Brazilian President Lula Asked, Do We Have the Courage to Succeed?

President Lula, 2008

“Imagine if we started to discuss this with our universities, with our data centers, the issue of artificial intelligence in a Latin American language, you know. … The only reason we may not do it is if we lack the courage to do it.” [italics added]

Do we have the courage to succeed? Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva asked his audience in his speech at the Brazil-Chile Business Forum in Brasilia, on April 22, 2025. Lula gave Brazil and Chile a vision of progress, reform, education, and economic growth. Education, however, is the key that, as Lula explained, could unlock South American prosperity. Lula sought middle ground by seeking common values. Investing in education when the world says to cut budgets? Yes, that requires courage. To persuade his audience, Lula joined progressive policies with conservative goals.

While Brazilian President Lula wants to improve science education, business leaders across the western world, including Brazil and the United States, are turning away from science, scientific research, and factual knowledge. 

That is why Lula reached out to a business community that traditionally resents progressive programs. To find a middle ground, Lula sought common values. He sought to convince the Business Forum that Brazil and Chile needed to invest in education. His speech combined progressive policies with conservative goals. Let’s take a look:

“We must have heavy investments in education; we must have heavy investments for training new scientists in this country, of new researchers; we must have heavy investments to prepare thousands and thousands of new engineers in this country. And we must prepare highly-qualified labor force so that we can be competitive. And at the same time, that we can become a consumer market.”

Furthermore, Lula neither backed down or compromised. He asked for “heavy investments.” Why back down? Lulas implied. That is why he asked Brazil and Chile for the courage to take risks and move forward. He called for “thousands and thousands of new engineers.” He wanted to be competitive. He wanted a “consumer market.”

With that last comment, Lula identified the point that conservatives worldwide love to skip: business requires customers. Lula’s liberal supporters want better consumer markets. His conservative enemies seek their own wealth. But a humming economy provides both! Yet, the two groups stand opposed. to overcome that division, Lula sought common ground with the business community.

Did he convince them? Probably not yet. Will Brazil’s sharply divided economy – an economy in which the very rich thrive and the very poor despair, while the middle class grows slowly, be able to respond to a message of hope? Can Brazil and Chile accept Lula’s reasonable but complex and risky ideas?

All the same, South America’s political conflict mirrors our own in the United States. In the United States, our once-great middle class deteriorates while too many people split into a false populism. Will we move into the future? Or dwell in a smoldering past? Time will tell.

Lula himself grew up poor and has little formal education. Yet he sees hope, not in revolution or counter-revolution, but in higher education. Brazil’s economy remains fragile and fragile economies often cause political turmoil. In this speech, Lula asked much of Brazil’s people and its leaders. He asked for courage.

Sadly, however, in the modern world, moral courage runs low. 

by William D. Harpine  

___________

Note: I quote the official Brazilian government translation by Mary Caetana Aune.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of President Lula, cropped from an official photo by Agência Brasil, 2008,

via Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons license

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

Trump speaking on January 6, behind protective glass

On January 6, 2021, a speech resonated across the Washington, D.C. Ellipse that changed the United States forever. A speech that changed the United States for the worse.

Just before the 2021 Capitol riot, President Donald Trump sprayed a “Firehose of Falsehood” to a huge, screaming crowd of his supporters. To set the public agenda, Trump unloaded a torrent of lies and misdirection to convince his devoted audience that the 2020 election was fraudulently stolen from him. The torrent of lies was so enormous and powerful, so utterly obsessive, as to overwhelm rational thought. He said:

“And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? He had 80 million computer votes. It’s a disgrace. There’s never been anything like that. You could take third-world countries. Just take a look. Take third-world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we’ve been going through in this country. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace.”

That was just a question, and questions prove nothing. Of course, no one stole the election. In November 2020, PolitiFact wrote that, “Since Election Day, PolitiFact has fact-checked more than 80 misleading or false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election. Federal agencies, state election officials and technology experts have all said this year’s election was among the most secure in American history.” 

Trump continued by attacking the press and absurdly claiming that the crowd numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Then, Trump stated his thesis:

“Big tech is now coming into their own. We beat them four years ago. We surprised them. We took them by surprise and this year they rigged an election. They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before.” [italics added]

Pointedly, Trump made this assertion after his own Acting Deputy Attorney General, Richard Donoghue, had already told Trump that the election was not stolen:

“I said something to the effect of, ‘Sir, we’ve done dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews. The major allegations are not supported by the evidence developed. We’ve looked at Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada. We are doing our job. Much of the info you are getting is false.’”

Nevertheless, in response to Trump’s speech, thousands of Trump’s supporters marched to the Capitol and many of them broke in, often with considerable violence. More than 100 police were injured during the attack, and a number of officers died shortly after. The January 6th rioters responded with enthusiasm to Trump’s speech, which consisted of a stream of falsehoods.

There is a name for Trump’s rhetorical technique: what RAND researchers Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews call the “Firehose of Falsehood.” Trump simply spewed out more lies than anyone had time or energy to question, much less refute. One lie after another, an overwhelming stream of lies, with little or no proof. Since he felt no need to support his claims, Trump simply spewed them out, like a firehose, drowning out all opposition. His stream of lies seized the public agenda. Even his opponents talk endlessly about Trump’s endless lies. His firehose would never have fooled a thinking audience, of course, for reasons that we’ll cover later in this post.


The Firehose

Trump’s speech rambled ceaselessly—and seemingly aimlessly—from one unsupported or false accusation to another, and then on to the next, with no effort to prove any of them. He overwhelmed his audience, and the public, with questions, conjectures, and wild accusations: a continuous spout of nonsense. The speech’s incoherence was a feature, not a flaw; for Trump’s entire argument was to drown his audience in falsehoods.

Here are just a few of the claims he shouted at the crowd:


#1, Trump claimed that the election was stolen

What Trump Said:

“All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they’re doing. And stolen by the fake news media.”

Did Trump disprove Biden’s vote total? No. He just asked a question and made an accusation.

The Facts:

Ballotpedia found, with all states and the District of Columbia certified, that:

“In the national popular vote, Biden received 81.2 million votes and Trump received 74.2 million votes.”

Trump ignored a statement issued on November 2020 by Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security:

“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.”

#2, Trump Claimed That the Vice President Can Overturn the Election

What Trump Said:

Having claimed but not proven that the election was stolen, Trump then turned to Mike Pence to overturn the results. Trump stated falsely that the vice president had the authority to overturn the Electoral College votes and send them back to the states. He cited an unnamed lawyer (possibly Kenneth Chesebro or John Eastman) to that effect:

“Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it.”

The Facts:

Pence, of course, did not have that right. His largely ceremonial role was to count the Electoral College votes. Former Vice President Dan Quayle told him privately that, “'I do know the position you're in. I also know what the law is. You listen to the parliamentarian. That's all you do. You have no power.'"


#3, Trump Claimed That Votes Have Not Been Counted

What Trump Said:

Instead of proving that Pence had authority to overturn the election, Trump switched gears in a flash and launched into more falsehoods. That’s the firehose technique. Trump uttered a bizarre claim that the vote totals had still not been determined.

“They still don’t have any idea what the votes are.”

I have no clue where that claim came from. Apparently, neither did Trump, since he neither explained nor supported his claim. One quick sentence, a brief assertion that the votes were a mystery, and Trump’s firehose moved to a new target.

The Facts:

In any case, as noted above, the vote count was complete by December 2020, when all states and the District of Columbia had certified their election results and the Electoral College voted. So, yes, the votes had been counted. 


#4, Trump Connected the Coronavirus with Election Fraud

What Trump Said:

Trump turned the coronavirus pandemic into a conspiracy to cheat him out of his election. Now, yes, during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, some states encouraged absentee voting to reduce contagion. Trump turned that simple precaution into an undocumented accusation:

“But this year, using the pretext of the China virus and the scam of mail-in ballots, Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft and there’s never been anything like this.”

That is, Trump blamed the virus on the Chinese government (a common conspiracy theory), and assumed, again giving no argument, that mail-in ballots are fraudulent. Why are mail-in ballots a scam? He never said.

The Facts:

Chris Krebs, a security expert with Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security, explained that mail-in ballots are highly secure because they are easy to double-check:

"Auditability is a key tenet of ensuring you can have a secure and resilient system. … Really what we're talking about here is that if you're able to detect any sort of anomaly or something seems out of the ordinary you want to be able to kind of roll back the tape. If you've got paper, you've got receipts, and so you can build back up to what the accurate count is." 

In other words, there is no reason to think that mail-in votes are fraudulent or inaccurate.


#5 Trump Bragged about the Economy

What Trump Said:

Why would conspirators overturn Trump’s supposed election? Well, Trump told his audience that they were jealous of his accomplishments. Toward that end, Trump falsely (and briefly) claimed that his economy was a great success:

“We’ve created the greatest economy in history.”

The Facts:

Since unemployment in January 2021 was a staggering 6.4%, Trump’s claim was, to say the least, dubious. Did he give reasons to believe that he had “created the greatest economy in history?” No. Did his false claim about the economy in any way show that the election was stolen? No. He just zoomed to the next irrelevant falsehood.

Also, the investigative team at ProPublica noted that Trump left behind “the explosive rise in the national debt that occurred on his watch.” 

So, the facts fail to support Trump’s boast that he had “the greatest economy in history.”


#6, Complained Vaguely About President Biden’s Son, Hunter Biden

What Trump Said:

What Joe Biden’s drug-using son, Hunter Biden, had to do with election fraud, I cannot imagine. Nevertheless, Trump ranted about Hunter (a favorite target of Republicans) anyway:

“But Hunter Biden, they don’t talk about him. What happened to Hunter? Where’s Hunter? Where’s Hunter?”

And that was all he had to say about Hunter Biden. What did Trump prove? Nothing; questions are not proof.

The Facts:

Yes, Hunter Biden had personal problems. Trump was vague precisely because his comments about Hunter Biden were irrelevant.

#7, Trump Complained That Late Votes Went for Biden

Anomalies, however innocent, often trigger conspiracy theories. Trump noted, correctly, that many votes that were counted late swung toward Biden. The obvious explanation is that mail-in votes, which tended toward Biden, were often counted last.


What Trump Said:

But Trump instead implied that late votes mysteriously flip-flopped:

“That election, our election was over at 10 o’clock in the evening. We’re leading Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, by hundreds of thousands of votes.”

The Facts:

Trump was right that he led battleground states early, but that was before the large cities and mail-in ballots were fully counted. I’ll talk about that below.


#8, Trump Claimed that Hillary Clinton Wishes Her Defeat Had Been Defrauded

What Trump Said:

“And the only unhappy person in the United States, single most unhappy, is Hillary Clinton. Because she said: ‘Why didn't you do this for me four years ago? Why didn't you do this for me four years ago? Change the votes, 10,000 in Michigan. You could have changed the whole thing.’ But she's not too happy. You know, you don't see her anymore. What happened? Where's Hillary? Where is she?”

The Facts:

There is no record of Hillary Clinton saying any such thing, and the alleged quotation is certainly not in her speaking style. Trump imagines two points: one, that Hillary Clinton agrees that Trump was cheated in 2020, which is something she is not on record to have said, and, two, that she wishes she had been elected fraudulently. He then fabricated a quotation and attributed it to her. This statement arises entirely from Trump’s imagination. Hillary Clinton did make some poorly substantiated claims of irregularities in the 2016 election, but that is not equivalent to wishing that the election had been rigged in her favor. 


#9, Were There More Ballots than Voters in Pennsylvania?

What Trump Said:

“There were over 205,000 more ballots counted in Pennsylvania. Think of this, you had 205,000 more ballots than you had voters. That means you had two. Where did they come from? You know where they came from? Somebody's imagination, whatever they needed.”

The Facts:

Trump referred to an obviously false claim that circulated on social media and Republican officials’ statements. As the Patriot-News, the major newspaper serving Pennsylvania’s capital points out: 

“Those claims are easily debunked. In Pennsylvania, for example, there were nearly 7 million votes cast. The total number of registered voters in 2020 was just over 9 million.”

Since 9 million is a larger number than 7 million, Trump was obviously wrong. 


Many Lies, a "Firehose of Falsehood"

Many lies. But the above list merely samples the torrent. Trump made many cursory, hostile, often irrelevant, and quite unsupported claims. A series of false claims. A firehose of dubious, unproven claims.

Can Trump Be Refuted?

Let us play make-believe and pretend that a Democrat had the same amount of time to speak to the same crowd. What could that person say? A general reality of debate is that a speaker needs more time to refute an argument than to make the original point, especially if the initial argument has no proof. (Since to prove something takes longer than merely to assert it.)

Suppose that our Democratic speaker wanted to counter Trump’s claim that vote counts switched to Biden overnight. To understand the switch, we would need to remember that absentee and mail-in ballots broke heavily for Biden, and they were thus counted later in the process than the electronically recorded, in-person ballots. We might also note that large cities, which tend to be more liberal, need more time to count their votes. As Reuters notes about Wisconsin: 

“There was a jump in votes for Biden on the night of Nov. 3 to Nov. 4, but this was because Milwaukee County, home to the largest city in the state of Wisconsin, reported its 170,000 absentee votes, which were overwhelmingly Democrat.” 

Similarly, statistical researchers at FiveThirtyEight found that absentee votes broke heavily for Biden, largely because of the coronavirus pandemic. Our Democratic speaker could quote FiveThirtyEight’s explanation word for word:

“It’s not hard to see why Trump, then, in his desperation to hold onto power, claimed that Democrats used mail ballots to steal the election from him. Biden indeed would not have won without mail votes, but there is no evidence that a significant number of these votes were cast fraudulently. Rather, the increase in their use was a response to the pandemic — one that was even encouraged by most election officials — and the fact that these votes were so Democratic is very likely due to Trump himself.”

So, Trump’s claim can be conclusively refuted, but it cannot be quickly refuted. In the meantime, the Firehose of Falsehood can rage on.

___________

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

Trump and Fact-Checking at the May 10, 2023 CNN Town Hall: Who Needs Facts, Anyway?

___________

A Rhetorical Dilemma

Now, do we see the problem? To refute just one of Trump’s most outrageous claims required research and explanation. Yet, Trump had spewed out his falsehood in a few seconds each. To refute all his unsupported false claims would occupy far more time than Trump used to state them. The result would be a speech of refutation that would drone on for many hours, and to which no one would listen.

I have often pointed out that the winner of the debate is almost always the side that sets the agenda. If Trump’s Firehouse of Falsehood set the agenda, and it did, refutations would just sound like excuses. The Firehose overwhelmed reality.

___________

Trump, the "China Virus," and the Art of Controlling the Agenda by Misdirection

___________

So, Trump accomplished quite a lot of persuasion while offering scant evidence, but no truth.


A Rhetorical Disaster?

Obviously, Trump’s persuasive methods could only convince an audience that was not only fully committed and grossly uninformed, but also uninterested in critical thinking.

In contrast, a more serious audience would want to hear evidence. A psychological theory, the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) helps to explain the audience’s irrational responses. ELM says, among other things, that listeners who are unable or unwilling to analyze a message might, among other things, believe the message that makes the largest number of points. Trump also violated a basic principle of debate, which is that the person who makes a point is obligated to prove it. I’ll try to write more about those issues in the next few days.

The rhetorical outcome was simple: Trump shaped powerful persuasive goals—and most (not some—most!) Republicans still wrongly believe that the election was stolen. Trump’s Firehose of Falsehood worked. He set the agenda. Trump’s false outline, his cascade of untruthful claims, still occupies our national discourse. It’s the main thing politicians still talk about. Even his opponents incessantly talk about Trump’s falsehoods. And to what end? Stop one falsehood, and five others quickly replace it. That’s the firehose technique.

Our nation is in trouble, and the hard work of critical thinking is the only cure.

by William D. Harpine

Follow-up post: 

Election Count Conspiracy Theorists Get the Math Wrong

Copyright © 2024 William D. Harpine

Image: Voice of America, via Wikimedia Commons

Joe Biden Reminded Us That America Can Do Anything - If We Work Together!

Joe Biden

Pessimism and a shroud of doom and gloom reign across the United States of America. That is why it is remarkable that President Joe Biden ended his October 20, 2023 White House speech about American policy toward Ukraine and Israel by reminding Americans that our nation remains powerful.

And look at the gloom! The Republican Party’s majority caucus in the House of Representatives removed their own Speaker of the House, offering no viable alternative, and consequently shut down the legislative process. Surveys by the prestigious Pew Research Center show that Americans in general, and especially Republicans, are losing confidence in the nation's ability to move forward and make their lives better.

Let’s first look at the speech’s ending. So often, the ending states what the speaker cares about the most. Biden ended his speech by pointing out that America is great. Great, he insisted, not only in power, but also in character: 

“In moments like these, we have to remind — we have to remember who we are. We are the United States of America — the United States of America. And there is nothing — nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together.”

That is such a simple point, is it not? The United States has vast natural resources, a time-tested constitutional system, formidable natural barriers against invasion, the world’s greatest system of higher education, superb port cities, and astonishing industrial capabilities. We were the Arsenal of Democracy in World War II. We are the nation that built the Interstate highway system. Our light has been the world’s beacon of freedom for centuries. Our power today has diminished, not because we have lost our capabilities, but from a crisis of confidence.

Was Biden Divisive When He Defended Constitutional Government?

Yet, today, we no longer think we can accomplish anything. Terrified to start new programs, horrified by change, increasingly intolerant, the United States acts as if we can hide inside our shell and everything will be fine. Biden reminded us otherwise:

“American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances are what keep us, America, safe. American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with.”

For, as Biden implied, if we lose our uniting values, what do we have left? Political pundits across the spectrum have praised this October 20 speech for its bold statement of policy. Nevertheless, the cruel futility of isolationism increasingly splits our nation apart. Fox News host Brit Hume commented that: “I think it may be remembered as one of the best, if not the best speeches (sic) of his presidency.” Yet, reluctant to aid Ukraine, Republican Senator J. D. Vance called Biden’s speech “completely disgraceful.” 

That is why we need to focus, first and foremost, on the values that Biden underlined: commitment, confidence, moral judgment, and national responsibility. In my youth, these values would have been indisputable. What has gone wrong?

Since I am not a foreign policy expert, I cannot predict which specific foreign policies are the best. Like most people, I love peace. I do know, however, that anger and pessimism can never play the role that only wisdom can fulfill.

Professor Jeffrey Tulis wrote about the rhetorical presidency, that is, the way presidents have to bypass Congress and take policies directly to the public. In this speech, Biden took it a step further by asking us to take common cause and work together 

My father, father-in-law, and uncle were part of the generation that won World War II. All three paid a price. That generation knew that the United States could do whatever we set out to do. If anything, the United States’ economic and political capabilities have grown far stronger than in 1941. In this vital speech, President Biden carefully reminded us that we are losing, not ability, but confidence, the ability to work together for the common values that we all purport to share. That, and not Biden’s specific policies, represented the speech’s heart. Are we listening? 

By William D. Harpine

_____________

Earlier Posts:

President Joe Biden Appealed for Unity in His 2022 State of the Union Speech. Is It Too Late?

Biden's August 31, 2021 Speech about Afghanistan: Did He Reset the Agenda? Maybe Not

© Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

Image: White House photo

The Most Destructive Speech in American History: Ronald Reagan’s First Inaugural Address

Ronald Reagan's swearing-in, Jan. 20, 1981

Before anyone gets riled up, I think that President Ronald Reagan’s First Inaugural Address, delivered on January 20, 1981 was a fine speech: noble in principle, thoughtful, democratic in the little-d sense, and a blueprint for American freedom. It was a speech to admire, delivered with surpassing skill by one of the most articulate presidents in American history. It has become a terrible shame, however, that the subsequent history of the Republican Party has reduced this wonderful speech into one incoherent slogan.

Did Reagan anticipate the iron machinery that he was setting in motion? I doubt it. One, out-of-context comment, subsequently transformed into a mindless slogan, has come to drive the Republican ideology:

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” [italics added] 

The lesson in this is that slogans aren’t ideas. Enthusiasts do not need to think when they chant a slogan. Ideas, however, require people to think before they speak.

Did Reagan really mean it? Yes and no. Context always matters. Let’s look at the context.

 

Context #1

Reagan did not say the government was always the problem. He did not say that government was bad. He said that government was bad “in this present crisis.”

The crisis to which Reagan referred was the burst of inflation under the Jimmy Carter administration, which was followed by a series of unpleasant economic shocks. Those shocks caused problems—I lived through them myself—but they only lasted a few years. But “government is the problem,” taken out of context, sounds like a long-term issue.

The Nunes Memo: Why Does Context Matter?

Context #2

However, before discussing those long-term issues, Reagan spoke up firmly against all forms of discrimination. A Republican of 2023 would most likely call Reagan “woke.” Dismissing special interest groups, Reagan said that the only special interest group that mattered was the American people, regardless of rationalism, ethnicity, or race. Indeed, even the most liberal politician of 2023 could utter this same passage and mean every word:

“Well our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries, or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we’re sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, ‘We the People.’ This breed called Americans.”

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

Context #3

Yes, Reagan promised to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, which, like many conservatives, he considered to be a potential threat to liberty. Note, however, that he did not stand for destroying or disrupting the government, but rather for an orderly redistribution of power. He stated his economic principle:

“It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the states or to the people.”

Note that he did not call for shutting down the government or defaulting on government bonds.

Unfortunately, like many conservatives before and since, Reagan neglected to list the government programs that he intended to reduce. So, although his promise was based on traditional American ideals of liberty, this speech laid out no specific program.


Context #4

Predating the concept of a “compassionate conservative,” Reagan insisted that reducing government power did not entail dumping people to flounder on their own. He did not speak for a Darwinian contest, in which the winners would announce themselves to surpass the losers. No, Reagan emphasized community responsibility. He said that we should love all our fellow Americans, help them when they were in need, and ensure that they have the chance to become self-sufficient. I fear that Reagan’s remarkable statement of values seems to have disappeared from the conservative movement of 2023. How sad. This is what he said:

“We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your make-up. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen -- and loving them reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they’re sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?”

Context #5

Ending this epic speech, Reagan reminded his audience that the United States of America can accomplish whatever we want to accomplish. Insisting that success required ambition and determination, Reagan assured the American people that the crisis of 1981 could be resolved: 

“It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together with God’s help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

“And after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.”

Context #6

Let’s look back at how Reagan began his magnificent speech. He started with the American tradition of orderly transfer of power. Former President Jimmy Carter himself sat in the front row to recognize Reagan’s ascension to the presidency. It was, Reagan reminded all of us, a momentous occurrence. It was a remarkable thing that the loser conceded and the reins of power were handed over smoothly, in accordance with the Constitution and the law, with no violence or disruption. As Reagan said:

“The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place as it has for almost two centuries and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-four-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.”

George W. Bush Used His Prestige to Call Out the January 6 Terrorists

George W. Bush on 9/11: A Forgotten Vision

Yet, 40 years later, in January 2021, the losing candidate, Donald Trump, heir to Reagan’s party, refused to concede victory. Instead, swarms of his supporters attacked the Capitol to interrupt the counting of the electoral votes and halt the peaceful transfer of power. Reagan had commented that “few of us stop to think how unique we really are.” Sadly, we are no longer unique, as Reagan’s own party, and the conservative movement he proudly ensconced, has now utterly rejected that keystone of the United States Constitution.

Did It Work?

Did Reagan say “crisis?” Yes, he did. And now, in September 2023, Republicans in Congress are threatening to shut down the American government until someone meets their poorly articulated demands, on which they themselves do not even agree. Isn’t that a crisis? And does it not arise from the slogan, “government is the problem?”

While in office, Reagan cut domestic spending but greatly increased military spending. Overall, it’s questionable whether he articulated a clear program of how to reduce the federal government, much less to leave an ongoing program that could inspire his successors. So, unfortunately, even today, in angry voices that contradict Reagan’s affable style, Republican politicians continue to insist on massive cuts in increasingly unspecified government programs, in dollar amounts that they rarely state aloud.

Reagan’s speech was destructive and dangerous, not because it was a bad speech (it was a wonderful, inspiring speech), but because its ongoing influence today is now mired at the slogan stage. Republicans today have sadly forgotten the contexts that Reagan gave to this speech. “Government is the problem” is not a policy. It’s only a slogan. Unfortunately, slogans only take us so far.

Follow me at WHarpine@Twitter.com 

by William D. Harpine  

Earlier posts about Reagan’s speeches:

"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!" How Ronald Reagan’s One Sentence Changed Berlin

Reagan versus Trump: The Unifier and the Divider. Two Public Speaking Styles. Same Message, Different Songs

Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

Image: National Archives, via Wikimedia Commons

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”

Lincoln's Inauguration

Can logic and morality overcome our fears? Can honest reassurances restore trust? Can people, overwhelmed by the fear of change, even remember “the better angels of our nature?” Or, on March 4, 1861, when Abraham Lincoln gave his First Inaugural Address, had the United States reached juncture that could be resolved only by bloodshed and horror? Lincoln’s magnificent rhetorical effort may have marked the limits of what we can expect rhetoric to do.

Having won the United States presidency, Abraham Lincoln faced a dilemma: save the Union, or end slavery? Feeling unable to do both, Lincoln appealed, on March 4, 1861, in his first inaugural address, to “the better angels of our nature.” Such a noble theme, such a futile theme. Ultimately, the Union collapsed, to be reborn years later as a nominally free nation.

In this speech, Lincoln futilely appealed to reason, then to law, and then to conscience. A futile trifecta of rhetoric: logic, imperatives, and morality, the three principles on which civilization rests. Any school child knows that Lincoln failed in his central purpose. A few weeks later, the South Carolina militia attacked Fort Sumter. By 1865, hardly a household anywhere in either the United States of America or the Confederate States of America had not lost a husband, son, or brother to the heartless conflict.

Lincoln spoke on that day in March in a final, desperate, hopeless attempt to save the Union. The public already knew that Lincoln’s policies were moderately anti-slavery, and that the Republican party’s agenda was to prevent the spread of slavery while leaving it alone in places where it already existed. Even that modest policy was enough to terrify southern conservatives.

So, Lincoln made a choice: his message on March 4 was not to speak forthrightly against slavery, but instead to reassure White southerners. In this speech, he made one last, desperate attempt to save the union of states. His message failed. Maybe emotions were already running too high. Maybe Lincoln’s precise, sincere logic was helpless against the blind fear of change. Maybe, in the depths of their empty hearts, the southern aristocrats already knew that Lincoln was right—but didn’t care. Surely knowing all of this, Lincoln made his last, desperate plea for union and peace.


Lincoln Promised to Preserve Slavery

In 1858, Lincoln had warned about a “house divided” and rued that the nation could not endure “half slave and half free.”

_______________   

Earlier Post: Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech
_______________ 

Nevertheless, in this First Inaugural Address, Lincoln began by reassuring White Southerners. He first asserted that he had, throughout his entire political career, promised not to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed. Indeed, at his speech’s very outset, Lincoln noted that “the people of the Southern States” were worried that “their property [i.e., enslaved workers], and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.” Lincoln’s thesis was that “There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension.” This was a complete surrender on the issue of slavery. Ironically, rejecting Lincoln’s concessions, the South embarked on a course that, four years later, ripped their cruel, cherished institution of chattel slavery from its roots.

In any case, to reinforce his assurance, Lincoln quoted his own statement from the first Lincoln- Douglas debate:

“I do but quote from one of [my] speeches when I declare that ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.’ Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them.”

_______________ 

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

_______________ 

Lincoln then cited the Republican Party platform, which specifically called for states’ rights: “the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively.” That, again, denied any ambition to abolish slavery.

Lincoln also cited the United States Constitution’s requirement that fugitive slaves needed to be returned to their enslavers and endorsed the Fugitive Slave Law. In this speech, Lincoln even specifically endorsed a constitutional amendment to protect slavery. Yet, even this was not enough to reassure White Southerners.


Sectionalism: Is the Union Forever?

Having promised not to end slavery, Lincoln followed by warning the southern states that they had no legal right to leave the Union. “I hold,” he said, “that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual.” He offered a series of legalistic arguments that no state had the right to leave the Union. He cited contract law. He decried the lawlessness of seceding from the Union:

“Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.”

Anarchy is, of course, at least in theory, the very opposite of conservative thought. Or so one might think.

Toward the speech’s end, however, possibly reigniting the worries of the southern states’ White voters, Lincoln did reiterate the ultimate dilemma about chattel slavery:

“One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended.”

Lincoln nevertheless placed the onus of civil war entirely on the southern states, while denying that such a conflict could be in any way his responsibility:

“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it.’”

Again, Lincoln’s point was legalistic: he had sworn an oath, which he would honorably follow. He turned again to logic:

“Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them.”

Yet, in a matter of weeks, they separated indeed.  

And Our “Better Angels”

Ever the optimist, however, Lincoln appealed to everyone, northerners and southerners alike, to remember the nation’s heritage and to live by conscience. As so often happens, appealing to conscience is a forlorn faith, the last useless refuge of honest rhetoricians. In one of the most dramatic passages of any American public speech, Lincoln appealed to friendship, “the mystic chords of memory,” “the chorus of the Union,” and, finally, so hopefully, to “the better angels of our nature.” This was one of the greatest passages from one of history’s greatest speakers:

“The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Yet, how quickly the better angels were crushed! Fort Sumter was followed by a long series of horrible battles, scorched earth tactics, and total war in the Shenandoah Valley and the March through Georgia. In 1865, General Sherman attacked the capital of South Carolina, which quickly burned to the ground. As the Roman historian Tacitus said, “they make a desert, they call it peace.” By 1861, the nation had passed beyond what rhetoric could accomplish.

Conclusion

Today, we must ask ourselves the same questions. Do we feel the swelling chorus of Union? Are we touched by “the better angels of our nature?” Or do we, instead, allow fear and discord to rule over us like the tyrants they are?

_______________ 

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

 
_______________ 

Image: Unknown photographer, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Biden on the Soul of America: Was He Unifying or Divisive? Or Both?

Independence Hall

President Joe Biden's speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia attacked “MAGA Republicans.” Biden highlighted The United States of America's divisions while appealing to our unity. He announced his topic as “The Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation.”

Often criticized as divisive, Biden's speech sought unity by division. Biden did not create the divisions. Instead, he acknowledged them and tried to rearrange them.

Does that sound like a paradox? The great rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke explained in The Rhetoric of Motives that identification underlies all rhetoric. (By “rhetoric,” a rhetorical theorist means “the art of persuasion.”) Yet, identification invariably implies division. Burke explains:

“Identification is affirmed with earnestness precisely because there is division. Identification is compensatory to division. If [people] were not apart from one another, there would be no need for the rhetorician to proclaim their unity.”

Burke’s point is that we identify ourselves, in part, by saying what we are not. If I tell people that I am an American, I imply that I am not a Canadian. If I call myself old, I separate myself from young people. Biden's Independence Hall speech divided “MAGA Republicans” from patriots, but he also divided MAGA Republicans from mainstream Republicans. So, although his speech was divisive, he did not divide the nation on party lines. Instead, he divided on the lines of patriots who respect the American system, opposed to people who do not. He tried to slice “mainstream Republicans” away from what he called the dangerous, unpatriotic MAGA movement. Since Donald Trump enjoys enormous Republican support, Biden walked on a thin line. At the same time, with hitherto respectable Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham threatening violence on the streets if Trump doesn't get his way, Biden could no longer pretend that the United States enjoys unity. Instead, Biden tried to confront the issue by manipulating the divisions within the Republican Party.

So, Biden asserted that former president Donald Trump was an extremist who threatened the United States’ Constitution. He established a division between MAGA Republicans and the rest of the United States. In the next breath, however, Biden divided MAGA Republicans from other Republicans:

“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.

“Now, I want to be very clear — (applause) — very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.

“I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.”

Later in the speech, Biden argued for unity among groups that might otherwise be hostile. He asked those groups to unite to divide themselves from MAGA Republicans:

“Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy.

“We, the people, will not let anyone or anything tear us apart. Today, there are dangers around us we cannot allow to prevail. We hear — you’ve heard it — more and more talk about violence as an acceptable political tool in this country. It’s not. It can never be an acceptable tool.”

So, was Biden's speech divisive? Certainly. Did his speech equally appeal to identification and unity? Yes. As Burke noted, identification and division are counterparts. Biden appealed to a common goal with which, he hoped, most Americans could identify: to maintain the American Republic. He divided MAGA Republicans, splitting them off from people who continue to respect our American way.

Let us keep in mind that division is not always bad. Donald Trump’s presidential rhetoric consistently pitted Americans against one another, often in harmful ways. In contrast, Biden’s speech tried to re-sort the ways in which Americans identify with one another. Indeed, Biden’s expression “MAGA Republicans” divided the Republican Party into opposing groups: those that support Donald Trump, and those who do not.

Indeed, just as identification lies at rhetoric’s center, so does division. The United States faces two possible paths. We know that most Americans favor the path that Biden laid out in his Independence Hall speech. Unfortunately, we also know that Biden's hope that MAGA Republicans make up a tiny minority was speculative at best.

The press pretty much overlooked Biden's most unifying statement, in which he identified with all Americans, even his opponents: 

But I’m an American President — not the President of red America or blue America, but of all America.

We identify with some people by dividing ourselves from others. Throughout its history, the United States of America has faced a conflict between conservatives and progressives. That conflict has represented itself in a slavery-based economic system, the struggle for civil rights, and the current debate about voting rights. That conflict tore us apart in the Civil War, and nearly tore us apart again during the 20th Century’s civil rights movement. In both of those cases, conservative extremists threatened to destroy the country rather than to accept human equality. The United States’ fracture line threatens to split again. Can we find unity and common cause? Or would the Republican Party prefer to destroy America simply because their ideas were not popular enough to win an election?

President Joe Biden's Independence Hall speech did not create divisions; he acknowledged them. He gave the Republican Party one last chance to identify with the rest of the country. Are they willing to take that opportunity? Or, as too many of them threaten, do they want to create another Civil War, fighting for an evil cause that will surely fail?

___________

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

Donald Trump Says That the MAGA Crowd Loves Black People, Except When They Don't

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

___________

Research note: Kenneth Burke's monumental book The Rhetoric of Motives makes for heavy reading, but it is worth the effort 

Photo: William D. Harpine

Biden Turned the Tables on the Topic of Student Loan Forgiveness. A Clever Debating Tactic.

Biden answers a reporter's question

Turning the tables on your opponent is often a clever debating strategy. Use your opponent’s own argument against them. President Joe Biden recently announced a program of partial forgiveness for student loan debt. Republicans immediately held that this was unfair to people who had already paid off their student loans.

In his White House speech announcing his student loan forgiveness program, Biden listed the expected facts and figures. He reviewed the personal problems that Americans face due to crushing student debt. That was all fine. His speech was calm, drama-free, and thoughtful. Ho-hum. The zinger came at the end, when he answered a few questions. Let’s look at what happened.

As Biden was walking out of the room, a reporter asked whether forgiving current student loans was fair to people who had already paid off previous student loans. Biden turned the tables on the questioner. Unable to say that his policy was equitable for everyone, which it obviously was not, Biden pointed out that conservative economic policies also lacked equity. Here’s how the exchange went:

“Q Mr. President, is this unfair to people who paid their student loans or chose not to take out loans?

“THE PRESIDENT: Is it fair to people who in fact do not own a multi-billion-dollar business if they see one of these guys give them all a tax break? Is that fair? What do you think?”

Why was that such a clever debating tactic? First, Biden’s response was short and crisp. A long answer would invite a convoluted response, which Biden had no interest in dealing with. Second, Biden shifted the burden of proof to his questioner: “What do you think?” Third, shifting the burden of proof, he broadened the issue to overall policy instead of just the one specific issue.

Biden’s point was that the same argument that Republicans were making against his student debt forgiveness plan could equally be made against programs favored by Republicans. Both policies lacked equity.

If, however, Biden’s opponents opposed loan forgiveness, Biden pressed them to reject their own previous positions. The challenger is then led either to defend loan forgiveness or to condemn the Republican’s previous policies. By broadening the concept, Biden challenged the questioner's assumption that policies must be equitable. 

Turning the tables often tames a debate opponent because the speaker uses the other side’s argument against them. They cannot very well refute their own argument, can they? Chalk up a point for Biden. 

___________________

How Did David Hogg Turn the Tables on President Trump to Advocate Gun Control?

AOC Turned the Tables on Republicans in Less Than a Minute During the Coronavirus Relief Bill Debate

How Does Tucker Carlson Use Personal Attacks Instead of Proof about Climate Change?

Image: White House YouTube channel

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

Joe Biden Speaking from Cross Hall 

In the wake of the horrible school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, which took the lives of nineteen children and two teachers, President Joe Biden made an emotional plea for gun control: “Enough!” Over and over, he said “enough.” Biden's rhetorical tactic was to repeat: “enough,” “enough,” “enough.” This was a trope of language, not of logic. The speech was not so much a rational argument as an emotional pounding.

So, speaking from Cross Hall, the White House’s entrance hallway, Biden said less about the cold, hard data that Democrats adore, and instead appealed to people’s hearts:

“For God’s sake, how much more carnage are we willing to accept? How many more innocent American lives must be taken before we say “enough”? Enough.”

Although Biden offered arguments to support his position, the linguistic trope - “enough” - drove his speech. “Enough” conveyed his frustration and impatience. For, how can we persuade people who resist persuasion? By calling “enough” Biden moved away from his usual tactic of reason and compromise toward a rhetoric of pleading. “Enough” is what we say to a child who won’t stop misbehaving. It usually works. “Enough is what we say when we are tired of giving reasons and try to appeal to people's conscience. That might work—if people have a conscience. But Biden’s trope evolved during the speech: enough gun violence. Enough bad pro-gun arguments. Enough delay. Enough waiting for people to vote for gun control. One step led to the next.

After memorializing the Uvalde massacre and commemorating the victims, President Biden reminded us how far we have traveled as the nation transitions from a peaceful state to a coast-to-coast armed camp:

“A few years ago, the family of the inventor of the AR-15 said he would have been horrified to know that its design was being used to slaughter children and other innocent lives instead of being used as a military weapon on the battlefields, as it was designed — that’s what it was designed for.

“Enough. Enough.”

Biden then pointed out what he saw as the absurdity that ordinary people would need to carry powerful rifles with large-capacity magazines:

“The damage was so devastating in Uvalde, parents had to do DNA swabs to identify the remains of their children — 9- and 10-year-old children.

“Enough.”

Biden continued the trope of “enough” as he refuted a common pro-gun argument:

“Look, I know some folks will say, “18-year-olds can serve in the military and fire those weapons.” But that’s with training and supervision by the best-trained experts in the world. Don’t tell me raising the age won’t make a difference.

“Enough.”

A basic principle of persuasion teaches that people will only act if they think the problem has a solution. Biden's solution was the ballot box. Since polls frequently show that most Americans favor some degree of gun control, Biden recommends the ballot box as the solution to the mass killings:

“I’ve been in this fight for a long time. I know how hard it is, but I’ll never give up. And if Congress fails, I believe this time a majority of the American people won’t give up either. I believe the majority of you will act to turn your outrage into making this issue central to your vote.

“Enough. Enough. Enough.”

With that in mind, “enough” no longer only meant that we have tolerated the violence too long. “Enough” meant that Biden has tired of the gun lobby's unwillingness to compromise. It means more than that, as well. “Enough,” at the end of Biden's speech, also said that it was time for every voter to stand up and vote for candidates who will address the gun problem. it meant that we have waited too long:

“My fellow Americans, enough. Enough. It’s time for each of us to do our part. It’s time to act.”

Biden said “enough” more than a dozen times during the short speech. Yes, he also presented evidence and reasoning. However, cold, hard facts don't always persuade people. Every parent learns that sometimes you need to pound a point home. Likewise, sometimes a speaker needs to pound a point home. One word, “enough,” repeated, to drive home the enormity of mass murder, the horror of school shootings, and the need to act. Biden uttered a rhetorical pounding. Did we listen?

________________

Earlier Posts about Gun Control Rhetoric: 

Donald Trump's 2018 Speech Supporting Gun Control

Mark Robinson: A Citizen Stands for the Second Amendment

Second Amendment's Ambiguous (and Rhetorical) Wording

Second Amendment's Creative Ambiguity

Wayne LaPierre's Dark Gun Control Vision 

President Joe Biden Told the United Nations the World Has a Choice

Biden Speaking at the UN

Yesterday, September 21, 2021, President Joe Biden gave a carefully-scripted speech to the United Nations General Assembly. He said that “our collective future will hinge on our ability to recognize our common humanity and to act together.” He did not just list policies or make promises; more than that, he urged the world to think about doing the right things. To work together, to do the right things, Biden assisted, was a choice: “this is the clear and urgent choice,” he said.

Biden reaffirmed the United States’ dedication to diplomacy, the nation’s recommitment to the Paris climate accords, and contributions to the fight against COVID-19. All of that is fine. In large part, he wanted to assure the anxious delegates that the United States was moving past the chaos of the Trump administration and rejoining the international community. I don’t know whether anyone was convinced. After all, the United States’ ongoing political turmoil is obvious to the entire world. Biden’s speech had a theme: and that theme was choice. Will we make the right choices? 

Indeed, Biden pulled his points into the theme of choice:

“I know this: As we look ahead, we will lead. We will lead on all the greatest challenges of our time — from COVID to climate, peace and security, human dignity and human rights. But we will not go it alone.

“We will lead together with our Allies and partners and in cooperation with all those who believe, as we do, that this is within our power to meet these challenges, to build a future that lifts all of our people and preserves this planet.

“But none of this is inevitable; it’s a choice. And I can tell you where America stands: We will choose to build a better future. We — you and I –- we have the will and capacity to make it better.”

Biden’s point was that – we all have a choice. “It is within our power,” he said, and “none of this is inevitable.” The news pundits and politicians all seem to be missing that theme. Biden promised that the United States would lead the world in making the right choices. 

Making positive decisions is a choice. At the same time, however, political turmoil is also a choice. We can choose to deal with climate change, or we can choose to ignore it. We can choose to deal with the coronavirus, or we, along with former President Donald Trump, can pretend that it is a hoax. We can choose to work together as an international community, or we can choose conflict and disaster. World history shows us that there is no guarantee that humanity will make the right choices. At the same time, however, history shows us that we can do the right things if we so desire. That is why he insisted "it is within our power." 

There will always be people who fear failure so deeply that they refuse to succeed. No one can stop change, but we can learn to control change instead of fearing it. We can recognize that humanity is stronger when we work together than when we degenerate into partisan conflict.

Even in the United States, however, it is not certain that Biden can fulfill his relatively modest agenda. Even as I write this, the Republican Party’s representatives in Congress are threatening to default on debt payments. Tens of millions of Americans, apparently still thinking that the coronavirus is no big deal, refuse to take vaccines or to follow even the most minimal public health precautions. Those are also choices. Inaction is a choice. Refusal to admit basic facts is a choice. It is a choice if, like former Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, we choose to believe in “alternative facts” instead of truth.

Biden’s speech was sober and thoughtful. There were no John Kennedy-like flights of eloquence. His purpose seemingly was not to inspire, but to encourage us all to think about our futures. Yes, he tactfully refuted the Trump philosophy. But to reject what is bad is not enough. We must also move forward to what is good.

So, yes, the world faces choices. United States faces choices. Will we make the right choices? Or will we succumb to bitterness and fatalism? At least President Biden made the effort. Will enough voters, factions, and nations join him? Time will tell.

_________________

Further Reading: Joe Biden's Juneteenth Speech Used Values to Support Policies

Further Reading: Joe Biden's 2020 DNC Acceptance Speech Did Not Play It Safe

_________________

Image: From White House YouTube Channel

Biden’s Speech about the Kabul Bombing: Language and Style

Biden's speech about Afghanistan

The press often says that President Joe Biden’s Afghanistan policy has been weak. I cannot agree, but I wonder if the bureaucratic language style that he’s used over the past few days might have made him sound weak. Just recently, on August 26, 2021, Biden spoke about the ISIS bombing of soldiers and civilians during the evacuation of Americans and their allies from Kabul. Not only the conservative press, but even the more mainstream media have been saying harsh things about Biden’s leadership during the evacuation. So, Biden needed to sound strong. From the standpoint of content, he did that. In his speech, he said the right things to make himself look steadfast and strong. But did speech’s tone project strength? Not really. Too often, Biden used wordy sentences. He also used too many big words. This helps to explain why he still struggles to regain public confidence. In other words, Biden spoke in written style, not oral style.

We do not talk the way we write, and we don’t usually write the way we talk. To the extent that he promised (and delivered) strong action, Biden showed leadership. Yet, to the extent that he talked like a bureaucrat, rather than a leader, he failed to sound strong.


Showing Dedication

Yes, Biden talked about his dedicated efforts in Afghanistan. Getting right to the point in the third sentence, Biden told people that he was working hard to control the seemingly chaotic situation:

“I’ve been engaged all day and in constant contact with the military commanders here in Washington, the Pentagon, as well as in Afghanistan and Doha. And my command here in Washington has been on this with great detail and you’ve had a chance to speak to some.”

Those were, of course, exactly the things we want a president to be doing right now. We want the president to work with the commanders and gather information. Biden’s style of language, however, sounded like something from a published government report. Phrases like “I’ve been engaged” or “has been on this with great detail” were not going to stir the blood.


Could Biden Have Said Something Like This?

• What Biden could have said, but didn’t: I’ve been working all day. I’ve been talking with our military leaders all over the world. My staff right here in Washington is looking at every detail. I know that you’ve already talked with some of them.

See the difference? The day’s events called for clear, sharp words, and we didn’t hear them. “Working” instead of “engaged.” “Talking” instead of “constant contact.” And so forth. Instead of writing like a bureaucrat, a president needs to talk like a speaker.


Sharing Knowledge

Afghanistan’s politics are difficult. Biden needed to express that. In particular, it seems that the group that bombed the embassy had nothing to do with the Taliban, which is a different organization. To appreciate what the president is doing, the public needs to understand that. And, indeed, Biden explained it:

“Over the past few weeks. I know you’re—many of you are probably tired of hearing me say it. We’ve been made aware, from our intelligence community, that the ISIS-K, an arch-enemy of the Taliban—people were freed when both those prisons were opened, have been planning a complex set of attacks on the United States personnel and others. This is why from the outset, I’ve repeatedly said that this mission was extraordinarily dangerous, which is why I was so determined to limit the duration of this mission.”

Okay, same problem. The content was fine. That’s the information the public needs to understand. Again, however, the language choice got in Biden’s way. Passive sentences like “we’ve been made aware,” tedious phrases like “from our intelligence community,” and adverbs like “extraordinarily” slow the listener down. If you are reading a speech, you can slow down, think about the big words, and sort out what the speaker is saying, but we can’t do that when we are listening to a speech.


So, Would Something Like This Be Better?

• What Biden could have said, but didn’t. Our experts have briefed me about ISIS-K. They are the Taliban’s arch-enemy. The former president let them out of prison at the same time as the Taliban prisoners. ISIS-K has planned many attacks against the United States and our friends. They are the ones who planned the horrible suicide bombing in Kabul. This is why I said from the start that this mission is risky. That is why we need to set a deadline.

Policy speakers often do well to use parallel language. That’s why the “this is why…this is why” above works in speech better than it does in writing. So…

• Would this have been even more forceful? What Biden could have said, but didn’t. ISIS-K are the Taliban’s arch-enemy. The former president let them out of prison at the same time as he freed the Taliban prisoners. ISIS-K has planned many attacks against the United States and our friends. ISIS-K planned the horrible suicide bombing. ISIS-K is planning even more terrible deeds. This is why I said from the start that this mission is risky. That is why we need to set a deadline.

Again, when we speak, we tend to use simpler words. “Planned many attacks” instead of “planning a complex set of attacks.” The longer phrase sounds like something a government official would write in a formal report. That is not, however, how most people talk. “Risky” is better than “extraordinarily dangerous,” which uses two words to say what you could say in one word. (Plus, a public relations friend of mine said that if you use an adverb, like “extraordinarily,” it means you’ve chosen the wrong verb. I try to remember that; it’s hard!) Let’s not call the victims “others;” let’s call them “friends,” for that is what they are. And why would anyone want to hear words like “duration of this mission?” Also, instead of the passive “were opened,” which dilutes responsibility, shouldn’t he remind us that the former president ordered the prisoner release?

Speakers Making Points

Language style matters. Think about how Franklin Roosevelt raised his points after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor: “a day which will live in infamy.” Not only did Roosevelt make his point, but he made sure that everybody knew what he meant. He gave the press a memorable phrase that pointed out exactly whose fault the Pearl Harbor raid was.

Franklin Roosevelt's War Speech

Or consider the sharp language that Biden himself used not long ago when he talked about the new coronavirus variant:

“My fellow Americans, this nation has never failed when we have come together as the United States of America. So I say to all those who are unvaccinated: Please — please get vaccinated.”

Isn’t that sharp, clear, and forceful? An audience is more likely to think that Biden is forceful if he uses strong, simple language. “Say what you mean, and mean what you say” – that’s how tough guys talk, and it is good advice for all of us.

Biden's Delta Variant Speech Showed Leadership 


Showing Strength

Later in the speech, Biden began to sound strong when he spoke in a more Biden-like manner:

“We will not be deterred by terrorists. We will not let them stop our mission. We will continue the evacuation.”

That was sharp and excellent. Three parallel sentences (audiences love to hear three things) itemized the United States’ plans in a way that promised listeners that no one would interrupt those plans.

Finally, right at the end, Biden did a great job of promising that Americans would all be rescued from Afghanistan:

“We will find them, and we will get them out.”

That was a simple, bold statement. He needed that kind of clarity all through the speech. Sometimes, too much explanation just makes a speaker sound weak. In a time of crisis, people want assurances. People want results. “We will find them, and we will get them out” promised results. And, in fact fulfilling the promise, the United States soon assassinated the ISIS-K leader with a drone strike.


What Went Wrong with This Speech?

We can be charitable, of course. The crisis is ongoing, and Biden had little time to work on the speech. He probably wasn’t sleeping much. He and his speechwriters probably didn’t have enough time for meetings and revision. But, then again, neither did Franklin Roosevelt with his Pearl Harbor speech, and he got the job done.

In a time of crisis, Americans look to the president for leadership. That leadership often comes from speaking. Speeches can matter more than actions! Biden performed actions of strength, power, and competence. Indeed, I think that most of the criticism of his Afghan policy is unfair and opportunistic. This is a war, and nothing in war goes smoothly. The enemy can always veto your plans. In this rhetorical situation, however, the speaker’s word choice and sentence construction can show as much as the actual actions. Roosevelt’s “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” reassured people. Biden’s “This is why our mission was designed the way it was designed” did not.


Oral Style Versus Written Style

Let’s return to oral style versus written style. A long out-of-print public speaking book by John F. Wilson and Caroll C. Arnold offers a lengthy description of the difference between oral and written style. For example, oral style uses more sentence fragments and the sentences vary much more in length. Speakers use more imagery than writers. Speakers repeat themselves much more often than writers do. A well-written essay often sounds thick and pretentious if someone reads it out loud. Some top speechwriters actually dictate their drafts to a secretary (or, nowadays, into a computer) so their first words will express spoken thoughts. English speakers often use more short, blunt Anglo-Saxon words and fewer Latin-root words when they speak, as opposed to when they are writing. Speech and writing both use the same language, but they don’t use it in the same way. When it’s time to be forceful, as during an international crisis, it’s time to use oral style.


Conclusion

Biden said many good things in this speech. He expressed grief for the lives lost. He talked about his personal experience as a veteran’s father. He reminded the audience that the rescue efforts had brought more than 100,000 Americans and their allies to safety in a matter of days. He praised the heroes who made it possible. All that is good, solid public speaking.

So, as I said at the outset, Biden said all the right things. He didn’t need high flights of beautiful language. The speech was a policy briefing. This occasion needed plain, blunt language to give us information, while reminding us about what we care about. The speaker needed to sound strong and resolute.

Now, sounding strong and resolute does not mean that a speaker should rage or use foul language. It means to speak in a straightforward way, to choose words wisely, and to use language that people will grasp. It means to say things that people will understand and remember.

No public speaker excels every time. Even Abraham Lincoln gave an occasional boring speech. Speakers need to know, however, that it is not only what you say – it’s also how you say it – that makes a difference.



Research Note: Wilson and Arnold’s book, Public Speaking as a Liberal Art, is long out of print. That’s a shame, for it is one of the best public speaking textbooks ever written. You might find the first edition in a large university library or used bookstore. Later versions, often revised by other authors, sometimes pop up on the used book market. 

By the way, classical writers taught that language style was one of the five elements, or canons, of public speaking. The ancient Roman authors called style elocutio. They talked about what they called the “Asian style,” which was formal and flowery, and the “Attic style,” which was simple and plain. It would be fine for Biden to use the Attic style in a speech. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that he used something more like a bureaucrat's style. Maybe we could call it the “Pentagon style.” No one needs that. 

Image: White House YouTube channel