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

Reagan in Moscow

Let us remember a bygone era. Let us remember when the United States of America shone its beacon of freedom, justice, and openness across the world. Let us remember a Republican president who spoke, not of cruel vengeance, but of freedom; not of the past, but of the future; not of violence, but of peace. Let us remember a nation whose conservative and liberal citizens alike once praised those values. Let us remember a time, not so long ago, when conservatives proudly spoke of justice and harmony.

On May 31, 1988, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate rhetorical president, discussed these ideas while speaking at Moscow State University. Reagan spoke of what is eternal. He stated our values; he reminded us of our values, and he guided us to share our values. And values are a speaker's greatest gift.

Reaching out in friendship to the United States of America's long-time Cold War adversary, Reagan encouraged peace and mutual respect. He spoke not for himself, but for his nation: he reported that the entire American people gave him his theme. He spoke for us all. That is why, as he began the speech, Reagan said:

"Before I left Washington, I received many heartfelt letters and telegrams asking me to carry here a simple message, perhaps, but also some of the most important business of this summit."

Reagan's message, a message from his entire people, was that the two nations should become friends. Reagan gave a message of friendship and harmony:

"It is a message of peace and good will and hope for a growing friendship and closeness between our two peoples."

As he continued, Reagan discussed freedom, the free market economy, and the growth of democracy. Indeed, democracy supported all the values that Reagan talked about. Reagan spoke the word "democracy" with pride, not suspicion:

"The growth of democracy has become one of the most powerful political movements of our age."

With even more force, he continued:

"Democracy is the standard by which governments are measured."

Most dramatically, as he concluded his speech, Reagan expressed hope: even though he admitted that we can never know the future. Yes, the human condition prevents us from knowing how our deeds will work out. In no way, however, should we let fear of the future interrupt our hope, our values, or our dreams. Reagan brilliantly explained:

"We do not know what the conclusion will be of this journey, but we're hopeful that the promise of reform will be fulfilled. In this Moscow spring, this May 1988, we may be allowed that hope: that freedom, like the fresh green sapling planted over Tolstoy's grave, will blossom forth at last in the rich fertile soil of your people and culture. We may be allowed to hope that the marvelous sound of a new openness will keep rising through, ringing through, leading to a new world of reconciliation, friendship, and peace."

Sadly, however, the cruel march of history and human frailty crushed Reagan's hopes. It blooming spring of freedom now ended, Russia today is ruled by a cruel, greedy, and violent dictator. In 2024, the American people reelected a self-centered man who had already given us one failed presidency and is now giving us a worse one: an America in which masked agents jump out of unmarked cars and grab people off the street with no legal process. We now have an America in which the government's propaganda prescriptions attack the academic freedom under which my own university career flourished. We live in an America where our leaders consider court orders to be merely advisory. We live under a government that attacks freedom of the press. Freedom for all is rapidly becoming freedom for the privileged few.

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

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

In these dark times, we must especially harken back to the Republican Party's glory days. We must remember the day when conservatives did not merely cite the nation's Founders, but, more importantly, pledged to follow their values. As Reagan said in this speech, let us praise the times when "the first breath of freedom stirs the air." The greatest speeches promulgate the greatest values.

On a personal note, I did not vote for Ronald Reagan, and I think that his well-intentioned economic policies, which arose from the now-discredited theory of supply-side economics, have long stifled our nation's growth and prosperity. I nevertheless remind my many Republican friends that they should honor Reagan for his values, his humanity, and his patriotism. His tax cuts were temporary economic expediencies. In contrast, as conservative theorist Richard Weaver would remind us, values are ultimate and eternal. What the world needs is, to repeat Reagan's brilliant phrase, "reconciliation, friendship, and peace." If we lose those values, the tax cuts mean nothing. Nothing!

by William D, Harpine

_________________

Research Note: Anyone interested in the rhetoric of values should study the magnificent books by conservative scholar Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences and The Ethics of Rhetoric.

Special thanks and fond memories given to my late classmate (and editor) Martin J. Medhurst. He and Stephen Lucas prepared the invaluable website AmericanRhetoric.com. 

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons 

Simple Steps to a Healthy Art: A Cardiologist Shows How to Begin and End a Speech

Physician holding a heart

“It doesn’t have to be this way.”

So remarked cardiologist Robert Kelly in his TED Talk at the REDxTralee 2024 conference. While encouraging the audience to strive for a healthier lifestyle, Kelly illustrated how a speaker can involve the audience while driving home the speech’s main point.

Kelly began by engaging the audience to demonstrate their own vulnerability. He concluded his talk by giving the audience a simple action to begin their healthier lives. Problem, followed by solution, followed by the first healthy step.


Kelly's Introduction

Kelly involved his audience right away, giving them a practical experience to help them understand the danger of heart disease.

“Now, only if you are able, could I get you again to stand up, please? Brilliant.

“So, there are now about a hundred people looking at me somewhat worried. But for me, your hearts are pumping and you’re all alive. So, I’m going to ask 30 of you to sit down. Now, I have two assistants who are going to randomly pick out the 30, so don’t all sit down yet.”

That simple act of audience participation made the statistics come alive. We can hear public health officials warn us that “30% of Americans will die of heart disease.” But that is just a number! Kelly gave them the experience – he asked 30 people, chosen at random, to sit down. That kind of introduction makes an audience think. Makes an audience see the statistics as more than mere numbers on a spreadsheet.

Having started with a warning, that one-third of the audience might die of heart disease, Kelly gave them a path toward hope:

“And in fact, the great news is, if you follow the steps, it won’t be this way. And so, at this point, you can all sit down. And I’m going to share with you exactly why.”

Wanting the audience to feel positive, however, Kelly then told them that they did not have to suffer the fate of the 30 unfortunate heart patients, that there was hope, that there was a way out. He discussed stress reduction, healthy eating, relationship-building, and exercise.

Only then did Kelly introduce his solution:

“So, I’m here today as a cardiologist and as a health habits coach. And I want to encourage all of you to enjoy a long and a happy life by doing one small step for your heart health every day, starting right now today.”

“Today” was a nice touch, because right now is always the best time to do things, is it not?   

Then, during the bulk of his speech, Kelly advised his audience not to smoke, to reduce stress, to get some exercise, and to eat a more plant-based diet. The genius of his introduction is that he offered the crowd the chance to consider how lifestyle changes could help them. He gave the audience a chance to think past the platitudes. He brought heart health into their own personal experience.

Dr. Margaret Chan Organized Her Public Health Speech for Success

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

Kelly’s Conclusion

Unlike many perfectly capable speakers, Kelly did not end by listing points for the audience to memorize. Instead, he asked them to take one simple thing at a time. So, after describing the principles of heart-healthy living, Kelly asked them to take the first step – not all of the steps, just the first – which was to be grateful for what they already had:

“I want you to think of two things that you are most grateful for today. And it’s really important that you feel that gratitude of what that gratefulness is all about. And then you have to celebrate now. Show your high fives, or your thumbs up, or a big smile. I see lots of smiles. And maybe a few ‘yippees’ in the room. Very quiet room. Woo!”

By leading the audience to take one gentle first step, Kelly helped them work through the feeling that a massive lifestyle change imposes too great a burden. Instead, he asked them to take the first step. (Of course, once we take that first step, well, the second step, and the third, and the rest can fall into place, one by one.) Just one first step: 

“So this is one powerful small step that can dramatically improve your heart health. And that might save your life and the loads of people that you have around the room today.”

Final Thoughts

People pay the most attention at the beginning and end of the speech. We all know that. Kelly had begun his speech by offering the audience a personal experience. He ended by asking them to take one simple step. The audience responded. They even cheered a bit. What else could a speaker want?

In general, people learn according to what grabs their attention and relates to their own experience. They act when the action is simple, easy to understand, and easy to do. It helps if they can act right now! Kelly gave everyone a personal experience and one easy step to begin their future healthy lives. Great job! 

by William D. Harpine

______________

P.S. This speech stirred me, since I just got out of the heart hospital myself! It does all seem overwhelming. Terrifying. My idea that “it can’t happen to me” came crashing down. Years of hearing cardiologists telling me that all my test results were excellent vanished into a mist. Years of eating a sort-of-healthy diet turned out to be too little. But one step a day! Be grateful for my blessings and take one step at a time to live a healthier life. I am, after all, grateful beyond expression for my wife and family. Grateful that modern medicine lets me hope for many more years with them. What, dear readers, are you grateful for? 

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image by asawin (PxHere user), Creative Commons license

James Baldwin's 1963 Speech Ripped Away Two American Myths

Best-selling author James Baldwin started a brief 1963 speech with this sentence: “The beginnings of this country have nothing whatever to do with the myths we have created about it.” One reason people create myths is to make us feel comfortable about our uncomfortable past. Yet, Baldwin’s first sentence startles the conscience, for his speech sought to rip apart the comforting myths that substitute for history. Baldwin attacked two myths: the glorification of the Mayflower settlers and the minimization of slavery.

Baldwin did not just say that the myths distort history or that we should rethink the past. He went far beyond that. “Nothing whatever” is an absolute. Baldwin said that the myths were utterly wrong.

Making this argument, Baldwin gave his audience a new way to think about white supremacy and African-American history. He did not speak for a policy; instead, he smashed myths. His only weapons were common sense and powerful language. His claims seem self-evident once he explained them. Yet, Baldwin was right that we too often refuse to face obvious truths.

While other African-American leaders of the 1960s engaged in social activism, Baldwin undertook to make America recognize realities that myths had buried. He attacked two myths. The Mayflower Pilgrims soon became a symbol of white America’s greatness. Slavery was shoved into history’s background. These myths created a vision of America, a vision that Baldwin shattered like glass.

No, the Mayflower itself was no myth. Neither was slavery. What Baldwin meant is that American history twists them: the Pilgrims were desperate refugees, but myth turned them into triumphant heroes. Slavery was not, as history often teaches, an afterthought of American society. It was, Baldwin said, basic to early America’s economic triumphs.


Mayflower Myths

Descendants of the Mayflower’s Pilgrims can join a club that, by reputation, includes New England’s blue bloods. “Our members," the Mayflower Society says, “have formed lifelong bonds together while honoring the sacred legacy of our ancestors.” American history often teaches that the early settlers were heroes. We know, of course, that they were white heroes. That is so obvious that it goes unsaid. Baldwin explained:

“The people who settled the country, the people who came here, came here for one reason – no matter how disguised – they came here because they thought it would be better here than where they were. That’s why they came, and that’s the only reason that they came.”

Once he said that, it was just common sense. Nobody risks a sea voyage to go to an unsettled nation with an uncertain future because everything was going well at home. We knew that, did we not? And Baldwin’s inescapable corollary is that the Mayflower’s Pilgrims had struggled in England:

“Anybody who was making it in England did not get on the Mayflower. [Laughter and applause.] This is important. It is important that one begin to recognize this because part of the dilemma of this country is that it has managed to believe the myths it has created about its own past.”

As Baldwin pointed out, the English settlers succeeded because they massacred Massachusetts’s native people:

“We did several things in order to conquer the country. There was, at the point we reached these shores, a group of people who had never heard of machines, or as far as I know, of money, and we promptly eliminated them. We killed them. I’m talking about the Indians.”

So, that was the first myth. (As Nick Bryant points out, the Pilgrims set up an active trade to export Native American slaves and import African slaves. Is that horror the “scared legacy of our ancestors” of which the Mayflower Society boasts?) Having summarily dispatched the myth of the noble Pilgrims, Baldwin moved on to the myths that underestimated African slavery.


Myths about Slavery

Instead of dwelling on the evils of slavery – which he took as obvious – Baldwin pointed out that slavery is inherently an economic and political tool. America’s economic triumphs only occurred, he said, because Africans were kidnapped and brought to the New World to perform unpaid labor. It was on the backs of their work, he reminded his audience, that the American economy came to flourish:

“Now slavery, like murder, is one of the oldest human institutions. So we cannot quarrel about the fact of slavery; that is to say we could, but that’s another story. But we enslaved him because in order to conquer the country, we had to have cheap labor. And the man who is now known as the American Negro, who is one of the oldest of American citizens, and the only one who never wanted to come here, [applause] did the dirty work.”

America needed, Baldwin said, to recognize the people who did the involuntary, unpaid hard work to make its founding possible.

Why Baldwin Is Important Today

Baldwin did not speak for any particular policy. He did not commemorate anything. Instead, his speech ripped away the myths, exposing the reality behind them. We need to see clearly before we can solve our problems.

It is no wonder that book-banning campaigns sometimes target Baldwin’s work. His first novel, Go Tell It on the Mountain, has been banned from Virginia to New York. A documentary film about Baldwin was banned in central Pennsylvania. The ban was reversed after student protest.

No, people don’t try to ban James Baldwin’s books because they mention sexual practices. They would also have to ban the Holy Bible. The Bible, after all, tells how Lot’s daughters got him drunk so he could get them pregnant (Gen. 19). Are book-burners banning the Bible? No. Baldwin’s books get banned because he tore down comfortable myths and exposed raw reality. Were Baldwin’s truths inarguable? Of course. That is precisely why people fear him.

Amazing, isn’t it? It becomes so easy for people to ignore the obvious, and sometimes so unpleasant to face reality. Myths comfort us, but truth frees us. That’s in the Bible, by the way: “the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

__________________

 
In "The FIre Next Time," Baldwin Warned America Not to Hide from Evil

__________________

Research Note: When I say that history twists the past, I don’t meant to disparage the work of professional historians. Most of them know and report the truth. I mean, instead, history as taught in schools, covered in high school textbooks, and discussed on television. The issues I describe are covered accurately in any number of excellent history books. As a straightforward starting point, I recommend the New York Times 1619 Project, which gives a disturbing account of American heritage, and which really should not be controversial.

Stephen Breyer's Retirement Speech Reminded Us That the United States Is an Experiment. Will Our Experiment Succeed or Fail?

Stephen Breyer

Has the United States become a failing experiment? When Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement on January 27, 2022, public attention focused on the search for his replacement. As so often happens, people missed his point. Breyer taught an important lesson. Let’s not overlook it. He warned the United States about its political peril, while pointing to all of us to find a solution. He told us to be optimistic, but he also said that the nation’s success was up to all of us.

In his speech announcing his retirement, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer called the United States of America “an experiment.” What an interesting word. Experiment. After almost two and a half centuries, we are an experiment? If we listen between the lines, however, we hear that Breyer’s speech offered a warning tempered by optimism. We only deserve to be optimistic if we heed his warning. That’s the irony. Was he right? After all these years, is United States still an experiment? Will our experiment succeed or fail? That is up to us, the experiment’s citizens. That was his message.


What Did Breyer Mean? An Experiment?

First, the United States was the first major nation in many centuries to establish itself as a constitutional republic. It was indeed, at its founding, an experiment. The nation’s Founders did not think about the United States Constitution as a sacred document. They considered it an experiment. That was, as we will see, Breyer’s first point.

Second, however, experiments can fail. That is the scary part. Breyer alluded, however indirectly, to the United States’ ongoing political crisis.


Is the United States Constitution an Experiment?

Breyer faced a rhetorical challenge As a judge, he wanted to rise above the political fray. Yet, he gently reminded the nation of its political crisis. To show that the United States is indeed an experiment, Breyer quoted Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. During the Civil War, Lincoln saw that the United States itself, the very idea of constitutional government, was on trial:

“And we are now engaged in a great civil war to determine whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

Breyer continued:

“See, those are the words I want to see: an experiment. And that’s what he thought. It’s an experiment.”

Breyer then reached farther back into history to cite the nation’s first president, George Washington:

“And I found some letters that George Washington wrote where he said the same thing: It’s an experiment. That experiment existed then because even the liberals in Europe, you know, they’re looking over here, and they’re saying that great idea in principle, but it’ll never work. But we’ll show them it does. That’s what Washington thought. And that’s what Lincoln thought. And that’s what people still think today.”

By mentioning today, Breyer asked his listeners to think about the American experiment in the present time.


Breyer Said That It’s All up to Us, the Americans of Today

It is indeed at the present time, generations after the nation’s founding, that people need to protect the American experiment. All of us, he said. Breyer continued:

“It’s us, but it’s you. It’s that next generation and the one after that. My grandchildren and their children. They’ll determine whether the experiment still works. And of course, I am an optimist, and I’m pretty sure it will.”

 
Yet, Not Everyone Believes in Our Republic

In polls, most Republicans still falsely claim that the 2020 election was stolen and that Trump actually won. Legislatures across the country are passing laws that put up absurd obstacles to restrict voting. In Texas, where I live, a mail-in ballot application has to list the Social Security number, driver’s license number, or voter number that the person used to register. Yet, in the news we learned that a World War II veteran registered many years ago, when none of those numbers were required. He therefore cannot obtain a mail-in ballot. The 95-year-old man promises that he will drag himself to the polls in person if necessary.

______________

Earlier Post: Liz Cheney Reminded Us of Our Values in Her Speech about Trump's False Election Claims 

______________

You don’t have to be 95 years old to have a problem. What if you don’t remember which number you used? Texas counties are rejecting as many as half of the ballot applications. What legitimate purpose can those mysterious voting rules serve? None, obviously. Their only purpose is to keep people from voting. Unfortunately, similar stories can be told across the nation.

In January 2021, for the first time in our nation’s history, we did not have a peaceful transfer of power. Seeking to overthrow the 2020 election, a raging mob, egged on by Republican leaders, ransacked the United States Capitol to overthrow the election’s results. After fleeing – fleeing from their own supporters! – many Republicans in the Congress bowed to the rioters and voted not to certify the election results. The United States’ constitutional system, which once seemed so secure, nearly collapsed. Is our experiment failing?

Yes, in much of the United States, the Constitution is still an experiment. The people who try to suppress American voters do not believe in the American experiment. They think that we will be better off if the experiment fails. Driven by fear – the fear of change – they seek to replace our republic with government by an arrogant minority.


What Can American Citizens Do about It?

Knowing all of this, Breyer still felt optimistic. For our American constitutional experiment to succeed, however, people have to care enough to fight for it. I don’t mean that they should fight with guns or knives. I mean to fight by voting and raising one’s political voice. That’s what Justice Breyer intended. When Abraham Lincoln himself ran for president in 1864, voter turnout ran over 73%. That was in the middle of the Civil War. Voter turnout in 2020 was less than 67%. And politicians boasted about the high turnout! Few of my university students could name the three branches of the federal government or remember who represented them in Congress. Too many gullible people believe whatever they hear on the television. Will our experiment succeed? Or fail? Let’s hope that Justice Breyer was right. Let’s hope it succeeds.

If our experiment is to succeed, people need to look for ways, big and small, to contribute to communities, and, indeed, the entire nation. Being an American means more than just to get a good job and make a lot of money. And, please, no matter what your political views might be, overcome any obstacles, register to vote, and participate in every election. A citizen’s most basic duty is to vote. Everything else is secondary.

We often blame our leaders when we have problems. Nevertheless, in a healthy republic, the people are the final authority. Let’s all take responsibility to heal our nation. As William Jennings Bryan once said, “We have submitted the issue to the American people and their will is law.” 

Was Justice Breyer’s speech too mild-mannered for our angry times? Maybe. Yet, is it not long overdue for us to tone down our political anger? Breyer was hopeful that the American people’s basic goodness will triumph. Let us all hope that he was right.

Justice Breyer was right. Our nation is an ongoing experiment. The experiment’s success is up to us. It rests on our shoulders. It rests on the shoulders of every generation.

______________

Earlier Post: Fannie Lou Hamer's Voting Rights Speech

______________

Image: US Supreme Court Webpage

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

What does it mean to be good? How do we resist evil? Where should we put our faith: in goodness, or in violence? Martin Luther King, Jr.’s carefully-reasoned speech, “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience,” delivered to a group of civil rights workers, laid out the Civil Rights Movement’s profound values. King’s carefully-reasoned exposition gave the movement its philosophical underpinning. Drawing on his academic background in Christian theology, South Asian philosophy, and New England transcendentalism, King did not merely guide his workers. More importantly, he called the United States to its better nature.

King did not give his speech with the overall public in mind. He delivered this speech on November 16, 1961 in Atlanta, Georgia to a student group called the Fellowship of the Concerned. He did not instruct them about movement tactics. Instead, he delved into the morality on which the movement rested. That moral foundation is King’s eternal legacy.

Although most remembered for fiery heights of eloquence like his “Mountaintop” and “I Have a Dream” speeches, King also guided his movement with deep moral arguments. In “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience,” King began with the idea that people are capable of great goodness. King also showed that it is never right to cooperate with evil, just as, in contrast, we should have boundless faith a future of justice. Let us look at each of those ideas in turn.


Are People Basically Good?

King’s first profound insight was that human beings are good. That insight was remarkable because the United States was, at the time, dominated by appalling racial wickedness. A few months earlier, a crowd of white people had fire-bombed a bus full of the Freedom Riders, viciously beating the men and women as they escaped.

Let us remember that, in 1961, racial discrimination was still the law of the land, particularly in the states of the former Confederacy. In my home state of Virginia, interracial marriage was still a serious crime. Not until I started my Master of Arts degree at Northern Illinois University did I attend an integrated school. (My high schools and undergraduate college enrolled only one or two token minority students.) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Brown versus the Board of Education was merely a document on paper. It made little difference to education. John Birch Society stickers plastered my middle-class neighborhood.

Many people imagine that chain gangs are a relic of the distant past, but I often witnessed this horror as an adolescent in the 1960s. There were no body cams to bring justice to the victims of police brutality. Rural areas of the Deep South were still, for all practical purposes, police states. African-Americans who went to the voting booth feared for their lives, and people who were arrested and taken to southern jails were often never seen again. Lynching continued openly as late as 1981, when the Ku Klux Klan hanged Michael Donald in Mobile, Alabama. And, yet, King insisted that people are capable of great goodness. His ultimate point, his foundation, was to assume that the Civil Rights movement could appeal to kindness rather than hate. Love could replace anger. King explained it like this:

“I think this is what Jesus meant when he said, ‘love your enemies.’ I’m very happy that he didn’t say ‘like your enemies.’ because it is very difficult to like someone bombing your home; it is pretty difficult to like somebody threatening your children; it is difficult to like congressmen who spend all of their time trying to defeat civil rights. But Jesus says love them, and love is greater than like. Love is understanding, redemptive, creative, goodwill for all men. And it is this whole ethic of love which is the idea standing at the basis of the student movement.”

And he summed it up with this simple message of hope:

“There is within human nature an amazing potential for goodness.”

Are violence and hate the only ways to defeat our enemies? If so, King’s philosophy of civil disobedience comes to nothing. If we reach our opponents’ hearts, he suggested, people could hope for a better future.


Do Not Cooperate with Evil

Yet, King made another point, which was not to cooperate with evil. This principle applied to the movement’s followers, just as it applied to the racists and politicians who perpetuated evil. He did not say to “resist evil,” which we hear more often. Instead, he reached more deeply. He told his followers not to acquiesce to evil:

“It is as much a moral obligation to refuse to cooperate with evil as it is to cooperate with good. Noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as the cooperation with good.”

My late mother, who loved to read history books, often commented that people like Hitler and Stalin could only come to power if a great number of people helped them. Even more so, of course, it is so easy to go along with injustices. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned the students to avoid that temptation.

It is from that principle, that we should not cooperate with evil, that led King to the idea that not to give in to unjust laws, such as Jim Crow laws and legalized racial discrimination. While conservatives value social order above all else, King asked the students to value morality above all else.


And Have Faith in the Future

Many people, in 1961 and 2022 alike, prefer to glory in a mythical past. Instead, King offered hope for a better future. The Christian concept of “faith” can equally be translated as “trust.” Thus, King asked the students to hope, expect, and, most of all, work for, a better future:

“This movement is a movement based on faith in the future. It is a movement based on a philosophy, the possibility of the future bringing into being something real and meaningful. It is a movement based on hope.”

The message of American conservativism is, obviously enough, that we don’t need to solve our problems if we pretend we don’t have any. Yet, never mentioning his opponents’ philosophy, King’s speech did not merely ask the students to recognize the horrors that racism had brought to the United States. He also asked them to hope and work toward a better day when justice could triumph:

“With this faith in the future, with this determined struggle, we will be able to emerge from bleak and desolate midnight of man’s inhumanity to man, into the bright and glittering daybreak of freedom and justice.”

In a later post, I’ll talk about this speech’s justification for civil disobedience. For now, however, let us remember that King’s speech showed faith in humanity’s goodness. He reminded his workers never to cooperate with evil. Still, while recognizing evil, he expressed profound faith – profound trust – that they could work toward a glorious future of just peace and human kindness. He presaged the vision that he would express two years later from the Lincoln Memorial, “With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.” As the United States somewhat reluctantly celebrates Martin Luther King, Jr. during this three-day holiday weekend, is his work finished? I think not. Should we still remember to deny cooperation with evil? I think yes. Do we still need to remember King’s message of love, hope, and faith? Obviously, we do.

Part of King’s genius is that he rarely bothered to refute the fallacious arguments that conservative racists made against him. Instead, he offered a powerful vision. That vision overcame whatever venom or false promises his opponents might talk about. He did not condemn his opponents; instead, he offered them a chance to reform. He did not fact-check the liars; he overwhelmed them with moral power. With the resurgence of brazen Jim Crow laws across the South, we still need his lesson today.

Peace to all.

 
_____________

Other Posts about Martin Luther King's Speeches:

“The Law Can’t Change the Heart, but It Can Restrain the Heartless:” Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Speech about Church and the Struggle for Justice

Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” Made Biblical Morality a Public Imperative

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Give Us the Ballot” Speech Drew on Uplifting Christian Concepts

Liz Cheney and the Firehose of Truth: Using the Republicans' Text Messages Against Them

“We are under siege in the Capitol.”

“We are all helpless.”

Those are just two of the text messages that Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney quoted in her speech to Congress on December 13, 2021.  She read a series of text messages sent to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The messages all date to the January 6, 2021 riot at the United States Capitol. The messages were presumably from Republican politicians. Cheney cited messages, one after the other, that asked Donald Trump to call off the attackers.

In other words, she unloaded a firehose of truth, proving her point by quoting message, after message, after message.

Liz Cheney, official portrait

 Cheney gave far more evidence than she needed. Much more than the minimum. Such massive evidence can be persuasive; the RAND corporation shows how pro-Trump Russian propaganda outlets use the “Firehose of Falsehood” to spread propaganda. Propaganda artists spew out more lies than anyone has time to refute. In contrast, Cheney used a firehose of truth. She gave the proof. That is why, helpless in the face of her facts, conservatives have not even tried to rebut her.

A firehose of truth

Unlike so many speakers, Cheney had done her homework. The effect was devastating.

 

Cheney States Her Point

Cheney’s thesis was that Former President Donald Trump had failed to do his duty to control the January 6 rioters. That crowd was shouting things like “stop the steal” and “hang Mike Pence.” Their announced goal was to use violence to stop the counting of the electoral votes that made Joe Biden President. Trump delayed for hours before asking the rioters to go home. Cheney’s secondary thesis proved that Fox News hosts knew that Trump was behind the riot, even though they would broadcast false accusations that the rioters were left-wingers.

To prove those points, Cheney read a string of text messages that Meadows had produced for the congressional committee investigating January 6. She read from a manuscript in a calm, nearly expressionless voice. She proved her points by turning people’s own words against them.

She began with her thesis:

“Mr. Meadows received numerous text messages that he produced without any privilege claim, imploring that Mr. Trump take the specific action that we all know his duty required. These text messages leave no doubt that the White House knew exactly what was happening here at the Capitol.”

Cheney Proves Her Point 

She then read a string of text messages sent to Meadows:

“One text Mr. Meadows received, ‘You are under siege at the Capitol.’ Another, ‘they have reached the Capitol.’ And a third, ‘Mark, protesters are literally storming the Capitol. Breaking windows and doors, rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?” ‘There is an armed standoff at the House Chamber door,’ and another from someone inside the Capitol, ‘We are all helpless.’”

Again, without a break, barely pausing for breath, she continued her firehose:

“Dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials, urged immediate action by the president: ‘POTUS has to come out firmly and tell the protesters to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed.’ In another, ‘Mark, he needs to stop this. Now.’ ‘Tell them to go home.’ POTUS needs to calm this s—t down.”

Notice that, by this point, Cheney was simply reading a string of text messages, all on the same theme, all directly supporting her point. Not only their clarity, but their sheer numbers, rendered her point irrefutable.

She then turned her massive evidence against the duplicitous Fox News hosts who, only a few hours later, would be telling people that the January 6 rioters were actually left-wingers who supported Biden:

“Multiple Fox News hosts knew the president needed to act immediately. They texted Mr. Meadows and he turned over those texts. ‘Mark, the president needs to tell the people in the Capitol to go home. ...This is hurting all of us…He is destroying his legacy,’ Laura Ingraham wrote. ‘Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.’ Brian Kilmeade wrote. Can you make a statement? … Ask people to leave the Capitol.’ Sean Hannity urged.”

Cheney’s long string of quotations eliminated all doubt. We all understand beyond question that Republican leaders and Fox News hosts knew that the rioters were Trump’s people and were under his control. The sheer power of Cheney’s speech is reflected by the fact that, for the most part, conservative media are making little effort to refute her. For the most part, they are ignoring her speech. They are ignoring a speech that no one could ignore. It was not until the next day that Fox News made even a feeble effort to discuss the text messages. Trump himself remains silent. As of this writing, I can find nothing about Cheney’s speech on the websites of the conservative National Review, Breitbart, or other right-wing outlets.

So, for the moment at least, Liz Cheney and her allies on the January 6 committee now control the public agenda. Even more, when Cheney mentioned “dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials,” she tantalized the audience by hinting that the January 6 Committee has tanks full of more evidence. Trump’s supporters are no longer setting the agenda.

And She Gave a Public Speaking Lesson  

Thousands of years ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle explained that the two essential parts of the speech are to state your case and prove it. That is exactly what Liz Cheney did. She stated her point in simple, bold language. She then presented massive evidence to support her point.

So, we learned a lot about the January 6 Capitol riots from Cheney’s brief speech. She also taught us two public speaking lessons:

1. State your case and prove it. Good advice from the old days.

2. Do your homework and show your audience the facts.

Liz Cheney showed how it is done. She made it seem simple. Do your homework and prove your point. Now, although the conservative media are thrashing around to change the subject, it looks as if the irresistible truth is coming out.

______________

Earlier Post: Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

Earlier Post: Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself (P.S.: Speakers Need Research)

Earlier Post: Liz Cheney's Speech Against Trump's False Election Claims

Earlier Post: Liz Cheney Reminded Us of Our Values
_____________

P.S.: Cheney’s expressionless delivery was, oddly enough, perfect for the occasion. Instead of sounding like an angry radical, she projected a serious demeanor. Reading from a manuscript ensured that she got the quotations exactly right.

P.P.S: There are minor differences between Cheney’s text and the speech as she delivered it. As usual, her prepared text was polished. She ad-libbed during the presentation to make a few points extra clear. For the most part, this post uses the speech as delivered. C-SPAN provided a video and rush transcript. NPR published a polished text. To understand everything she said and meant, we should pay attention to both versions. None of the differences affect her message. 

Image: House Facebook page

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

Climate Change, US National Park Service

The world’s oceans are rising, island nations are flooding, and increasingly violent storms whip across the planet. Conspiracy theorists, including at least one United States Senator, ridicule global warming as a hoax. Still, more responsible public leaders are working more quietly to put the brakes on climate change.

Senator Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself

President Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, spoke virtually at the European Energy Award. Von der Leyen’s speech gave a brilliant insight: the solution to climate change lies in our cities. She changed the focus from what we should do to where we should do it.  Why didn’t we think of that earlier? Although von der Leyen talked about Europe, everything she said applies to the United States of America.

 

Von der Leyen Talked about Energy in European Cities

So, where do we fight against global warming? Von der Leyen said the fight is in the cities:

“The transition to an economy that is fully in harmony with our planet begins in each one of our cities. It begins with empowering people to choose public transport or bikes instead of private cars. It begins with smart systems for waste management. And with solid strategies to change the way we heat or cool our homes. Climate action is a responsibility that we all share.” [Italics added]

That’s also an important lesson for us in the United States: climate change policy – needs to start with cities. That’s where the most energy is used, and that’s where the solutions can best begin. Continuing, President von der Leyen pointed out what a large proportion of Europeans live in urban areas:

“Cities play a crucial role in this transition. 75 per cent of Europeans live in cities, and this is where 80 per cent of climate legislation is implemented. This is why it was so important to me to join you today.” [Italics added]

Those same lessons, however, apply to the United States as much as to Europe.


Yes, Most Americans Also Live in Cities

When President von der Leyen said that 75% of Europeans live in cities, my first reaction was, “Wow! That’s a lot!” The reader can imagine my surprise when I looked up the figures, learning that the United States, despite its wide prairies, massive deserts, and endless mountain ranges, is even more urbanized than Europe. And most energy use is urban. In the United States of America, we like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, a nation of rugged cattle wranglers, pioneer families, and small farmers, tied to the land and inspired by the Waltons of television fame. In real life, however, the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan estimates that 83% of people in the United States live in cities. That is a huge increase from the 64% who lived in urban areas in 1950.

Consider, for example, my home state of Texas. We have sprawling cattle ranches and oil fields. But Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas are among the nation’s 10 largest cities. (Austin ranks 11th!)


Can American Cities Help with Climate Change?

Can American cities make the same changes that von der Leyen sought in Europe? The challenges are great. Not only do we Americans love our automobiles, but few of our communities are set up for convenient bicycle or public transportation. For example, I live in Corpus Christi, a pleasant medium-sized city, but my neighborhood, like much of the city’s residential areas, looks like a typical suburban enclave. I live about 1½ miles from the nearest small supermarket, and there are no sidewalks most of the way. I need to walk about a mile just to get to a bus stop. Arriving at the bus stop, I would find that the bus runs only a few times a day. The nearest major shopping area, which features a Walmart and a large supermarket, is a 20-minute drive. Walk to Walmart? Not a chance. I’d need to cross a bridge with, you guessed it, no sidewalk and no bike lane. Rail transit? None. If I want to leave my neighborhood, I need to drive. This may largely be political: the United States’ political system underrepresents cities.

Of course, people who live in the countryside don’t want city voters to overwhelm them. William Jennings Bryan pointed out in his 1896 “Cross of Gold” speech in 1896 that the American economy depended on farms. We still need farms, ranches, mines, and outdoor recreation. At the same time, however, neither the economy nor political realities are bringing sustainable energy to the cities.

William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold”

So, yes, let’s think about where to work on climate change. If most people live in cities – and we do – can’t cities find ways to use less energy? Of course they can. Can our political and economic system adjust to an urban nation? An urban world?


Can We Work Together?

President von der Leyen said that we need to work together in that urban world. Can we get better energy policies? Von der Leyen sounded optimistic:

“In recent months, I saw so many positive efforts in cities across Europe. I hopped on a new hydrogen-fueled bus in Riga, Latvia. I learned about energy efficient social housing in Luxembourg. And I saw the plans to create new car-free areas in Malta. This transition is an opportunity to make our cities climate neutral and more livable.”

Yet, she cautioned that all of us need to take responsibility to deal with climate change. We need to live in the world the way it is today, not the way it was in the past. The science fiction movies of my youth often showed magnificent, futuristic cities with nearly-instant mass transit, livable spaces, and ultra-modern services. Guess what? That future could be now.

Can we, as President von der Leyen said, “make our cities climate neutral and more livable?” She concluded:

“The responsibility for climate action doesn’t just belong to world leaders. It is a choice for every community and every individual. The road to climate neutrality runs through our cities and regions.

“Thank you for your efforts. They are indispensable.”    

Indispensable indeed. What can ordinary people do? One thing, of course, is to vote for politicians who take climate change seriously. Public transportation, bike trails, and pedestrian-friendly city planning all require national and local government commitment. Homeowners who can afford it can install wind or solar power. A simple step is to combine driving trips to use less gasoline, and thus emit less carbon. The government of urban King County, Washington notes that recycling helps to reduce carbon emissions: “If you throw away even half the paper you use in a year instead of recycling it, you increase your climate pollution by the same amount as driving 526 miles.” Near my home, the Port of Corpus Christi is developing facilities to generate hydrogen fuel from renewable electricity sources. We need more of that kind of thing. When hydrogen burns, the only exhaust gas is pure steam.

 

Conclusion

President von der Leyen focused our attention on the vital but neglected side of climate change: green energy policies are, first and foremost, urban policies. Her point could apply to the United States even more exactly than to Europe. Her speech focused our attention, not so much on what to do, but where to do it. When we change the question that skillfully, we can often find better answers. So, can we do more in our cities to fight climate change?

True to form, the press paid little, if any, attention to the content of von der Leyen’s speech, preferring to focus on her wasteful use of private jets. No, she should not have flown on private jets, but her speech made powerful points. The press did not inform the public about those points. How can speakers better command press attention? Feel free to comment below.

______________

Earlier posts: 

Charles Michel’s Speech to the World Health Summit

Biden’s Speech at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center: Working Together for Climate Progress

Harrison Ford’s Climate Change Speech

“And This Is Their New Hoax:” Donald Trump’s Six Deadly Words Still Ravage Our Nation

It’s no accident that the coronavirus pandemic has ravaged the United States worse than any other nation on earth. Even today, tens of millions of Americans refuse to get vaccinated or take minimal public health precautions. Republican leaders continue to ridicule the virus and make fun of health officials. Nurses and physicians sometimes receive death threats from their own coronavirus patients.

What is our problem? It all goes back to Donald Trump’s most influential speech, which he gave at a February 28, 2020 campaign rally in Charleston, South Carolina. When I say “influential,” I don’t mean that Trump gave a good speech. I don’t mean the public speaking textbooks will talk about this speech. I mean that this awful speech had massive public impact. This speech’s six deadly words have spread through the conservative movement’s collective soul.

The virus is a contagion of microbes. The idea that the virus is a hoax has spread like a contagion through right-wing media and social groups.


Trump’s Six Deadly Words

Trump’s Charleston speech rambled incoherently for almost an hour and 20 minutes. It was, however, just one six-word sentence that ignited the deadly fires of coronavirus ignorance. Just six words launched the conspiracy theories and rampant stupidity that prevents the United States from controlling the coronavirus 18 months later. For, Trump said:

“And this is their new hoax.”

Cable news talk show hosts, right-wing radio pundits, and Russian trolls have spread and amplified Trump’s simple message that the coronavirus is a hoax ever since. Although Trump’s speech is long forgotten, his message resonates through America’s public health life.

With those six words, Trump convinced his millions of followers not to worry about the coronavirus. On the contrary: Trump convinced them to reject any thought that the coronavirus endangers them. And, my goodness, was Trump clever when he talked about the “hoax.” In context, he didn’t literally say that the virus wasn’t real; he accused his opponents of manipulating and exaggerating information about the virus. He meant that all the talk about the coronavirus was political and malicious. This was, as we will see, a dog whistle that his supporters could understand perfectly well. To his supporters, the important point was not whether the virus was literally real. Instead, the point was whether they could trust anyone who talked about it. That’s a lot of complexity from one 6-word sentence, isn’t it?

A String of Hoaxes?

How did a mere six words from Trump, the master salesperson, cause so much damage? Well, one thing that Trump excels at is twisting words. Let’s back up a bit and look earlier in the speech, when he complained about the “impeachment hoax:”

“They tried the impeachment hoax.… They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax.”

So, Trump complained about impeachment, which he called a hoax. He then grumbled about other unnamed hoaxes: “It’s all turning.” I don’t know what Trump meant, exactly, but it sounds as if hoaxes are turning around everywhere. Within that context, Trump could imply that the coronavirus was just one more hoax from a long list. These supposed hoaxes, starting with the “impeachment hoax,” had one goal: to remove Trump from office.

Let us not overlook Trump’s next point, when he said that the coronavirus was not affecting the United States. He claimed that there were only 15 cases at the time and boasted of “early” steps to control the disease:

“We have 15 people in this massive country and because of the fact that we went early. We went early, we could have had a lot more than that. We’re doing great.”

What did Trump do that was early? He didn’t say. He was long past talking about facts. The only thing that mattered was that he had said: “And this is their new hoax.”


Conspiracies Rule the Earth?

A hoax, new or old, would be spread by conspiracies. Trump’s tactic worked because his audience was already adapted to – and ready to receive – bizarre conspiracy theories. People who thought that Obama forged his birth certificate and instituted death panels were ready to believe that the coronavirus was just one more hoax. Once the audience believed – as his rally crowd obviously did – that the Democrats were using endless dirty tricks to remove Trump from office, it was a simple step to think that the coronavirus was merely one more tiresome hoax.

Reality soon attacked the hoax hypothesis, didn’t it? The 15 coronavirus cases that Trump cited in February 2020 have, by late summer 2021, multiplied into tens of millions of cases and more than 600,000 documented pandemic deaths.

Given that massive spread, can people still believe that the coronavirus is a hoax? Probably not. But people can still believe in a toned-down hoax hypothesis – maybe the coronavirus is just the flu, or the coronavirus only kills old people, or the coronavirus only affects cities, or it’s all coming from immigrants. Whatever. Once people decide that a hoax is involved, they no longer care about the details. And, of course, no conspiracy theorist needs to believe consistent things. Conspiracy theorists are eager to flip and flop their opinions from one ridiculous claim to another. The only thing they need to feel consistent about is that mysterious, powerful, wicked forces are out to get them.


Tricky Wording, Tricky Hoax?

Also note how cleverly Trump phrased his point to evade fact-checkers. His statement implied that the coronavirus itself was a hoax. But what he actually said – read literally and in context – was that his political opponents were drumming the coronavirus out of proportion. The only reason for his opponents to talk about “their new hoax,” Trump implied, was to make him look bad.

So, now, more than a year later, millions of Americans still think that the coronavirus is just the flu, or that the public or authorities want them to wear masks and take vaccines for the purpose of controlling them, or that the only reason to engage in social distancing or business restrictions is to harm Trump’s supporters.

One of the most remarkable features of Trump’s “And this is our new hoax” is that it passed fact checkers! Some Democrats accused Trump of calling the virus a hoax. The Democrats, not Trump, failed with the fact checkers! But Trump was actually saying that reporting about the coronavirus was a hoax. I’m not sure that matters in real life – if it is a hoax for reporters to say that the coronavirus is bad, I don’t see a practical difference. All the same, Democratic leaders plopped right into Trump’s trap. For example, when Kamala Harris accused Trump of calling the virus a hoax, PolitiFact.com rated her statement False. And, yes, you guessed it, PolitiFact concluded that Trump was only calling the publicity about the coronavirus a hoax, not the virus itself. The oldest fact-checking website, FactCheck.org, waffled a little bit, concluding “But that’s not what Trump said he meant.” Hmm.


Dog-Whistle Rhetoric

However, despite all the waffling, Trump’s supporters knew perfectly well what he meant. Conservatives have long used dog-whistle communication. That is, they say things that literally mean one thing, but they know the hidden meaning. For example, when right-wing demonstrators refuse to say “Black lives matter,” insisting instead that “All lives matter,” we know perfectly well that they are fudging over whether Black lives matter at all. At the same time, because of how “All lives matter” is phrased, they can absolutely deny any such evil motive. In the 1960s, the John Birch Society said to “Support Your Local Police,” when what they meant was “Oppose civil rights.” The idea of dog-whistle communication is to say things that your listeners will understand, but whose hidden meaning you can deny with your last breath.

So, when Trump said, “And this is our new hoax,” he could squirm around to say that he wasn’t really calling the virus a hoax. Conservative audiences understood perfectly well, however, what he wanted them to think. To this day, Trump’s supporters still underestimate the coronavirus and refuse to take the most basic public health precautions. For example, a Nevada woman who lost her husband to the disease said that she had believed that the virus was a “political game.” In Trump-supporting Clarion County, Pennsylvania, people this week are saying things like: “I don’t think COVID’s that serious, anyways. I don’t see it as anything more than a cold.” As if the coronavirus is a semi-hoax. Fred Lowry, a local Florida Republican politician, said on May 30, 2021 that “We did not have a pandemic, folks. We were lied to.” At this writing, three months later, he lies in a hospital bed, desperately ill with a coronavirus infection.

Yet, Trump’s “And this is our new hoax” eventually caught Trump himself. A few weeks ago, Trump told rally attendees that he had been vaccinated against coronavirus. He told them that the vaccine was good. He said that they should take it themselves. The result? The crowd booed!

After all, why should you get vaccinated against a hoax?


Conclusion

Trump sneaked six simple words into an otherwise unremarkable speech: “And this is their new hoax.” Once that idea became implanted in conservative ideology, it spread and morphed into a complex web of coronavirus denial.

Just think, if Trump had simply said, “The virus is bad, and let’s beat it,” how much better off we would all be today—Trump, himself, included.

_________________    

Read: Trump Said to Take a Vaccine, and the Crowd Booed! 

Read: Trump's Tweets Were (Sort of) Deniable Dog Whistles

Elaine's Post: We Need Mask Mandates in Schools
_________________ 

Research note: Communication scholars use the term “multivocal communication” when they talk about dog-whistle politics. What that means is that certain statements carry more than one meaning. In addition to a literal meaning, multivocal statements carry a hidden meaning that true believers understand perfectly well. Interested readers might look at an article by Bethany Albertson. She explains that: “Multivocal communication occurs when the same words have distinct meanings to different audiences.” You can read her paper, published in the academic journal Political Behavior.

The idea that information about risks can spread through formal and informal social networks is called Contagion Theory. In this case, it’s not just that American conservatives rely on partisan news sources. Also, people tend to share their ideas about risks through their social networks. Social groups, both in-person (like families) and on-line networks develop to exchange information about what people perceive to be the risks of the coronavirus. In this case, Trump started the contagion, but his idea has spread throughout a massive social ecosystem. Clifford W. Scherer and Hichang Cho explain the basics of Contagion Theory in this excellent peer-reviewed article.
_________________ 

Here is the entire “new hoax” passage from Trump’s speech:

“One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We have 15 people in this massive country and because of the fact that we went early. We went early, we could have had a lot more than that. We’re doing great. Our country is doing so great. We are so unified. We are so unified.”
_________________ 

Once again, I am grateful for the good people at Rev.com, who published a verbatim transcript of Trump’s speech. They operate a transcription service, but they also publish important speeches as a public benefit.

Image credits: CDC image; Trump’s official White House photo 

Yes, It Was Terrorism. No, It Was Not a Tourist Visit. Yes, Officer Daniel Hodges Did His Homework. A Lesson for Public Speakers.

US Capitol in Happier Times

The world is full of speakers who have no idea what they’re talking about. Enough of that is enough. Speakers need to do their homework. And we have a hero! It’s not just that District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges defended the Capitol on January 6, which should be glory enough. He also defended truth by giving well-researched testimony.

One of four officers who testified at this week’s hearing about the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, Hodges came prepared. Because he was prepared, he devastated one of the most common Republican talking points about that horrible day. Republicans, one recalls, like to say that the January 6 riot was no big deal.

For example, Republican congressional representative Andrew Clyde called the riot a “tourist visit.” During that “tourist visit,” hundreds of people broke into the Capitol, clubbed police with heavy implements, smashed up the interior, and fogged the area with bear spray. The whole time, they were screaming “hang Pelosi” and “stop the steal.” We all watched this on live television. A recent Monmouth University opinion poll found that 62% of Republican voters described the riot as, indeed a “riot.” Nevertheless, 47% of them thought it was “legitimate protest.” Still, for anyone to think of that awful day as anything less than a riot requires a person to unhook from reality. Other persons, however, have instead described the riot as “terrorism.” Does that overstate the case? Is “terrorism” too strong a word?” Officer Hodges thought that “terrorism” was the exact, correct term.

Here’s how his testimony worked:

First, when asked whether January 6 was a “tourist visit,” Hodges quipped: “If that’s what American tourists are like, I can see why foreign countries don’t like American tourists.”

Second, Hodges preempted people who think that “terrorism” is too strong a term:

“I can see why someone would take issue with the title of 'terrorist.' It’s gained a lot of notoriety in our vocabulary in the past few decades, and we'd like to believe that no, that couldn’t happen here. No domestic terrorism. No homegrown threats.” 

Third, and this was the zinger, Hodges said, “But I came prepared.” He cited US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 11B, Section 2331. He then quoted verbatim the exact law that defines “domestic terrorism:”

“Activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of The United States or of any state and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

Boom! Hodges made his point. For it is obvious that the Capitol riot met that definition to the letter. The rioters indeed broke the law. They indeed tried to intimidate members of Congress. Members of Congress indeed had to flee the Capitol and delay counting the presidential votes.

Yet, did Hodges’ irrefutable statement of evidence convince anyone? That’s hard to say. Probably not. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t make his point. It just means that some people refuse to be persuaded. Hodges did, however, put Republicans on the defensive. For example, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote today on the National Review's website that the January 6 riot was not terrorism. His astonishing argument is that January 6 may have met the legal definition of “terrorism,” but wasn’t, for some reason, as McCarthy put it, “real terrorism.” Pretty thin gruel. Much can be said for the way Hodges threw a seasoned lawyer like McCarthy back on his heels. Good work, Officer Hodges.

Mostly, however, conservatives ignored Hodges’ argument and defended themselves by launching personal attacks against the four officers. People resort to personal attacks when they have nothing else to say.

So, Hodges gave a lesson for speakers who find themselves in a tough spot. Hodges did his homework and reset the national debate about January 6 with one accurate, on-the-point quotation. He only needed a few seconds to shut down an entire Republican argument. We now all know that “terrorism” is not too strong a word. Hodges planned ahead. He expected to hear a question about terrorism. He did his homework. Sometimes the facts make a difference.

____________________

Mike Lee Tried to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Made Fun of Himself (P.S.: Speakers Need Research)

Speech Research in the New Media Era

____________________

P.S. Here’s a link to the US Code, which Hodges did, indeed, quote correctly.

Image: United States Capitol Visitor Center website

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

Liz Cheney, US Congress

Never take freedom for granted.

In a dramatic speech, Wyoming congressional representative Liz Cheney told Congress yesterday that the Republican Party needed to reject former President Donald Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him by voter fraud.

Today, the Republican caucus removed her from her leadership role by voice vote: literally shouting down her insistence that the Republican Party should stand for truth. Good public speaking is not just a matter of skill; no, good public speaking requires integrity.

Acts of political courage like Cheney's are remarkably few and far between. Young Senator John Kennedy’s 1956 best-selling book Profiles in Courage summarizes courageous acts of eight United States senators who risked their political careers by taking unpopular political positions. It’s often noted that Kennedy’s book is short because politicians rarely exhibit courage. Most politicians are simple, amoral creatures who never think past next week's opinion polls. Most are willing to take any position, no matter how evil, that they think will help them get elected. This makes Cheney’s speech, which insisted that patriotism matters more than politics, all the more remarkable.

In fact, Cheney stated that theme in her very first sentence: “Tonight I rise to discuss freedom and our constitutional duty to protect it. Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged to see firsthand how powerful and how fragile freedom is.”

Indeed, Americans so often take freedom and greatness for granted. This sometimes makes us think that anything our nation does is automatically great. However, Cheney told Congress – and, more importantly, the American people – that American freedom is both fragile and endangered. She then warned that the nation’s freedom and greatness depend on responding to threats:

“God has blessed America, Mr. Speaker, but our freedom only survives if we protect it, if we honor our oath, taken before God in this chamber, to support and defend the Constitution, if we recognize threats to freedom when they arise.”

It required great intrepidity for Cheney to then explain that the greatest threat to American freedom came from the leader of her own political party. Former President Trump has repeatedly, and falsely, stated that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Conservative media, including commentators on Fox News, Newsmax, and so forth, have repeated this thoroughly-discredited claim. Since our constitutional republic depends entirely on the people’s faith in the system, Cheney warned that Trump’s behavior poses a unique and terrible danger:

“Today we face a threat America has never seen before. A former president, who provoked a violent attack on this Capitol in an effort to steal the election, has resumed his aggressive effort to convince Americans that the election was stolen from him. He risks inciting further violence.

“Millions of Americans have been misled by the former President. They have heard only his words, but not the truth, as he continues to undermine our democratic process, sowing seeds of doubt about whether democracy really works at all."

There is much wisdom in her simple phrase, “They have heard only his words, but not the truth.” We’ll return to that in a minute.

Cheney noted, of course, that the courts and the Department of Justice had universally rejected Trump’s false claims. She then called her party to its constitutional duty: “This is not about policy. This is not about partisanship. This is about our duty as Americans.”

She concluded her speech by once again calling on people to rise above party to defend the country:

“Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this is at the heart of what our oath requires—that we love our country more [than life]. That we love her so much we will stand above politics to defend her. That we will do everything in our power to protect our constitution and our freedom -- paid for by the blood of so many. . . . That is our duty.”

As she gave this speech, Cheney – who is a most astute politician – knew perfectly well that the Republican caucus would soon remove her from her leadership role and that she would become a pariah in her own party.

People can speculate as to Cheney’s political future. If the Trump cult – no other word describes it – collapses, this does not mean that his supporters will ever forgive her. Germany rejected the Nazi Party after World War II, but never fully forgave Oskar Schindler for rescuing Jews from the Holocaust. He got death threats for years. I think that most Republicans know that Cheney is right, but that doesn’t mean they will welcome her again. I’ve heard speculation that Cheney may want to establish her own party or run for president. Neither seems likely.

Read: Senator Jeff Flake Spoke against Trump's Falsehoods

Read: Reagan versus Trump, Unifier versus Divider

Nevertheless, Liz Cheney gave a speech for the ages. Her speech will land in history books. Many speech students will study this speech, write papers about it, and let it inspire them. Other people, although they may stay quiet, will seethe in anger every time they think about what Cheney said yesterday.

In part, Republicans, desperate to remain in power, have shown themselves eager to discard every principle that they ever claimed to believe. Many Republicans, I suspect, quietly know that Trump has shamed them. Instead, however, of turning aside from their dark path, they will simply resent Cheney for being better than they are.

When she made her principled stand, Liz Cheney said that country mattered more than party. Her party, the once-great party of Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, and Eisenhower, rejected her. Heaven help us.



P.S.: Let’s return to Cheney’s statement that, “They have heard only his words, but not the truth.” For many Republican voters, this is probably true. We are long past the point when most people informed themselves by reading newspapers or listening to newscasters like David Brinkley or Walter Cronkite, who delivered carefully-verified reports with voices like heavenly thunder. Today, most conservatives get their news from Fox News, Newsmax, talk radio, or even less reputable sources. On the rare occasions that Fox' Chris Wallace tries to speak truthfully, viewers can tune him out, knowing that an irresponsible pundit will soon come on the air. I suspect that many Republicans, most of whom believe President Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen, have literally never heard the conclusive evidence that this is false. That is because they only listen to news media that tell them what they want to hear. To understand this bizarre phenomenon, look at communication professors Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Capella’s remarkable book, Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment.

Post updated May 13, 2021 to incorporate corrections based on the verbatim transcript published by rev.com. (She said Mr. Speaker, not Madam Speaker,  in the live speech, due to a Speaker Pro Tem presiding,)