the crowd’s cheers, Trump loudly reviewed his name-calling skill:

“[Kamala Harris] ruined San Francisco, she ruined California. And if she gets in, our country doesn’t have a chance. This calamity is on Comrade Kamala Harris’s shoulders. I think her name will be Comrade because I think that’s the most accurate name. I’ve been looking for a name. People are saying, “Sir, don’t do it.” You know all my names, they’ve all worked. They’ve all been very successful, and I really didn’t find one with her. “Sir, she’s a woman.” I said, “So is Hillary Clinton, I called her Crooked Hillary.” Nobody complained about that, right? Right? Mr. Governor, nobody complained about that. No, I called her Crooked Hillary. I called people names. I call Crazy Nancy Pelosi crazy because she is, she’s nuts.” [italics added]

“I called people names,” Trump literally boasted. The nickname “Comrade Kamala” joined the ongoing Republican movement to brand her as, not just a liberal, but a literal communist. Trump also talked about how astute he was to call former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi “Crazy Nancy.” He repeated the nickname “Crooked Hillary” as if name-calling were a major life accomplishment. He didn’t mention “Lying, Lying Ted [Cruz]?” or “Little Marco [Rubio]” in this speech, but he could have. Are we voting for a president – or a playground bully? 

Indeed, Trump griped that his advisors told him to stop calling people names. To his rally crowd’s delight, he said that he was going to fire the advisors. He sneered:

“‘Please, sir, don’t get personal, talk about policy.’ Let me ask you about that. We’re going to do a free poll. Here are the two questions: should I get personal, should I not get personal? Ready? Should I get personal? Should I not get personal? I don’t know, my advisors are fired. No. We’d rather keep it on policy, but sometimes it’s hard when you’re attacked from all ends.”

Needless to say, Trump’s cheering crowd did not make the positive choice.

Trump’s only defense was that his crude tactics succeeded: if we imagine that he was taking up Buttigieg’s challenge, Trump asked the voters – in so many words – to vote for crudeness. Trump didn’t just go to the dark side; he bragged about it: “You know all my names, they’ve all worked.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

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

A Contrast: Two Political Styles?

Now, Buttigieg aside, I’m not going to pretend that Democrats are always nice. Still, in the realm of dirty politics, the American people do seem to face a choice. Buttigieg asked the voters to choose positive politics, while Trump crows about his name-calling skill.

Or, in a larger sense, Buttigieg is calling on everyone to run a more civilized campaign, to discuss issues and character rather than to trade mindless insults. Let us not forget that Trump was right, in a sense: name-calling helped him win against Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Politics has never been a nice game. Buttigieg does, however, make a point – does he not? Do we really want to elect whichever candidate is most skilled at calling people names? Is the White House to be the adult home of third-grade bullies? Will America’s adversaries back down if the President of the United States calls their leaders crude names?

Of course, Democrats do routinely criticize Donald Trump. Is there a difference? I suggest that there often is.

First, although Democrats can sink low, they rarely create juvenile nicknames for the Republican candidate. Although Trump invents infantile insults like “Comrade Kamala” or “Low-IQ Maxine Waters,” Democrats generally just call him “Donald Trump” or “Trump.” Lately, the Democrats sometimes call Trump “weird,” which seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Second, the Democrats’ attacks against Trump more often arise from his actions and political views, rarely focusing on his personal habits. For example, in this speech, Buttigieg called Trump a “convicted criminal,” which is, at least, factual.

Given the high stakes, combined with the United States’ week defamation laws, it may be too much to expect our politicians to engage in civilized discourse. Sadly, Trump said it best – he calls people names because it wins votes. Surely, however, we voters can heed Buttigieg’s plea and expect politicians to do a little better. Surely, we voters can find it within ourselves to reject a candidate who makes name-calling his proudest public speaking technique. 

by William D. Harpine

A word of thanks. My gratitude to rev.com, a commercial transcript service, for producing verbatim transcripts of these speeches. These are more valuable than the speakers' prepared texts, which do not always reflect what the speaker actually says.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image of Pete Buttigieg: Department of Transportation photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Donald Trump: official White House photo, public domain

Trump Against the "Radical Leftists"

Donald Trump

“We’re going to evict crazy Kamala. Do you know, ever hear of Kamala? Radical left. Radical left.”

So said Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in his August 12, 2024 political rally in Montana. Trump exploited the simple rhetorical trope of repetition. One of a demagogue’s most powerful tools, simple repetition can dominate even the most well-intentioned political audience. Instead, in this case, eschewing argument, Trump used what I have previously called the jackhammer method of persuasion. 

Over and over, Trump called Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris a member of the “radical left.” Now, as a rhetorical tactic, repetition has one big advantage: the speaker experiences no need to explain anything, prove anything, or justify anything. As a rhetorical tactic, repetition detours around any reasoned ideas. If we hear something many times, we may grow to believe it: as hammer-like repetition pounds unproved and sometimes ridiculous ideas into our brains. 

Earlier Post: Conservatives, Public Health, and the Jackhammer Method of Persuasion

The Psychological Theory of Repetition

A psychological theory called the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion posits that we adopt attitudes in one of two different ways. We can follow the Central Route, which means that we listen carefully, gather information, and analyze the pros and cons. That requires time and effort; the listener must gather and analyze information with confidence. It’s a lot of work. It often requires a significant knowledge base. In contrast, the Peripheral Route bypasses reasoned thought. An audience member who relies on the Peripheral Route relies on superficial cues: whether the source is likeable or attractive, the speaker’s delivery style, belief in the speaker’s expertise, and, of course, simple repetition. The Peripheral Route makes it simpler to evaluate an argument. In truth, that often makes sense, especially for trivial decisions. 

Nevertheless, I cannot imagine any decision more important than voting for the President of the United States. Does any other action cry out more loudly for Central Route persuasion?


Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and the “Radical Left”

Over and over, Trump said that Harris and other Democrats were radicals, leftists, or socialists. Only briefly and hyperbolically did Trump explain why he thought Harris was a radical leftist. 

For example, after calling Harris “Radical left. Radical left,” Trump sarcastically explained why Harris was “radical:”

“Well, she has a couple of things that a lot of people from Montana would like. She wants to take away your guns. You like that, right? All right, how about this? She wants to defund the police. Are you okay with that? She wants to allow millions of people to pour into our border through an invasion using an invasion process. I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s for you. It’s not for me either. It’s not for most people in this country. We’re going to evict crazy Kamala and we’re going to, we’re get Joe Biden out of the White House.”

Those talking points are a bit dubious. Although Harris has sometimes opposed increased police funding, there is no record of her wanting to defund the police. PolitiFact previously rated Trump’s claimed that Harris wants to defund the police as “Mostly False.”

Earlier Post: Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"


Furthermore, Harris at one time advocated buying back (not seizing) so-called assault weapons, but she has, according to PolitiFact, otherwise never advocated taking away people’s guns. Also, Harris supported a bipartisan border control bill, which is not consistent with Trump’s claim that she supports an invasion process. 

So, the listener confronts two links: first, were Trump’s accusations accurate? Well, no, at best, Trump exaggerated Harris’ positions. Second, were her policies “radical left?” That also deserves careful – Central Route – examination. Opinion surveys have shown that half or more of Americans support laws that would ban assault weapons, which, to my thinking, leads me to question whether that policy would be “radical left.” Still, Peripheral Route persuasion obviously invites hyperbole, as does much political talk.


Repetition Was Relentless

No Trump did not appeal to Central Route reasoning: he used a rhetorical jackhammer. Trump repeatedly insisted that his opponents are “radical left.” Referring to Montana’s Democratic Party Senator Jon Tester, Trump said: 

“He’s a radical left lunatic, just like Kamala and we got to elect him." 

(When Trump carelessly said “him,” I must think that he intended to refer, not to Tester, but to Tester’s more conservative opponent.)

After complaining about the 2020 election, Trump continued to rant about radicals:

“I handed Kamala and Crooked Joe a surging economy with no inflation. We had no inflation. We had nothing. We had the greatest economy in the history of the world. True. Their radical socialist lunacy turned it into a failing economy with the worst inflation in probably 70 years.”

(If we were debating by the Central Route, we might remember that in December 2020, Trump’s last full month in office, unemployment hit an astonishing 6.7%. If, however, the horror of “radical socialist lunacy” terrifies us, we can happily stay on the Peripheral Route and ignore the numbers. See the point? An audience that processed information through the Central Route would care about the numbers!)  

Trump continued to complain about radicals as he looked forward to the next election:

“On election day, we’re going to tell this radical left country buster, she’s a country buster, that we’ve had enough.” 

Trump being Trump, he succumbed to the overwhelming need to whine about the 2020 election – again, blaming it on the “radical left:”

“The radical-left Democrats rigged the presidential election in 2020. We will not let them rig the presidential election in 2024.”

Well, in one context or another, Trump made his point: Democrats are not just liberals, they are, he asserted, radicals. Dangerous. Frightening.

Obviously enough, Trump’s rhetorical tactic pleased this crowd precisely because they already believed every word of it. Liberals terrified them. Montana is a gun culture state. Talk radio and Fox News had already convinced them that Democrats are liberal, radical, dangerous gun-grabbers. Did Trump need to prove any of what he said? As far as his audience felt – no! Elections are determined by encouraging voter turnout, not by changing people’s minds, and enthusiastic Peripheral Route persuasion was all that Trump needed. 

Do speeches like Trump’s give us a sound basis to participate in elections using the criteria of good citizenship that we all should have learned in school? I shudder to think.

Nothing New Under the Sun

As the prophet said, there is nothing new under the sun. Name-calling, hyperbole, wild accusations – well, often enough, that’s how American politics works. Notoriously, many voters in the United States of America go through their political lives oblivious to the most basic issues. Trump’s crowd, who showed up precisely to hear the kind of ramble-browsing that Trump so enthusiastically offered, are, like too many of us, happy to live in a world of talking points and imaginary dangers. Trump presented a choice between two groups: the “Radical Left” or Trump and his friends. A stark, binary choice. Basic identity politics. Us or them. Right or wrong. Good versus evil. The underlying value assumptions were never proven, but merely assumed.

Earlier Post: Negative Campaigns Go Way Back!

Never, ever should political pundits underestimate Donald Trump’s powerful political skills. Trump’s platitudes invited his audience to accept, or reject, the “radical left.” His audience wanted nothing to do with the left. Trump continues to do well in opinion polls. With millions of voters convinced that liberals threaten their way of life, Trump powerfully tracked his listeners’ fear and dismay. Did he offer them much in the way of policy? No, but policy was never his purpose. Instead, he filled the audience with outrage that the “radical left” would take away everything they hold dear.

by William D. Harpine

______________

P.S. Special thanks to rev.com, a commercial transcript service, for preparing a full transcript of this speech. They are doing better than the mainstream media! 

Research Note: Readers who want to learn more about Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo’s Elaboration Likelihood Model are encouraged to look at their excellent book, Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, which was published as part of the Springer Series in Social Psychology. Most research libraries will have a copy.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo

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

Donald Trump

“Win, win, win, win, win, win.” So said Donald Trump in his speech last night, July 18, 2024, accepting the Republican presidential nomination. Rambling for about an hour and a half, Trump spoke little about policies, although he did manage to spread a pile of falsehoods. PBS's fact checkers discovered a long series of false or misleading claims. Now, we are all accustomed to Trump and his falsehoods. Furthermore, noting that Trump wandered from sounding conciliatory to spewing out angry accusations, a columnist in the conservative National Review called it a “Jekyll and Hyde speech.” 

However, among all this smoke, let us not miss Trump’s point. Trump promoted, not facts, not policies, but an attitude: he promised to be “fierce.” In the nation’s history, Trump explained, “No enemy was too fierce.” The nation needed, he said, in true conservative fashion, to return to that past attitude. And it is attitudes – not facts, not policies, but attitudes –  that determine election victory. 

Earlier Post: Do 2020 Republican National Convention Speakers Care About Fact Checkers?

Yes, although Trump mentioned policies, this was not a policy speech. Instead, this speech asked, what do we value? And Trump valued strength. Trump promised to be strong – powerful – unyielding. He warned the audience of “crisis… crisis… crisis.” Fear. He warned of dangers of every kind. Powerful, evil, and malicious people threaten us. Facing those dangers, Trump promised to be “fierce.” Trump did not sell himself as a bastion of domestic or foreign policy wisdom. He barely mentioned such virtues. No, in his dark vision, dangers attack us from without and within, and the only solution – the only protection – is to be fierce.

Social scientist George Lakoff explains that conservatives and liberals operate with different metaphors. Conservatives (like Trump’s base voters?) seek a “strong father.” Conservatives seek strength. Liberals, in contrast, prefer what Lakoff calls a “nurturing mother.” Liberals pursue wisdom and compassion. Do the twain ever meet? Trump sought to be elected by promising the American people that he would be strong, that the United States’ enemies will quail in fear as he approaches, that his relentless power will make America safe – that he will “make America great again.”


The United States Is Falling Apart?

Throughout world history, conservative thought often comes from the feeling that things were better in the past. Change causes anxiety and failure. The ancient Greeks fondly remembered the mythical time of Achilles and Odysseus. American conservatives look back to Revolutionary war heroes like George Washington. We fall when we abandon ancient wisdom. Thus, as he began his remarkable discussion of fierceness, Trump lamented the decline – the inescapable decay – that liberal leaders create:

“Under the current administration, we are indeed a nation in decline.”

Crises, Crises, Crises!

Next, Trump narrated the terrible dangers that attack the United States. Unlike the past, which was (so Trump claimed) inflation-free, rising prices now wrack the economy:

“We have an inflation crisis that is making life unaffordable, ravaging the incomes of working and low-income families, and crushing, just simply crushing our people like never before. They’ve never seen anything like it.”

Trump badly overstated his case. According to Investopedia, inflation under Richard Nixon was 5.70%, rising to 8.0% under President Gerald Ford and 9.90% during the Jimmy Carter administration. The inflation rate under Biden has been about 5.70%, which is a bit high, but you can’t honestly say that we have “never seen anything like it.” As I mentioned, however, Trump was not talking about facts to start with. His point was crisis – fear! We are in danger! Who will save us?

Likewise, immigration, which is Trump’s prime “America First” selling point, also morphed into a terrifying crisis:

“We also have an illegal immigration crisis, and it’s taking place right now, as we sit here in this beautiful arena. It’s a massive invasion at our southern border that has spread misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction to communities all across our land. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it.”

Now, unauthorized immigration has indeed risen during the Biden administration, although, as the Christian Science Monitor demonstrates, probably not as dramatically as Republicans like to say. But look at Trump’s language of fear. “Crisis!” “Massive invasion!” “Misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction!” And, of course, Trump insisted, “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it.”

Who will protect us from immigration danger? From the crisis?

Of course, Trump also talked about “an international crisis:”

“Then there is an international crisis, the likes of which the world has seldom been part of. Nobody can believe what’s happening. War is now raging in Europe and the Middle East, a growing specter of conflict hangs over Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, and all of Asia, and our planet is teetering on the edge of World War III, and this will be a war like no other war because of weaponry. The weapons are no longer army tanks going back and forth, shooting at each other. These weapons are obliteration.”

Indeed, even as I write this, war does ravage parts of the world. Yes, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has been threatening nuclear war. The dangers are real. Look, however, at Trump’s apocalyptic language: “War is now raging.” “A growing specter of conflict.” “Our planet is teetering.” And, in the nuclear age, Trump is right to warn us that “These weapons are obliteration.” Danger and fear.

That is why voters must ask themselves, what defends us against danger? Wisdom, or force? That is a value question, and Trump insists that only force can do the job. (For my part, I would like to say wisdom and power both, but how often do those two join hands?)


Trump Says We Need to Be Fierce!

How can the United States repel such dangers? Biden, of course, like most liberals, projects himself as wise, knowledgeable, and involved. In this speech, Trump rarely mentioned such virtues. Instead, we need to be “fierce:”

“It’s time for a change. This administration can’t come close to solving the problems. We’re dealing with very tough, very fierce people. They’re fierce people. And we don’t have fierce people. We have people that are a lot less than fierce, except when it comes to cheating on elections and a couple of other things, then they’re fierce. Then they’re fierce.” [italics added]

Repetition has powerful persuasive effects: “very tough, very fierce people.” “They’re fierce people.” Trump decried Biden’s alleged weakness: “we don’t have fierce people.” (Also, Trump could not, of course, avoid mentioning his stolen election conspiracy theory.)

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


Who Will Keep Us Safe?

In this speech, Trump projected himself to be the ultra-strong father. Not just a strong father, but a fierce leader. He would exert power. He would be, to the Republican National Convention’s cheering delight, the president with the clenched fist.

Yet, historically, fierce leaders rarely keep their publics safe. By the time Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo and went into exile, his wars had inflicted French casualties that may have reached into the millions. Hitler and Mussolini certainly did not keep their nations safe. What about Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution? Did Pol Pot keep Cambodia safe? If history teaches us anything, it is that strong leaders can create terrible dangers. If weakness does not keep us safe, neither does fierceness. I, for one, would feel more comfortable with Trump’s apparent lead going into the November election if he had talked about being “strong and wise” instead of simply being “fierce.” 

Still, fear overwhelms people’s rational thinking. Faced with crises, they seek strength. They yearn for walls, strong leaders, and powerful protectors. That is what Trump offered. As he concluded his long, long speech, Trump once again promised strength:

“America’s future will be bigger, better, bolder, brighter, happier, stronger, freer, greater and more united than ever before.

“And quite simply put, we will very quickly make America great again.” [italics added] 

Lakoff may be right: our competing metaphors (strong father or nurturing mother) seem to define our political divide. The November 2024 presidential election does not only give the United States a choice between two candidates. The voters will assert their values. Is strength alone enough? Do leaders need to combine strength with wisdom or compassion? Does it matter that Trump uttered false or misleading statements, one after the other? Does fierceness overcome all else? Or, as Trump hopes, do many voters value ferocious strength above all other attitudes? If so, Trump offered his case.

by William D. Harpine

______________ 

Earlier Post: Donald Trump's 2020 RNC Acceptance Speech: American Carnage, Revisited?

Earlier Post: Kristin Urquiza's Speech at the 2020 Democratic National Convention: Short and She Told a Story

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo

Senator Graham and the Word Mystery of Entitlement Reform

During the Fox News debate between Vermont's liberal Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and South Carolina republican Lindsey Graham, Graham repeated a common conservative talking point about "entitlement reform." Well, it wasn’t really a talking point; it was just a word game, a silly phrase that conservatives love to parrot. The trick was to use a word to mean the opposite of what people think it means. One simple word, "entitlement," creates a fog of rhetorical smoke:

“Entitlement reform is a must for us to not become Greece.”

As we’ll see, the idea is that entitlements are not entitlements. Of course, that makes no sense at all. Graham quickly slipped in that “entitlement reform” meant addressing Medicare and Social Security spending. Graham correctly pointed out that we cannot balance the federal budget merely by making cuts in so-called discretionary spending. Graham, like many conservatives, pictures entitlement reform as a good thing that will appeal to his conservative supporters.

We all the time play with political words. We're not anti-abortion, no, we're pro-life. We're not pro-abortion, we're pro-choice. Anything to hide our intent. Republicans aren't against Social Security; no, they are for entitlement reform. 

But—here is the problem. You probably couldn't find twenty republican voters who actually want to cut Medicare and Social Security. Many Republicans, however, strongly support “entitlement reform.” All the same, Graham let it slip during the debate that we need to cut Medicare and Social Security so we don't turn into Greece. Whatever. 

Comparing the United States to Greece is obviously silly. The United States is an economic powerhouse, while the United States dollar is the world's reserve currency. Greece does not even have its own currency and does not control their own monetary policy (they use the Euro).

Passing over that, however, let's look at that nasty word—"entitlement.” The word “entitlement” brings up all kinds of nasty images: self-entitled welfare moochers, self-entitled high school students who think the world owes them straight A's, lazy, self-entitled government workers who sleep on the job. Plenty of stereotypes.

Instead, however, what “entitlement” actually means is that you are legally entitled to get something. I am entitled to withdraw money from my bank account. Retired people pay into Medicare and Social Security during their working years, and they are entitled to draw on them when they are no longer working. Yet, if I talk with one of my many Republican friends about “entitlements,” they angrily explain that Social Security is not an entitlement because they paid into Social Security and they are fully entitled to withdraw the money when they retire. We have heard that a lot, don't we? It doesn’t make a bit of sense, does it? Social Security is not an entitlement because, drum roll, we are entitled to receive it? As if “entitlement” and “entitled” mean opposite things. Huh?

How did that poor word get so twisted? Well, we have heard people use “entitlement” as a dirty word for so many years that we now think it is bad to be entitled to something. It's reached the point that many people think, like my Republican friends, that they are somehow not entitled to receive entitlements. They are, however, they say, entitled to receive Social Security. Or something like that. Doesn’t make much sense, but there we are.

If we look at the federal budget, there are basically five sections: Medicare, Social Security, National Defense, Medicaid, and everything else. If we want to balance the budget by making cuts, where do we go? That’s a problem. No Republican will vote to cut National Defense. That leaves “entitlements:” especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are top targets. But why? For the Republican Party's electoral support comes mostly from elderly voters who depend on Medicare and Social Security to survive. Of course, elderly voters want to cut neither Social Security or Medicare. Worse, attempts to cut Medicaid only appeal to elderly, conservative voters until they figure out that Medicaid keeps the nursing homes open. As soon as elderly voters figure out that Graham wants to balance the budget by cutting benefits for elderly voters, his political career will crash to the ground. As long as he talks about entitlement reform, however, he can pretend to be fiscally responsible. It's all about words. 

What's going on there? The Republican Party depends heavily on elderly voters. Elderly voters are not stupid. If Republicans are foolish enough to vote huge cuts in Medicare and Social Security, their political movement will disappear into the history books. Members of Congress know this. So what can they say? What is their alternative? 

That's easy. Smoke and mirrors gave Graham his only logical alternative. It all comes down to a word. Yes, the word “entitlement” is the rhetorical equivalent of the smoke and mirrors used by stage magicians. When he said “entitlement reform,” Graham stirred up all the negative images about self-entitled goof-offs and moochers. Did he have a serious policy proposal in mind? Of course not. He talked like a fiscally conservative person who wants to stop spending money on undeserving people. In real life, the numbers don't support any policy like that. “Entitlement reform,” which really means “cut Social Security and Medicare,” would be a political disaster for Republicans if they ever enact it. Which they obviously won’t.

Instead of producing actual policy proposals, Graham, like many other Republicans, simply reversed the meaning of the word “entitlement” to create a fog of non-existent public policy. Are we really entitled to receive Social Security because it’s not an entitlement? Honestly, how can anyone twist language into a knot like that? And how can voters fail to see through it? For conservatives make no secret of their wish to cut Social Security and Medicare. 

Anyway, Republicans have been fearmongering about Social Security’s supposed impending collapse ever since I took my first summer job in 1970. They’ve been wrong for more than 50 years, and silly word games don’t help. 

Words Matter: Trump's Announcement Speech Promised Not to Cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security

Image: CBO

Abraham Lincoln, White Supremacist: The First Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Lincoln Memorial, NPS

In the first of his famous debates with Stephen Douglas in the 1858 election to choose the next senator from Illinois, future President Abraham Lincoln said: “I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” That sounds like white supremacy to me. Yes, several years later, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Indeed, he was the president who talked about “government of the people, by people, for the people.” He was the president who said, “with malice toward none, with charity to all.” That does not change the fact that he spoke as a white supremacist. Before I go into more detail about this debate, however, let's look at context:

First, in 1858, people who wanted to abolish slavery, much less who favored racial equality, were considered dangerous radicals by the (almost entirely white) electorate. Nor during these debates, did Lincoln oppose slavery. His political position was to prevent slavery from spreading as new states joined the union. That, in 1858, was considered (by most white people) to be quite a liberal position.

Second, “white supremacy” can mean two different things. It can mean, in the opinion of a white supremacist, that white people are inherently better than other people. It can also mean, in the opinion of a white supremacist, that white people should be in charge. The view that white people are better is pure racism. The idea that white people should run things is pure politics. As we will see, Lincoln said both. A C-SPAN poll of historians found Lincoln to be our greatest president. For what it’s worth, I agree. Yet, he openly advocated racism and white supremacy.

Third, people too often talk about white supremacy as if it were a new thing that President Donald Trump activated while he was in office. The foul doctrine of white supremacy, however, has a long, dark history in American political speech, and this post is one of several that will prove it.

So, let’s take off the rose-colored glasses and look at Lincoln’s debate speech in more detail. What political policy did Lincoln speak about?

James Baldwin's 1963 Speech Ripped Away Two American Myths

Lincoln Opposed Racial Equality

In 1858, Lincoln, who would later be called the Great Emancipator, opposed the expansion of slavery. He also opposed equality of opportunity and of accomplishment. Period. Here is more of what he said in that first debate:

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

Note that he specially denied that he wanted “to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races.” That is, Lincoln did not seek to make the races equal—either in politics or social standing. Furthermore, he opposed equality for strictly bigoted reasons: “There is a physical difference between the two.”

With twisted but seemingly impeccable logic, Lincoln concluded that, since the races could not be equal, the white race should hold the “superior position.” His point was to have white people run the country. That is absolute white supremacy.


Lincoln's Logic Arose from Racial Prejudice

Why did Lincoln say that white people should be in charge? In this debate, Lincoln explained that quite precisely. He specifically opposed racial equality—and supported the doctrine of white supremacy--because of his belief that African Americans were inherently less than white people. He did say that African Americans should enjoy certain vague, basic natural rights, but this did not imply that African Americans were, in Lincoln’s view, as good as white people:

“I hold that he is as much entitled to these [rights] as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment.”

“Not my equal,” Lincoln said. Furthermore, Lincoln literally said that African Americans were not equal “in color.” That, by any standard, is bald racism.


Did Lincoln Offer a Solution?

No, in this debate, Lincoln did not offer a solution to the problem of slavery. In fact, he said: 

“If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution” [slavery].

He admitted that it was impractical to send every African American back to Africa. He refused to admit African Americans as equals. This led him to utter the following startling, politically cynical, horribly racist passage:

“What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.”

This paragraph, again, gives us much to unpack. Lincoln's “own feelings” would not let him make African Americans into his equals. He also admitted that “the great mass of white people” would not tolerate racial equality. He recognized that African Americans could never be equal because white people would not allow it. He specifically declined to pass judgment on southern slave owners.

Yet, as we all learned in school, even Lincoln's seemingly moderate view was enough to terrify slaveholding interests. For further insight, think about the American Civil War.


And What Happened?

Douglas won the election rather easily. At the same time, however, these well-publicized debates helped Lincoln gain the presidency two years later. Douglas, as we shall see in future posts, ran for Senator on a race-baiting platform whose purpose was to terrify white people into opposing Lincoln. That, in 1858, was the winning strategy in the free state of Illinois.

In contrast, Lincoln’s position offered African Americans a few basic rights. He did not call for abolition, but only to prevent slavery from spreading further than it already had. Why? Lincoln was, first and foremost, a politician. He surely knew that he could not win national office as an abolitionist. Let us not pretend, however, that he spoke as anything other than a white supremacist. And do you wonder why some people even today don't trust white liberals?

In Buffalo, Joe Biden Challenged an Idea: The Idea of White Supremacy

How much has changed? How much has not changed? Lincoln's first debate against Douglas showed the nation that it faced a political need to compromise with white supremacists, even as it faced a moral imperative to oppose their wicked philosophy. I wrote a few days ago about Biden's recent speech in Buffalo, New York opposing white supremacy. The press didn't pay much attention, did they? Are things better today than in 1858? Of course. Yes, slavery is now illegal, and African Americans are now supposedly guaranteed equal rights under the law. Still, have we come far enough? Or does Lincoln’s “moderate” view still rule our nation’s political and moral life?

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

In his April 12, 1922 Munich speech, testifying of his “boundless love as a Christian and a man,” Adolf Hitler warped Christianity to support cruel public policies. Just like conservative American politicians today, Hitler identified himself with the group that has since become known as Christian nationalists. To persuade conservative Christians, Hitler talked about Jesus as a warrior, not a peacemaker; a fighter, not a man of love. Hitler didn’t just give his audience an excuse to be cruel; he said that Christianity required Germans to lash out. Hitler is gone, but those themes resonate today.


Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us There Are Two Different Christianities


Adolf Hitler was a public speaker of hypnotic power, one of the last great masters of the ancient art of elocution, who could captivate his audience with a stream of words. Alternately thoughtful and bombastic, pleading and demanding, Hitler planned and rehearsed every word, every phrase, every gesture, and every facial expression in meticulous detail. He used his powers to rally Germans to an evil cause and ultimately to destruction, leading conservative Christians to become his all-too-willing tools.

Eleven years before he became Chancellor of Germany, Hitler was already a major Nazi Party leader. Do Hitler’s Christian nationalist views echo in the United States today? I think they do. As we’ll see in a moment, Hitler cited Jesus’ life and actions to support his values. But Hitler’s framework was nationalism. Hitler stated his nationalist theme with these opening words, where he praised a historical German leader:

“Frederick the Great after the Seven Years War had, as a result of superhuman efforts, left Prussia without a penny of debt.”

Not just great efforts, not just human efforts, but “superhuman” efforts. It’s only one step from the superhuman to the supernatural. Would the audience think that Hitler planned to make superhuman efforts himself? Maybe so. Here is how Hitler introduced his twisted version of Christian theology a few minutes later:

“I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God’s truth! Was great not as sufferer but as fighter.” 

Hitler preached a violent, angry Christianity that provided strength and power. To Hitler, Jesus, his “Lord and Saviour,” was a “fighter.” Indeed, we will see that, by the speech’s end, Hitler transformed Christianity into a struggle to rescue downtrodden Germans. He didn’t do this by building them up, but by blaming their supposed enemies. 

Hitler was raised in the Catholic Church. However, he did not practice Christianity in adulthood. All the same, conservative Christians formed Hitler’s support base throughout his political career. Hitler, in turn, reached out to them, spoke in their terms, and placed himself in their ranks. Hitler depicted himself as a minority figure who, like Jesus, was fighting for an unpopular but noble cause. 

In turn, it appears that Hitler would have had no use for the Jesus who said, “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). The Jesus of Matthew’s Gospel was not a fighter. Likewise, Hitler seemed to leave no place for the Golden Rule: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” That surprises me not at all. In my many years attending church in conservative areas, I have only heard one sermon (out of hundreds) about the ever-so-liberal Sermon on the Mount, and not even one about the Golden Rule. No, Hitler had no interest in submission. Indeed, he directly contradicted Matthew: 

“As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”

Hitler wasn’t turning the other cheek, was he? Continuing, Hitler tied Christian duty to patriotism, and, in turn, patriotism to anger:

“For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people is plundered and exploited.”

That is, Hitler felt that the solution to German workers’ economic struggles was to blame Jews. Using the language of liberalism – “plundered and exploited” – Hitler’s rhetoric twisted the issue into a mass of unsupported denunciations. He told his audience that Christianity not only allowed but required that they crush Jews. By this point in the speech, Hitler had spun Christian mercy into its opposite. Yet, as he did so, he continued to speak words with which, apparently, many German churchgoers could identify.

Donald Trump at the Values Voters Summit: Was His Impeachment a Threat to Religion?


Thus began Hitler’s pseudo-theology of Christian nationalism. Throughout the speech, Hitler talked about a Jesus who was a fighter, not a healer. Hitler taught a theology of strength. According to Hitler, Jesus was an enemy of Jews, and that Jesus “summoned men to the fight against them.” Jesus, Hitler emphasized, started with a handful of followers – as did Hitler himself – and rose to prominence by power. Indeed, as this 1922 speech continued, Hitler praised Jesus for “His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.”

Hitler concluded his speech by creating a new moral theology. Hitler’s religion did not speak for peace or Christian love, but, instead, for a new faith of strength and power:

“That is the mightiest of things which our Movement must create: for these widespread, seeking and straying masses a new Faith which will not fail them in this hour of confusion, to which they can pledge themselves, on which they can build so that they may at least find once again a place which may bring calm to their hearts.”

And with that comment, Hitler left the stage. Christianity had now vanished from his speech. Having left Jesus behind, Hitler announced a new nationalist faith. No longer guided by Christian values, Hitler subordinated Christianity, with its teachings of tolerance and love, to a new religion of nationalist triumph. Millions of German Christians followed him to the bitter end.

Germany was one of the world’s greatest nations, a center of art, music, literature, philosophy, and religion. If Nazism could arise there, it could arise anywhere. It could arise in the United States. Don’t ever think it couldn’t. In eleven years, Hitler’s powerful but evil rhetoric converted his great nation into a land of violence and hatred. When he cited his supposed Christian faith, Hitler gave his audience an excuse to commit wrongful deeds. How could it be wrong, Hitler implied, to be cruel in Jesus’ name? 

Reverend Paula White Prayed Against Trump’s Enemies


Do you think that Hitler’s themes – a Christianity of power and struggle, whose rhetorical purpose is to promote national strength and vengeance, not mercy – resonate in the Christian Right of today? Or not? More important, is it even possible to fight for Christianity while forsaking its teachings? Please feel free to make comments below.

Technical note: "Elocution" has meant different things during different periods of rhetorical history. For more insight into the public speaking methods that Hitler was taught, interested readers might look at Gilbert Austin's book Chironomia, or the Art of Manual Rhetoric. It's fascinating, but it's also heavy-duty reading. François Delsarte may have been a more direct influence on Hitler or his mentors. 

"Extremism in the Defense of Liberty:" Barry Goldwater's 1964 Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech, Undone by Two Sentences?

Barry Goldwater

With the partly online 2020 Republican National Convention starting today, let’s talk about the most influential Republican Convention speech ever. On July 16, 1964, United States Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona accepted his party's nomination in a speech that was well-crafted and eloquent – except for two ill-chosen lines. After those regrettable lines, Goldwater’s campaign to be President of the United States was over except for the shouting. 

A bit of background. In 1964, the Vietnam War was cranking up to horrific proportions. The Cold War raged across the globe, the Birmingham civil rights marches led to police riots, and the Ku Klux Klan gasped for breath while losing power throughout the South. I was a middle school student; atomic weapons attack drills were as much a part of my childhood then as active shooter drills are today. 

The last thing voters wanted in 1964 was an extremist. Goldwater, one of the intellectual grandparents of today’s conservative movement, was routinely labeled as an extremist. Like most conservatives of today, he wanted to shrink the government’s social programs. He favored more funding for national defense. He supported the controversial conspiracy theorist Senator Joseph McCarthy. Goldwater did offer lukewarm support for the civil rights movement. 

It is one thing, however, when the opposition calls you an extremist. It is something else for a speaker to boast about it. For the most part, Goldwater’s speech uttered the expected platitudes about freedom and liberty. That is, until near the end, when he destroyed his own campaign with these fateful words: 

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. 

“And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

From a logical viewpoint, it’s hard to argue with what Goldwater said. Yes, we should support justice. No one wants to go to court to find that the judge is only interested in moderate justice. Logic, however, is not why people vote for presidents. Goldwater gave his critics all the fuel they needed. He rejected moderation when the nation craved moderation. 

Goldwater’s electoral doom was assured. His general election opponent, incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson, called Goldwater a “ranting, raving demagogue who wants to tear down society.” Goldwater lost in a landslide. He carried only Arizona and part of the Deep South. Johnson swept the rest of the nation.  

I mentioned last week that one striking sentence can make a great speech memorable. In Goldwater’s case, two striking sentences ended his presidential aspirations forever.

Earlier Post: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” 1896 Democratic Convention Speech

Earlier Post: We’ll Remember Julia Louis-Dreyfus at DNC for One Big Wisecrack

Image: US Senate, via Wikimedia

Jim Thompson, the Anti-Corruption Governor of Illinois: A Rhetorical Obituary. Thompson's Polarizing 1976 Campaign Was a Warning.

Governor “Big Jim” Thompson, a Republican who served as Governor of Illinois from 1976 to 1991, passed away yesterday. As a federal prosecutor, Thompson oversaw the convictions of several corrupt Democratic Party Chicago machine politicians. He continued his reforming ways as governor. Indeed, in actions that would be inconceivable today, he went after corrupt politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Thompson's 1976 opponent was Chicago machine candidate Mike Howlett, a close friend of Mayor Richard J Daley. Although Howlett was never known to be corrupt himself, Thompson’s campaign speeches repeatedly pressed Howlett for his political machine connections. In this respect, Thompson simply echoed the accusations made by Howlett’s corrupt (and future prison inmate) Democratic primary opponent, Dan Walker. Walker and Thompson’s campaign speeches gave us a taste of the polarizing urban-rural campaign rhetoric that is tearing the United States of America apart in 2020. Years ago, I presented a paper to the Eastern Communication Association convention about the 1976 gubernatorial campaign that first put Thompson in the governor’s mansion.

Link: My Paper about the Walker-Howlett-Thompson Campaign for Illinois Governor


Walker’s Attacks on Howlett

During the 1976 Democratic primary campaign for Governor of Illinois, Walker, the incumbent Democratic governor, in one speech charged Howlett with “bossism” and said that the real question was if “the Daley machine ‘puppets’ would control state government.” On another occasion, Walker emphasized “his opposition to Daley ‘bossism’” both in person and in several television commercials. And so forth. Howlett defeated the unpopular and corrupt Walker easily. However, accusations like this gave Thompson the ammunition he needed to tear Howlett apart in the general election campaign.


Thompson’s Attacks on Howlett

Thompson’s main campaign argument was that the Chicago machine, of which Howlett was a part, should not run Illinois. On the night he won the Republican primary, Thompson explained that “I’m going to talk a lot about one-man rule—and I don’t mean Mr. Howlett.” This, presumably, was a swipe at Daley’s supposed influence over Howlett. Giving a speech in downstate Illinois, which then, as now, was heavily Republican, Thompson welcomed Howlett to southern Illinois. Ouch! Chicago is at Illinois' northeastern tip. Thompson’s point was that the Democratic organization’s support would alienate Howlett from conservative downstate voters.

On another campaign occasion, Thompson said that, “if Michael Howlett is governor, the major decisions affecting every citizen of Illinois will be made from the fifth floor of Chicago City Hall.” Thompson mentioned that Howlett “looks, talks and walks like Daley.” That last part was pretty much true; Daley and Howlett were both jowly, and gruff. In a campaign speech at Southern Illinois University, Thompson yelled to the students that “Mayor Daley is not going to shove the next governor of Illinois down the throats of the people of Illinois!”


Implications for the Politics of 2020

During his 1976 campaign for governor of Illinois, the opponents of Democrat Mike Howlett branded him as a lackey of powerful machine politician Richard Daley. These attacks appear to have created an image of Howlett in the public’s mind that was conducive to his decisive defeat at the hands of Republican Jim Thompson. The attacks were largely unfair: Howlett was, indeed, a machine politician, but he had a long reputation for independence and personal integrity.


Earlier: Trump's Polarizing Rally in Kentucky, Polarization Has Its Drawbacks

This campaign highlighted the political circumstances of Illinois, in which Chicago residents and downstate residents perceived themselves to have dissimilar interests. Much the same divide is true today, of course, as voters in urban and rural areas across the United States view their interests and needs as not only different, but contradictory. Chicago’s more liberal politics no doubt worried conservative voters in Illinois’ suburbs, rural areas, and smaller towns. The political divide that paralyzes us in 2020 was already starting in 1976, and Thompson’s extremely negative, mostly unfair campaign took advantage of that divide.

I was an Illinois resident in 1976, and I voted for Thompson precisely because I knew that the Chicago machine was corrupt and felt myself unable to support it. I did not agree with all of Thompson’s policies, but respected his public character. Although Thompson’s divisive rhetoric turned out to be a mere foreshadow of today’s polarizing politics, Thompson still deserves credit for years of sound, scandal-free governance and a career devoted to anti-corruption crusades. I would love to see Republicans like Thompson run for public office today. I wish that such Republicans still existed.

Image: James Thompson, 9/11 Commission