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

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 

Abraham Lincoln Raised the Flag: A Speech of Principle. A Speech for the Ages

Lincoln at Independence Hall

Liberty and justice for all. Those stirring words conclude the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Today, on Flag Day, June 14, 2025, some Americans celebrated by watching President Donald Trump’s massive military parade in Washington, DC, while others participated in thousands of No King demonstrations that protested Trump’s executive orders and aggressive anti-immigrant policies. Still, Abraham Lincoln, speaking off the cuff, gave the greatest of all speeches about the American Flag. He called the nation to unite on our founding principle: the principle of liberty. He spoke at Independence Hall in Philadelphia as the new flag, with a new star for just-admitted Kansas, made its formal first appearance. 

Let us, then, look into history, not to current events. to understand our conflicts and our hopes. In his speech about the American Flag, Lincoln urged the nation toward unity in the face of impending disaster. Can we learn his wise lesson? Or are we doomed to repeat bitter history? For, while facing an oncoming struggle, Lincoln resorted, not to the nuts and bolts of picayune policy discourse, but instead to the higher principle of liberty. In Lincoln’s speech, a higher principle bound the United States. That principle created the nation, and, Lincoln hoped, that principle would hold the nation together.

Liberty Bell, Independence Hall

Conflict, indeed, is nothing new. When Lincoln, who had just been elected president but not yet inaugurated, helped raise the United States Flag on February 22, 1861, he urged unity in the face of division. 

As the United States faces conflict and hostility today between opposing factions, we stand in a hard tradition. For, less than two months after the speech, the South Carolina militia attacked Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, and the Civil War began. Before the war ended, more Americans would die than in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm added together.

In his speech, Lincoln stood, not on factions, but on historical principle:

“I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”

Indeed, reflecting on the United States’ long endurance as a united republic, Lincoln looked, not to the clutches of circumstance, but to a great moral principle: the principle of liberty:

“I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time.”

Liberty. Lincoln did not speak for the liberty of the fortunate, but for the liberty of all. Lincoln talked about how American liberty promised freedom and justice for everyone, for eternity. Noble words. Have we forgotten them?

“It was that which gave promise,” Lincoln asserted, that, in the passage of time, lift a great “weight,” not just from Americans, but also “from the shoulders of all.”

Lincoln again stressed the great principle of liberty. He emphasized that the Declaration of Independence, United States of America’s founding document, rested on principle, and that principle gave Lincoln hope:

“This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful.”

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

One Searing Phrase: Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech

Yes, history does show that the consequences turned out to be awful – beyond awful. All the same, Lincoln made that principle – the principle of liberty – his guiding light above all political decisions:

“But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.”

Consider the questions that Lincoln did not ask. Points of economic and political disagreement? How to improve the economy? Lincoln didn’t ask those questions. He asked no questions about political patrons, nor did he say an evil word against his opponents. His simple question was whether we could unite on the great principle of liberty. In fact, his greater question was whether all people throughout time could enjoy liberty. 

Do similar issues face us today? In Lincoln’s time, the southern states considered liberty to be a God-given right of White men, while Black men and women could be held in forced labor and cruel chattel bondage. Today, we are debating about the freedom and liberty of those who wish to immigrate to the land of the free, making their homes here. In 1861, southern leaders felt that freedom for slaves was just as absurd as a plan to make the moon stop rotating around the earth. In 2025, the very concept of freedom for immigrants strikes horror into the hearts of Trump and his supporters. So, have we really changed? Have we changed enough?

Lincoln was not our greatest president because he won a war or because he preserved the union. No, he was our greatest president because he reminded us, with wisdom and eloquence that no other leader could match, that the United States is a nation of principle. Let us never forget. Our guiding principle is neither liberalism nor conservativism, neither tradition or progress. No! That great principle, liberty, created our nation, and only liberty can preserve us.

 Liberty for everyone, liberty for all time. American liberty as a shining example to spread across the earth. A great principle. A great, idealistic, and stunningly ambitious theme. A theme so idealistic that we can hardly grasp it.

Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president. Let us never forget, however, that Abraham Lincoln was, by far, also our most contentious and divisive president. His election prompted a great civil war which, by the time it ended, had cost almost every family in the land a husband, brother, son, or dear one. Only by massive bloodshed was the horrifying injustice of slavery ended. Only after terrible bloodshed could the former slaves enjoy even any hope that they, too, might receive liberty and its blessings.  

In this great speech, Lincoln taught the only lesson we will ever need for Flag Day: Liberty and justice for all. 

by William D. Harpine

__________

Research Note: The great conservative rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver wrote brilliantly about Lincoln’s commitment to principle and enduring truths. In that sense, Weaver insists, Lincoln was a true conservative. Lincoln was a true conservative because, instead of dwelling on immediate circumstances, Lincoln always looked to the higher values. In this speech, Lincoln drew his values from the tradition of the Declaration of Independence. Weaver’s most important book, The Ethics of Rhetoric, should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the powers of speech.

Copyright © by William D. Harpine

Image: Photo by Frederick De Bourg Richards, public domain, Library of Congress, via Wikimedia

Commons

Photo of Liberty Bell by William Harpine, copyright @ by William D. Harpine

Down with Slogans! The Sad Case of Ron Johnson

Senator Ron Johnson

Speaking at the Wisconsin Republican Convention on May 17, 2025, Republican Senator Ron Johnson recently parroted a slogan:

“We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.”

We’ve all heard that one. 

Politicians love their slogans. “Make America Great Again.” “Stop the Steal.” “Make Love, Not War.” “Support Your Local Police.” Catchy? Surely. Do slogans make us think? No. Of course not. What a silly idea.

Slogans grab our attention. Slogans might state nationalism, prosperity, pride, anger, kindness, or hatred. But slogans rust our thinking. For example, “Stop the Steal” begs the question: was anything really stolen? If we say, “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem,” does that excuse us from studying the numbers? Certainly not.

What about “Black Lives Matter;” “White Lives Matter;” “All Lives Matter?” Catchy slogans, fine, but are they sincere? Or do some people just say “All Lives Matter” to hint that “Black Lives Don’t Matter?” (Yes, they are all good slogans, but they do no good unless they inspire us to treat one another better. Right?)

The problem: slogans are not policies. They are just slogans. If we want good policies, well, we need to work. We need to get facts and and think a bit. Slogans don’t do that. Slogans give us an excuse not to think. Slogans excite us, and I enjoy slogans the same as everyone, but we get stuck in slogans the same way we get stuck on muddy roads.

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap

Back to Senator Johnson, whose slogan could, but does not, raise legitimate questions: how much money do we need to spend? How much money do we need to raise? Who should bear the most burden: the poor, or the rich? Those are policy questions, and the slogan does not answer them.

Johnson wants Congress to cut government spending. There is, however, no such thing as “government spending.” Not really. The government spends money on many different programs: national defense, law enforcement, national parks, border enforcement, various types of medical insurance, food support, agricultural subsidies, Social Security, and administrative expenses. And much more.

So, which programs does Johnson want to cut to solve the “spending problem?” Slogans don’t answer that tough question. No Republican wants to cut national defense. Although they talk about it, no Republican is foolish enough to cut Social Security. Social Security helps elderly voters, the Republican party’s main voter base. At the moment, Johnson’s party is trying to cut Medicaid spending. They are, however, not cutting Medicaid enough to balance the budget, just enough to create hardship. In general, making cuts is hard and painful. If you cut National Parks, you anger people (like me) who love parks. If you cut Medicaid, are you ready to face the fallout as rural hospitals close? If you cut defense, will the nation still be safe? Anyone can spout smug slogans, but slogans aren’t policies. Slogans are easy; policies are hard.

Yet, Johnson’s slogan is nothing new, while policy ideas repeatedly vanish into the mist. Indeed, back in 2010, Senate leader Mitch McConnell announced that, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.” A year later, John Boehner said that, “Washington does not have a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem.” Chiming in, Orrin Hatch avowed that, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We all know we have a spending problem.” Sound familiar?

Sadly, politicians mouth their much-loved slogan, over and over, in a thought-free rhetorical style that would horrify any public speaking teacher. If your slogan is your thesis, a teacher would ask, where is your argument?

Thus, we still ask, how does Johnson want to manage fiscal policies? His slogan fails to enlighten us. Worse, once our empty slogans fill us with pious but unthinking indignation, how can we then talk through our nation’s needs? For slogans are the ultimate conversation-stoppers.

Instead of parroting slogans, we need to work on our problems. Sit down. Figure things out. Never imagine that great policies will fall out of the sky. The world dumps massive problems on us every day. Mindless comments never solve them. Not ever. Fiscal slogans are the harbingers of fiscal disaster.By parroting a slogan instead of analyzing and discussing problems, Johnson displayed rhetoric at its worst.

America: Think, or Die! 

Earlier Post: I Don't Like Political Slogans Because They Tell Me Nothing

_____________

P.S. In context, Johnson literally recognized that he was spouting a slogan, yet it never seemed to occur to him to couple his slogan with an actual policy: 

“Every other Republican leader saying some version of we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. I would hope you all agree with that.”

I hate to think of our leadership as a cult where our leaders make do with a slogan - the same slogan, the same unargued dogma, the same vacuous absence of ideas, year after year, decade after decade - with the idea that “I would hope you all agree with that.” Surely the world's greatest republic can do better. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official Congressional Portrait, via Wikimedia

Trump Blames Immigrants for America's Problems. Well, What Else Would He Say?

Hatred of others has long been conservative rhetoric’s essence. It worked for Hitler. It worked for George Wallace. It’s working for Donald Trump.

At yesterday’s political rally speech in Pennsylvania, Donald Trump, while rambling from one topic to the next, returned over and over to immigration. It was immigrants, he said, who cause America’s problems. It was the Democratic Party’s love of immigrants, he said, that disqualifies them for public office. Us versus them. A simple formula: immigrants are bad, while Americans are good.

Conservative speakers have long blamed their own problems and mistakes on someone else. Yes, the United States has crime. In real life, as we will see later, immigrants do not cause our crime problem. Unfortunately, if native-born Americans take responsibility for our society’s own failings, they might want to make changes. Conservatives don’t want to change. That’s what makes them conservative. That, briefly, is why Donald Trump wants to blame immigrants for the United States’ problems. His rally audience seemed happy to accept that explanation, which appealed to their bigotry. Trump’s explanation absolved his audience from accepting responsibility for their own failings. It’s a simple rhetorical trick. Let’s look at how Trump did it.


Trump Said That Immigrants Cause Crime

Indeed, Trump rambled back and forth about immigration and crime throughout his speech. Let’s start by unpacking this passage:

“The radical Democrat Congresses turned our country into one giant sanctuary for serious criminal aliens. We protect all of the criminals; we don’t protect our own people. In fact, they raid our people. And the Republican Party. We believe our country should be a sanctuary for law abiding citizens who love America. If we’re going to make America great again, our first [task] is to make America safe again. We have to have a safe country.”

Now, for an American leader to attack immigrants creates a paradox. The United States is mostly a nation of immigrants. My maternal grandparents were Eastern European immigrants. As Trump commented, many Democrats want to offer sanctuary to refugees. In Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric, however, immigrants are just criminals: “one giant sanctuary for serious criminal aliens.”

In fact, consistent with standard right-wing themes, Trump argued that immigrants—criminals, in his view—receive better treatment then citizens: as he said, “We protect all of the criminals, we don’t protect our own people.” That did not finish Trump’s attack on immigrants, as he quickly turned the tables on the concept of sanctuary cities: remember that he said that: “We believe our country should be a sanctuary for law abiding citizens who love America”—not a sanctuary for others.


Trump Said That American Values Are Anti-Immigrant

As he continued, Donald Trump made it a basic American value to despise immigrants. Let us look at that next: 

“They want to stop us from completing our mission to bring back American values. Secure America’s borders, millions and millions of people are pouring into our country. Nobody has any idea where they’re from. Last month, 129 countries were represented. They’re emptying their prisons into the United States of America.” [italics added]

Well, Trump obviously contradicted himself. If “nobody has any idea where they’re from,” how could we possibly know that they represent 129 countries? The moral issue, however, is more important. That is, immigrants, in Trump’s rhetoric, were not refugees coming for a better life, no, they were criminals who foreign countries maliciously sent us from their prisons. Trump’s speech contrasted the supposedly virtuous American citizens against the criminal immigrants. once you accept Trump’s logic, the way to solve our problems is to keep immigrants away so native-born Americans can live their lives free of foreign contamination. So much for welcoming the “huddled masses.”


Do Immigrants Really Cause Our Crime Problem? No.

Trump’s examples misled his gullible audience, for the numbers clearly show that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at, statistically, a far lower rate than native-born Americans. A major study published in the prestigious Annals of Epidemiology concluded that:

“Results from the present study—conducted with a well characterized and highly-regarded national survey—provide clear and compelling evidence that immigrants are involved in violent and nonviolent criminal behaviors at substantially lower rates than US-born Americans.”

For example, in my home state of Texas, native-born Americans are arrested for murder at twice the rate of undocumented immigrants. Native-born Americans are 2-1/2 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes. Let us keep in mind that the Texas border (which is not far from my home) is the poster for anti-immigrant fearmongering.

More broadly, the United States, like every nation, generates plenty of problems. Crime, income inequality, poverty, and public health all require careful solutions. However, if you want to pretend that we are not responsible for our problems, you need to blame someone else. Immigrants, who are often poor and vulnerable, make easy targets. That was Trump’s trick. The fault, as Shakespeare might have said, lies not in our stars (or our immigrants), but in ourselves.

____________________

Earlier Trump Posts:

Donald Trump Didn't Make His Case for the Emergency Border Wall Declaration Because He Didn't Document His Facts

Divisive Rhetoric Continued in the 2018 US Midterms: The Case of Obama versus Trump

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


Hey! When Trump speaks well, I acknowledge it:

Trump and the NRA: Was the President Using His Business Communication Skills? 

____________________

Research note: The idea that we can blame our problems on “the other” traces far back in human thought. Several scholars have investigated the subject. This month, I am reading essays by the communication critic Stuart Hall, highly recommended.

Image: Official White House photo

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

Biden at University of Delaware

Americans have been losing track of their values, and President Biden reminded us of what those values are. In his May 28, 2022 commencement speech at the University of Delaware, his alma mater, President Joe Biden appealed to a sense of national unity. He reminded his audience that the United States was founded on an idea, not “on ethnicity, religion, geography.” That idea was “the flame of liberty,” as Biden called it, “The right to determine our own destinies.”

This was a ceremonial speech, a graduation celebration. Ceremonial speeches like this (public speaking specialists call this “epideictic speech”) reinforce people’s values. Biden urged his audience to move forward toward liberty and justice. Most centrally, however, he urged the audience to place their faith in the nation's institutions. Unlike some of his earlier speeches, which too often ignored the nation's divisions, Biden asked the audience to confront those conflicts. He talked about:

“A crisis of faith in the institutions that have — however flawed they may be — serve as the infrastructure for the American experiment in liberty and self-government.” [italics added]

Biden reminded the students that, for the first time in American history, we did not have a peaceful transfer of power. Instead, a huge, violent mob ransacked the United States Capitol building to install the losing candidate in office. The assault arose from the bald-faced lie that the 2020 election was stolen. There are, however, no such things as “alternative facts.” To Biden, truth was an underlying value:

“Truth is truth. Lies are lies. And the truth is: We have a solemn duty to keep the flame of liberty burning. This is not about blue and red, rural, and urban. It’s about America. The right to govern ourselves. The right to determine our own destinies, to overcome division and despair, and to meet the challenges of our time with grit and, maybe equally important, with some grace. To press ahead determined, resolved, and full of hope.”

Instead of taking the easy route, Biden said that we must stand by our founding ideas:

“It’s not easy. It’s never been. But it’s who we are — people united by a [an] idea — by an idea, unbending in the face of adversity, and devoted to creating and sustaining [this] beloved nation of ours.” [italics added] 

So, Biden asked the public to trust the institutions of constitutional governance. Politics is not just about who wins an election, or which group benefits from which laws. Politics means to represent what the entire nation needs. To stand behind our values. As we celebrate Memorial Day, let us remember why our nation is worth defending. In our troubled times, what better reason can there be to give a speech?

______________________

Dolly Parton's 2009 Commencement Speech: Lively, Extemporaneous, Specific, Detailed

The Themes of Savannah Guthrie's 2019 Commencement Speech at George Washington University

Oprah Winfrey at Skidmore College, May 20, 2017

In His 2020 HBCU Commencement Speech, Barack Obama Reminds Us That the People at the Top Don't Always Know What They're Doing

______________________

Research note: Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca developed the idea that epideictic speeches reinforce social values in their groundbreaking book, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.

Image: White House YouTube channel 

Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Progressive Traditionalist. Will We Live up to Our Values?

Ketanji Brown Jackson

At her confirmation hearing last week, Republicans painted Ketanji Brown Jackson as a leftist radical. Yet, her opening statement was all about tradition. She talked about what she called the “grand experiment of American democracy.” If confirmed, Jackson will be the first African American woman on the United States Supreme Court. Her opening statement was both traditional and innovative – a paradox. Progressive traditionalism is actually a common trope in progressive rhetoric, let’s look at how it works. Let us look at how Jackson’s opening statement reconciled the Revolutionary War tradition of equality with the heritage of the Civil Rights Movement.

Ever since the nation’s founding, contradictory ideologies have struggled for the nation’s soul. We have, of course, the Declaration of Independence’s timeless statement, penned by Thomas Jefferson, that we are all equal:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Despite his magnificent words, Jefferson owned three plantations operated by slave labor. Indeed, chattel slavery – one of the world’s most wicked institutions – was widely practiced among the 13 colonies. It took the Civil War to end legalized slavery. Jim Crow, de facto segregation, and voter suppression never completely died out. Yet, it was the government that finally passed legislation “to secure these rights” during the Civil Rights movement.

Much progressive rhetoric hearkens back to Jefferson’s idealistic vision. Equality and equal justice are ancient American traditions. Against massive conservative opposition, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution ended slavery, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law, and the 15th amendment protects the right to vote. Civil Rights legislation passed in the 1960s. Having been in force for decades, have they now become part of the United States’ traditions? Or do Civil Rights continue to be part of what Republicans call a “radical leftist agenda.”


Judge Jackson Memorialized Civil Rights

So, what did Jackson say about tradition? After thanking her family, friends, and mentors, Jackson praised the United States’ blessings. She did not, however, tie those blessings to 1776. Instead, she tied them to the more recent heritage of Civil Rights. In other words, she argued from tradition, but not the tradition that the Republican senators most wanted to hear. As she praised the United States, Jackson also reminded the audience that her parents enjoyed freedom because of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s.

“The first of my many blessings is the fact that I was born in this great Nation, a little over 50 years ago, in September of 1970. Congress had enacted two Civil Rights Acts in the decade before, and like so many who had experienced lawful racial segregation first-hand, my parents, Johnny and Ellery Brown, left their hometown of Miami, Florida and came to Washington D.C. to experience new freedom.”

A key phrase: “new freedom.” Not the old freedom of 1776, which didn’t include everyone. A new freedom. Although the Revolutionary War purported to give all Americans liberty, Jackson’s parents only enjoyed “new freedom” because of the Civil Rights Movement and the chance to relocate.


Jackson and the Ideal of Equal Justice

Values, like liberty and equality, force us to question our actions. Will we let our values change our behavior? Will we become better people by following our values? Or will our values only get lip service? Jackson tied her love of country to a new tradition – a “new freedom” – the tradition of African-American success:

“During this hearing, I hope that you will see how much I love our country and the Constitution, and the rights that make us free. I stand on the shoulders of many who have come before me, including Judge Constance Baker Motley, who was the first African American woman to be appointed to the federal bench and with whom I share a birthday.”

Will the nation live up to its ideals? Jackson addressed that question as well:

“And like Judge Motley, I have dedicated my career to ensuring that the words engraved on the front of the Supreme Court building—"Equal Justice Under Law" — are a reality and not just an ideal. Thank you for this historic chance to join the highest Court, to work with brilliant colleagues, to inspire future generations, and to ensure liberty and justice for all.”

Conclusion

“To ensure liberty and justice for all.” That is an ideal. Yet slavery, Jim Crow, and voter suppression have been realities. We create ideals because we want to improve ourselves. Jackson’s opening statement talked a lot about tradition, but the traditions became complex because the United States is a complex nation. We are all, Jefferson insisted, “created equal.” Our rights are, he said, “unalienable.”

Those traditions go back to the nation’s founding. Racial discrimination also goes back to the nation’s founding. And, yet, Civil Rights legislation dates back more than 50 years. Jackson melded those traditions.

So, are we ready to continue with “new freedom?” New freedom from traditional values? Like many progressive speakers before her, Jackson insisted that progressive ideas grew from traditional roots.


_________________

Earlier Post: Could Ketanji Brown Jackson Have Reset the Republicans' Agenda?

Earlier Post: Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's Retirement Speech Reminded Us That the United States Is an Experiment

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

Could Ketanji Brown Jackson Have Reset the Republicans' Agenda?

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s contentious hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee contrasted her professional, calm demeanor against the vile, bullying behavior of a few Republican senators. Conservative firebrand Josh Hawley of Missouri had signaled in advance that he intended to attack what he considered to be her soft sentencing record in child pornography cases. Child pornography is, of course, an electrified rail in political debate. Many people think that child pornographers could never face a punishment that is too severe. Life in prison? Hang them? Break them on the wheel? A cloud of deep suspicion and false moral indignation was brewing over Jackson’s confirmation hearing. Should she have done something about that? Or was she wise to focus on her unimpeachable qualifications for the Supreme Court? 

Since anyone could see that this powerful but unfair attack was coming, the first question I asked myself was, why didn’t Jackson preempt Hawley’s argument, steal his thunder, and reset the agenda? Every debater knows that it is always dangerous but sometimes helpful to preempt the other side’s arguments. In this case, with the benefit of hindsight, Jackson might have done well to bring up the child pornography cases before the Republicans did. But maybe not. She might have won the debate. Still, by ignoring the danger as long as she could, she created the impression that she was dignified and calm. Put it this way: debating well is one thing, while being dignified or judicious is something else entirely. Lawyers debate; judges rule. Let’s look at the pros and cons, for debaters face this tactical question all the time.


First, the Republicans’ Arguments Were Mostly Bogus

Writing in the National Review, conservative lawyer Andrew C. McCarthy points out that the Hawkins case, the one that Republican senators talked about the most, involved a young offender who had cooperated with the investigation, had no criminal history, and had other mitigating factors. Indeed, McCarthy said that Hawley’s accusation that Jackson was soft on pornographers bordered on “demagoguery.” Similarly, the American Bar Association also found “no evidence” that Jackson’s sentences were excessively lenient. Writing for the Annenberg School of Communication’s FactCheck.org, Eugene Kiely and Saranac Hale Spencer also explained that the Republicans’ accusations on this issue were “misleading.” Nevertheless, Republicans’ dubious attacks carried emotional power.


Second, Jackson's Opening Statement Ignored the Coming Storm 

If Jackson wanted to preempt those accusations, her best chance was right at the outset. Instead, during her March 21, 2021 opening statement, Jackson stuck with glowing generalities. She established her human side by discussing her upbringing, family, and personality. She brought up personal history. That was all good. Indeed, she gave an excellent opening statement. She may have taken the best approach. All the same, the storm was brewing – a thundercloud was forming overhead – and everyone knew it.

Early in her statement, Jackson talked about the greatness of America while explaining how important Civil Rights legislation was to her success:

“The first of my many blessings is the fact that I was born in this great Nation, a little over 50 years ago, in September of 1970. Congress had enacted two Civil Rights Acts in the decade before, and like so many who had experienced lawful racial segregation first-hand, my parents, Johnny and Ellery Brown, left their hometown of Miami, Florida and came to Washington D.C. to experience new freedom.”

That was very nice. She also talked about her high school debate experience:

“I have also had extraordinary mentors, like my high school debate coach, Fran Berger, may she rest in peace: she invested fully in me, including taking me to Harvard—the first I'd ever really thought of it—to enter a speech competition. Mrs. Berger believed in me, and, in turn, I believed in myself.”

Jackson also discussed her professional qualifications by praising the distinguished people who mentored her legal career:

“In the category of great mentors, it is also my good fortune to have the chance to clerk for three brilliant jurists who became my professional role models: U.S. District Judge Patti Saris; U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Bruce Selya; and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.”

We did not, however, hear anything about child pornography.

On the one hand, it was ridiculous that the child pornography cases came up at all. As discussed above, the Republicans’ accusations lacked merit. On the other hand, Republican senators were already preparing their demagogic arguments. And everyone knew it.

And when the Republicans started to accuse Jackson, they were loud, obnoxious, rude, and foul. All the same, child pornography is such a controversial issue, and the Republicans’ presentation – especially those of Senators Hawley, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz – was so forceful and emotional, that they surely scored points with portions of the public. How were their arguments effective; how were they not effective? I plan to talk about that in an upcoming post. But, oh my goodness, were they ever loud!


Jackson Took the High Road – Was This Wise?

And Jackson did not respond in advance. Why not? First, she obviously wanted to give show that she was dignified, professional, and above the fray of day-to-day politics. Her positive, uplifting opening statement helped to accomplish that.

Second, preempting your opponent’s arguments always entails danger. For one thing, if she brought up child pornography, she would be walking onto her opponents’ ground. She would have to be very careful not to let them set the agenda. Also, when you preempt an argument, there’s always the danger that you might do a better job of explaining the issue than your opponents will. Since the Republicans did not explain themselves very well – as I hope to show in a future post – that was a real risk.

Third, however, if Jackson handled the issue carefully, she might have stolen some of the Republicans’ shock value. Could she have said something like this?

[Hypothetical – not Jackson’s words] “I have seen in the press that some people call me soft on crime, or, even more appalling, soft on sex crimes. I’m not. Let me explain. Every time I pass sentence on another soul, I look carefully at everything – the prosecutor’s recommendation, the probation office’s presentencing report, the defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, and all other relevant evidence. It is not a judge’s job to rubberstamp whatever the prosecutor says. Instead, a judge’s job is to protect everyone’s rights. My fair temperament in judgment in sentencing is reflected in the many endorsements I have been fortunate enough to receive. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, who are certainly not soft on crime, honor me with their endorsement. Judge J. Michael Luttig, a highly respected judge noted for conservative political views, endorsed me enthusiastically. Overall, my record shows that I strive to be tough on crime, but also compassionate and human, as I make judgments.”

Or something like that.

Would that have put the debate more on Jackson’s own ground? Obviously, nothing was going to slow down the Republicans’ vicious assault. The question was, who was going to control the agenda? And which agenda mattered the most? If confirmed, Jackson will make history as the first African-American woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court. It is hard to imagine any legitimate reason to oppose her. By rising above the political fray, Jackson showed herself to be dignified. That was a worthy rhetorical goal. If she had been proactive, could she have de-electrified the coming storm? For, when Republicans started ranting and raving their fear-mongering nonsense, she could no longer avoid the issue, could she? Once the demagoguery started, Jackson could no longer stay above the fray. In hindsight, it’s hard to say which approach would be best. What do you think? Feel free to make comments below. 

Image: Senate Judiciary Committee

“What, They Demand, Is Your Christianity?" Rev. Theodore S. Wright’s 1837 Speech against Racial Prejudice

Of all the places that should (in principle) be open to everyone, rich and poor, regardless of background or race, should not Christian churches (and, indeed, all religious institutions) be foremost? Yet, almost two centuries ago, Rev. Theodore S. Wright complained bitterly when his fellow ministers locked out African-American worshipers.

Wright, an African-American Presbyterian minster, spoke against racial prejudice. In his 1837 speech to the New York Anti-Slavery Society, he said that it was not just slaves who faced intense discrimination. Even free African-Americans were forbidden to study trades, locked out of colleges, and, he added, “oppressed by a corrupt public sentiment.” Wright pointed out the mistreatment that African-Americans often received in churches, complained that prejudice affected their ability to save their souls, and proposed to rectify the problem by shaming racist clergy. He noted that in evangelical revivals, “which have been blessed and enjoyed in this part of the country, the colored population were overlooked.” Wright explained:

“But sir, this prejudice goes further. It debars men from heaven. While sir, slavery cuts off the colored portion of the community from religious privileges, men are made infidels. What, they demand, is your Christianity? How do you regard your brethren? How do you treat them at the Lord’s table? Where is your consistency in talking about the heathen, transversing the ocean to circulate the Bible everywhere, while you frown upon them at the door? These things meet us and weigh down our spirits.”

We can allow Wright a bit of hyperbole. Obviously, his own church welcomed African-American worshipers. It remained true, however, that African-American worshipers were, as was the custom, often consigned to the balcony. Even worse, they were, as he explained, sometimes excluded from churches entirely.

Having shown the problem, Wright offered a bold solution. His idea was to awaken the consciences of White pastors. On one occasion, Wright himself went around to other church elders to inquire about this failing of theirs. He literally went door to door:

“We went and they humbled themselves. The Church commenced efficient efforts, and God blessed them as soon as they began to act for these people as though they had souls.”

Yet, he noted that even when African-American worshipers were allowed into the churches, they were relegated to the balconies, as if “the value of the pews would be diminished if the colored people sat in them.”

Wright gave his speech at a time of religious upheaval. White and Black churches tended to separate in the 1800’s in The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, was originally created as an act of racial discrimination. My own Methodist denomination split in the 1800s, after African-American worshipers were often rejected or consigned to the balconies. For example, Rev. Richard Allen founded the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in 1816. Like many African-American Methodist churches, the AME shares doctrines, rules, and rituals with other Methodist Churches. The AME church formed because church ushers in Philadelphia literally dragged Allen off of his knees in the middle of prayer. And yet, even today in 2022, churches sadly remain among the most segregated institutions.

Thank you, Rev. Wright, for pointing out the monstrous injustice and hypocrisy that afflicted the Christian churches in 1837. How lamentable that the issue has not disappeared. Yes, today, it is rare for White-majority churches to expel people of color. Not universal, however, is to welcome them, not as guests, but as brothers and sisters. Rev. Wright was correct when he complained that “These things meet us and weigh down our spirits.”

Indeed, we cannot say today that African Americans are generally debarred from Christian churches. Furthermore, I enthusiastically praise denominations like the AME Church or African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, which offer so much community and spiritual support. That is no excuse for churches that restrict themselves, however unconsciously. We might want to ask why churches, of all places, often remain highly segregated. 

Can speeches help with these problems? Speeches such as Wright’s might affect people’s attitudes and actions. Their effect is greatest if the message is repeated over, over, and over. Wright spoke a long time ago. Do we need to hear his message, updated to suit our times, repeated again?

Among their other functions, public speeches help people recognize social problems. We continue to recognize Black History Month because we look to the past for lessons. Wright complained about discrimination in employment, education, and most of all, religion. What has changed since 1837? What has not changed? If Wright spoke today, what would he say? Would he tell us that everything is fine? Would he complain that prejudice still restricts African-Americans? I think we all know the answer to that question. Don’t we?

______________________  

Earlier Posts:

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon on the Power of Love

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

Pope Francis' Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

Rabbi Cahana’s Sermon on the Power of Love

______________________  

P.S. Wright spoke in cosmopolitan New York City. More western parts of New York state were called the “burned over district” in 1837 because of all the fire and brimstone preaching. Wright’s speech was probably tame compared with what his audience may have heard around the state. I may look into New York’s historical evangelism in upcoming posts. What do you think?

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.

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

Texas Proposition 3: A Constitutional Amendment Framed to Restrict Public Health Measures

My Texas "I Voted" Sticker

On November 12, 2021, Texas voters approved eight amendments to the state constitution, all cleverly worded to ensure that they would pass. Let’s look at one of them, which was Proposition 3 on the Texas ballot. Proposition 3 was framed to focus the voters’ attention on freedom of religion. Most people support religious freedom. It was cleverly not framed to focus on public health. If they think about it, many people also support public health. However, Proposition 3 was phrased so that voters would need to make a special effort to think in public health terms. Proposition 3 did not look like a persuasive message. But it was. The way it was phrased – the spin – had a powerful persuasive impact.

So, here is Proposition 3:

“The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”

Proposition 3 could easily have been framed to focus on public health. It could have said (but did not): “The constitutional amendment to stop public health authorities from imposing reasonable, temporary restrictions on religious organizations if evidence shows they are spreading a deadly disease.” If it had been phrased that way, the amendment might have been defeated. 

Every time we say something, especially if we are trying to persuade people, we always frame it in a particular way. Framing is not an evil thing. It is always part of how we communicate. Yet, the way an argument is framed often persuades with more power than facts or evidence.

Proposition 3 was framed to evoke an emotional response about religious freedom. Erving Goffman called this kind of thing “spin.” Proposition 3 was phrased to arouse fear that the government was going to interfere with religion. It was not phrased to arouse our fear about catching a virus and gasping to death on a ventilator. That was a value choice by the people who wrote the proposition.

In a more general sense, we frame all kinds of things, controversial and non-controversial alike. For example, consider the Civil War. Do we really learn about the Civil War? Or do we call it the War Between the States, as I learned in Virginia schools in the 1960s? That’s a framing question. Before the Civil War, the southern states said that the issue was slavery. After the Civil War, they insisted that the real issue had been states’ rights. Which framing is correct? How do we respond to those competing frames? Just as an art frame sets off a picture and affects the viewer’s emotional response, so a rhetorical frame also affects the way people respond.

Any number of examples can show how framing changes how we understand issues. Suppose the TV news shows President Joe Biden stopping to chat with a small child. The news could frame the tender event in at least three different ways:

#1 President Joe Biden is a kind, compassionate man who cares about other people.

Or

#2 President Joe Biden might be a nice guy, but he’s weak.

Or

#3 President Joe Biden shows the strength that comes from wisdom.

Can you see how different people can perceive the same event differently? #1, #2, and #3 all refer to the same facts, and a voter could interpret Biden’s actions in any of those three ways.

Similarly, not long ago, I blogged about how conservatives often discuss coronavirus restrictions as being control measures, not public health provisions. That, again, is framing. Yes, coronavirus restrictions do, indeed, limit what we do. So there is an element of control. The coronavirus restrictions also save lives. A religious Texas summer camp infected 125 attendees. So, which is more important? Religious freedom, or health? Should we balance the two? Can we have both? When we put a frame around coronavirus restrictions, does that frame stress the control, or the public safety? Notice, however, that none of that framing even mentions facts or arguments. How many people are dying from the coronavirus? Do the restrictions save lives? Do the restrictions limit our ability to succeed? Once we have framed the issue of coronavirus restrictions, we see the facts, pro and con, in different lights – depending on our framing.

Earlier Post: "It's All about Control:" Conservatives, Public Health, and the Jackhammer Method of Persuasion

The framing of Proposition 3 was no accident. No, Proposition 3 arose because public health authorities sometimes restricted religious services during the pandemic’s height. Public health authorities believe that religious services often became super-spreader events. It’s no secret why that should happen. Dr. William Schaffner of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine explained why religious services often spread disease:

“The members know each other. They enjoy seeing each other. They hug, they kiss, and they spend a fair amount of prolonged time in close association.”

Dr. Eric Christopher Cioe-Pena contributes this comment:

“Sometimes people are not wearing masks when they speak or sing, and a lot of these churches are older and have poor ventilation.”

So, public health authorities do not necessarily want to interfere with religious freedom, but they do want to stop disease from spreading. At the same time, many religious organizations of many faiths resisted simple public health precautions. Churches displayed signs like “masks optional” and took it as a matter of pride when people stuffed the pews.

Indeed, the framing may have made more difference than the actual issues. Texas news organizations gave little information about the constitutional propositions. Probably, few people were aware in any real way of the pros and cons. Although I read the brief information on the League of Woman Voters website, most people probably just responded to the proposition's text.

Accordingly, people voted in favor of religious freedom. Proposition 3 passed. The final tally was 62% for and only 38% against. Turnout in this off-cycle election was only about 9%, so, like many American elections, it was decided as much by who didn’t vote as by who did vote.

So, the freedom of religion frame seemed to shape the result. I’ve said many times that the side that sets the agenda usually wins the debate. The people who wrote Proposition 3 set the agenda by what they did and did not emphasize. Proposition 3 was phrased to direct attention toward religious freedom. It did not direct attention toward public health.

And, so, the next time a pandemic hits the state of Texas, religious organizations will be free to spread fatal diseases to as many people as they please. Of course, when I phrase it that way, I’m not being neutral. In framing theory, neutrality is an illusion. I have my spin, and you have yours.

Earlier Post: Donald Trump Set the Agenda at the 2018 RNCC Fundraiser

And, yes, in case you are wondering, I voted “against” on Proposition 3. I’ve never seen anything in the Bible (or any other religious writing) that says, “Go forth and spread disease to all the nations.” But, then, there I go, spinning again.

Still, we frame things all the time. We all have perceptual frameworks that help us understand things. At the same time, to think critically, we need to understand our own frames and the frames that other people offer. That doesn’t mean that will ever be objective. We’re never objective. Nor does it mean that all perspectives are always equally valid. It means that we need to try to understand one another’s perspectives as best we can,


Earlier Post: Should Schools Reopen during the Pandemic? It Depends on How You Frame the Question


Research Note: Although framing theory dates back at least to the 1950s, most communication researchers refer to Erving Goffman’s 1974 explanation. Here is a good, easy-to-read explanation of framing theory. 

Of course, nowadays, years after Goffman wrote his book, the concept of “spin” is an everyday topic, especially in journalism. The point is that every message, certainly every persuasive message, is going to be framed. Issues will be spun in a particular way. There is no such thing as a "no spin zone." To be human is to spin. That isn’t always bad, but it’s something that we as listeners and readers need to notice. How is an issue framed? How could it be re-framed? Those are questions to ask.