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

Joe Biden

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

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

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

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

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

Was Biden Divisive When He Defended Constitutional Government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By William D. Harpine

_____________

Earlier Posts:

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

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

© Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

Image: White House photo

The Build Back Better Agenda: Will Democrats Use the Bully Pulpit? Or Not? William McKinley Shows the Way

Joe Biden

A CBS/YouGov opinion poll released yesterday (October 10, 2021) revealed that the majority of Americans have no idea, or only a vague idea, of what the Democratic Party’s Build Back Better legislative bill even contains. At this point, the bill’s passage is in doubt. If it does pass, it will probably be much-reduced.

No surprise there! Why should the public know anything about the bill? Who is telling them? Pretty much no one. If the Democrats want this legislation to pass, they need to sell it.

We’re hearing all kinds of stuff in the press, and from Democratic speakers, arguing about how big the bill should be. Should it be $3.5 trillion? Or some smaller amount? Should it be paid for by taxing the rich?

Get a clue! Voters care about none of that. They want to know what the bill is doing. They want to know what it might do for them. And, in fact, all of the bill’s provisions – and I mean all of them – are polling very well. The public likes the idea of shoring up Medicare, expanding broadband access in rural areas, improving dental and vision care, and upgrading the nation’s rotting, crumbling roads and highways. Polls show that voters even support the climate provisions. Who would have guessed?

But there is a big disconnect. The public isn’t going to support the legislation unless they realize that it contains bunches of things that they like.

Much is made of the reluctance of senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. They both come from relatively conservative states. The fact remains that their states would benefit tremendously from this legislation. So why are they stalling? Have they been bribed by big business? Are they playing both sides? Who knows? Who cares? Forget about all of that. Members of Congress are simple, uncomplicated creatures who do whatever it takes to get reelected. Convince the voters of Arizona and West Virginia that they want the Build Back Better agenda, and Sinema and Manchin will magically agree and vote accordingly. Bingo.

There is precedent for this. We know how presidents can sell an unpopular agenda. More than a century ago, when President William McKinley wanted an uncooperative Senate to ratify the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish-American War and annexed the Philippine Islands, he did what any smart modern president would do. He went on speaking tours.

William McKinley

These were not just any speaking tours. Among other parts of the country, McKinley traveled by train to the South, where opposition to his policies was strongest, where he gave speech after speech. He traveled in the company of the ever-popular Confederate General Joseph Wheeler, who had rejoined the United States Army and was the hero of the Spanish-American War. Wheeler was a Democrat, while McKinley was a Republican, and they had fought on opposite sides of the Civil War. McKinley’s speeches were vague, carefully constructed to offend as few people as possible. He praised the South. He promised to care for the graves of Confederate soldiers. He talked about trade and prosperity. He exalted the “protecting folds” of the American flag, which would spread out to give prosperity and justice to the Filipino people. He praised soldiers and sailors of the South and North alike for the quick, popular victory over Spain. In other words, he went directly to his opponents’ territory and reached out concerning issues they cared about.

And, guess what? It worked. The Senate ratified the treaty by the required two-thirds vote. The United States quickly annexed the Philippine Islands. Now, unfortunately, the annexation didn’t go quite as well as McKinley had expected. Filipinos immediately launched a bitter war of independence in an effort to drive the Americans out of their country. The fact remains that McKinley had a policy, the policy was not attractive, and yet he convinced the public to support it. Once the public was on his side, the senators meekly dropped into place.

Biden Speaking about Build Back Better

Let us come back to 2021. If Democrats want to sell their agenda, they need to reach out. They need to reach out much more aggressively than they have so far. President Joe Biden has given some speeches about the proposal. Those speeches were fine. He has not, however, given enough speeches. He needs to tell people about his agenda every day. He needs to reach out to different audiences – every day. Leading Democrats need to do more than to offer a few mumbled comments on the Sunday morning TV shows. They need to hold town halls, one after the other, and explain the benefits that their agenda will bring to people. Instead of sniping at one another on Twitter, they need to use their social media to tell people what the bill contains and how it will help them.
________________

More Information: Biden and the Bully Pulpit: Biden’s Infrastructure Speech
________________

And that is not enough. The Democrats need to go on Fox News. Democrats today act as if Fox News is poison. Why? The Fox News audience is exactly the people they need to reach. They need to get on talk radio. If they want to talk about the United States as one unified country, they need to reach out to people who disagree with them. Remember, McKinley was a decorated combat veteran of the Civil War. (Or, as Southerners of the time sometimes said, the War of Northern Aggression.) He didn’t expect to get a lot of support from the South. He did not even expect them to like him. He did know, however, that he needed to reach out to the South to moderate their opposition to his proposals, to show that he cared about them, and to solicit unity. He spoke to a friendly audience at a southern African-American University. He spoke to the Georgia legislature. Making a appearance on Fox News can’t be as hard as what McKinley did.

Theodore Roosevelt called the presidency the “bully pulpit.” And he was right. Political scientist Jeffrey Tulis said that modern presidents routinely bypass Congress to sell their ideas directly to the public. That is what the Democrats need to do.

People often talk about how former President Donald Trump is always in the news. Pundits say that he sucks the oxygen right out of the room. They are right. Trump controls the agenda. He controls the agenda by holding rallies, making media appearances, and generally making a nuisance of himself. You might not like him, but you can’t ignore him. President Biden is getting too easy to ignore. The Democrats are too easy to ignore. They need to climb on the bully pulpit and commandeer their share of the media’s oxygen. That does not mean that they need to say stupid things like what Trump says. It means that they need to tell people about their agenda – over, over, and over. They need to tell people why the agenda is needed and how it will work. That is why we have the bully pulpit. As I have said many times, the side that sets the agenda will win the debate.

Throughout his career, McKinley emphasized unity in the face of disorder and compassion in the face of strife. I don’t see any reason that it wouldn’t work today. The way to overcome polarization is with unity.

So, are the Democrats giving good speeches? Or bad speeches? That’s not the point. The point is that they are not giving enough speeches. They need to inform the public. They need to set the agenda.

---

________________

Further Reading: Rhetoric in William McKinley's 1898-1899 Speaking Tours

________________

Research Note: I wrote about McKinley’s speaking tours in a chapter that I wrote for Before the Rhetorical Presidency. Copies are available in most large libraries, and, of course, it is available for sale in major bookstores. I also wrote an unpublished paper about McKinley’s speaking techniques during his tour to sell the treaty; link above. Click on William D. Harpine’s Publications above to see more of my writing about McKinley’s speeches.

Interested readers might want to look at my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page, about public speaking in the 1896 presidential campaign between McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. There are chapters about McKinley’s use of such themes as identification and unity. The book is now available in paperback, and, of course, many university libraries have it on their shelves. 

Mel Laracey’s excellent book, Presidents and the People: The Partisan Story of Going Public, includes an insightful discussion of McKinley and the rhetorical presidency.

P.S. If you want to bypass the politicians and read a summary of Build Back Better, here is a simple explanation. 

Image of Biden: White House photo. Image of McKinley: Library of Congress. Image of Biden's speech: White House YouTube channel. 

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

Biden's speech about Afghanistan

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

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


Showing Dedication

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

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

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


Could Biden Have Said Something Like This?

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

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


Sharing Knowledge

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

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

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


So, Would Something Like This Be Better?

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

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

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

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

Speakers Making Points

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

Franklin Roosevelt's War Speech

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

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

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

Biden's Delta Variant Speech Showed Leadership 


Showing Strength

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

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

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

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

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

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


What Went Wrong with This Speech?

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

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


Oral Style Versus Written Style

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


Conclusion

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

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

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

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



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

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

Image: White House YouTube channel

Joe Biden Reset the Agenda with His Speech about the Disaster in Afghanistan

Biden's Afghanistan Speech

Speaking to the American public about the Afghanistan withdrawal, President Joe Biden made his case and offered constructive actions to alleviate the suffering. Was he right? I have no idea. His speech, however, helped to reset the discussion. Instead of talking about details of the ongoing disaster, Biden focused our attention on larger international issues. He reset the dispute on his own terms. That can only be to his political benefit. After all, the “bully pulpit” is the President’s greatest power. 

As Professor Lloyd Bitzer pointed out some time ago, there are situations that call out for speech. The chaotic collapse of Afghanistan’s government is one such case. Was this a foreign policy failure? Of the four presidents who presided over the Afghan policy, who was most at fault? Why did Afghanistan’s military forces collapse? Where should the United States go from here? For the president to say nothing would show weakness. Instead, Biden gave a White House speech yesterday to talk about the situation in Afghanistan. Let’s look at how, instead of focusing on the immediate disaster, he looked at the broader picture.

This was a prudent rhetorical strategy, for the immediate situation Afghanistan is a self-evident calamity. Biden needed to justify his policies. He needed to give the catastrophe a context.

First, Biden reminded us of the original war goals. He said that when the United States invaded Afghanistan about 20 years ago, the purposes were to “get those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001, and make sure al Qaeda could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again.” Many wars escalate out of proportion, as the warring parties seek more and more unrealistic results. Biden was wise to focus on the war’s initial purpose. In rhetorical masterstroke, he then asserted that those purposes had been met: “We did that. We severely degraded al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We never gave up the hunt for Osama bin Laden, and we got him. That was a decade ago.”

Second, Biden attacked the neocon goal of remaking Afghanistan into a Western democracy. That was a larger purpose, much bigger but far less realistic than stopping Al Qaeda. Biden simply refocused on the war’s original purpose:

“Our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation building. It was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy.

“Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on American homeland.”

Third, although the 9/11 attacks originated from bases in Afghanistan, Biden emphasized that the terrorist threat now extended well beyond that nation. That was also quite clever. The purpose of the Afghanistan war was to suppress terrorism. Fighting in Afghanistan, however, was no longer enough to suppress terrorism:

“Today, the terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond Afghanistan: al Shabaab in Somalia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Nusra in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. These threats warrant our attention and our resources.”

Furthermore, I don’t think anybody can blame Biden too much for reminding his audience that former President Donald Trump had already negotiated to let the Taliban take over the country by May 1, 2021, a day long past: 

“When I came into office, I inherited a deal that President Trump negotiated with the Taliban. Under his agreement, U.S. forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1, 2021 — just a little over three months after I took office.”

_______________

Earlier Post: President Trump's 2017 Afghanistan Speech

Earlier Post: Mueller Refocused the Agenda on the Russia Investigation

Earlier Post: The Bully Pulpit and Biden's Infrastructure Speech

_______________

I have often remarked that the winner of the debate is usually the side that sets the agenda. So, although the situation in Afghanistan appears to be dire, and much heartbreak is inevitable, Biden diverted attention away from the immediate situation. Instead, he reminded the audience of the conflict’s history, its original goals, and the straitjacket that the former president had tied him into. The speech was certainly not enough to silence Biden’s critics. His critics will only be silenced if his policy succeeds. The speech did, however, take Biden off the defensive. He reset the agenda. He restated the debate on his own ground and in his own terms.

_______________

P.S.: The comparison to the Vietnam War? Here are my suggestions. Don't start a war for careless political reasons. Never think that you can fight a war without heartbreak. Never think that you can make people love you by bombing their homes and shooting their husbands and brothers. Plus, innocent people get killed and the survivors' lives are often ruined. 

Research Note: Years ago, I wrote a paper about George W. Ball's attempt to justify American policy in Vietnam. Strangely enough, as we learned years later, Ball did not even believe the things that he said in his speech. How often does rank hypocrisy or double-dealing make it impossible for us to discuss foreign policy in a rational manner? If you have time, read my paper (link below, it's free) and feel free to comment what you think. 

George W. Ball's Vietnam War Speech

Image: White House YouTube Channel

The President and the Bully Pulpit: Biden’s Latest Speech Pushed Infrastructure

While American cars fall into potholes big enough to swallow the state of Rhode Island, families from Texas to California sit huddled together waiting for electricity from dead or overstrained power grids to be restored, and safe drinking water is hauled to school children in Michigan, Congress continues to argue about whether the United States even needs an infrastructure bill.

So, President Joe Biden’s White House speech yesterday reached out to the public about the infrastructure bill. The bill is slowly advancing through Congress. Since Congress hasn’t gotten much done yet, Biden used his prestige and ability to command attention and sell his proposal to the public.

Why the public push? The United States Constitution, Article II, sharply limits the President’s power. Article I gives most government power to Congress. The President’s biggest power is that he can command public attention. Theodore Roosevelt called this the “bully pulpit.” Starting with William McKinley, presidents have spoken directly to the public, bypassing Congress, to persuade the people. Wanting to get reelected, members of Congress often respond to public opinion.


First, an excuse to give a speech

Biden boasted about a minor accomplishment, which is that the infrastructure bill would probably pass a procedural vote the next day. That gave Biden an excuse to give a speech:

“Yesterday, the United States Senate took the additional step toward passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It’s a bill that would end years of gridlock in Washington, and create millions of good-paying jobs, and put America on a new path to win the race for the economy in the 21st century.”

Packed in that simple introduction, Biden told us that the bill had some Republican support, that passing it would end gridlock and show that Washington can work. He also emphasized that it would bring economic benefits.


Second, informing the public

Biden’s next step was to list the bill’s basic provisions:

“A historic investment in roads and rail, in transit and bridges, in clean energy and clean water. It will enable us to not only build back, but build back better than before the economic crisis hit.”

That sounds simple, but it’s important. The news media have done a terrible job of telling the public what the bill contains. They have been reporting the congressional deliberations like a NASCAR race, focusing only on which side seems to be ahead at the moment. The public, however, needs information. Biden didn’t give details, but he pointed out that the bill covers transportation, energy, and water. The public usually likes things like that.


Third, reaching out to his adversaries

Biden next praised his opponents in Congress. Presumably demonstrating that gridlock was being overcome, Biden took time to “thank the bipartisan group of senators.” He praised them for their efforts. Interestingly, he also thanked them “for raising their ideas and concerns with me and Vice President Harris and members of our cabinet.” That was a tactful way to put a positive spin on the internal debates. I can only imagine how heated those “ideas and concerns” must have been. In any case, he stressed unity, not division. 


Fourth, appealing to conservatives and liberals

To overcome those “ideas and concerns,” Biden sought to appeal to a wide range of attitudes. Conservatives and liberals both need to support the bill. Accordingly, Biden looked toward the past and future alike:

“As we did with the Transcontinental Railroad and the Interstate Highway System, we’ll soon, once again, transform America and propel us into the future.”

The transcontinental railroad and the interstate highways were major infrastructure programs of the past. Anyone who remembers high school history knows how they transformed the United States.  Mentioning them reminded conservatives that the United States has a long history of infrastructure spending. Saying that the bill would “transform America and propel us into the future” would appeal to more liberal voters.

Biden then rambled off to talk about other issues, including economic growth and the coronavirus.

Reaching out to the public

The four points that Biden made about the infrastructure bill were simple and straightforward. He employed no flights of fancy language. His goal was to show that he was pushing the bill while working together with Congress.

During the coronavirus epidemic, President Biden is giving few speeches on the road. That doesn’t matter as much as one might think. The magic of broadcasting and the Internet can carry his message across the land. Many cable networks and Internet sites broadcast his speech live. It even popped up on Internet-connected televisions. In a combined effort, Biden's Secretary of Transportation also gave a major infrastructure speech the same day, although he obviously commands less attention than the President. 

Also, the news media reported Biden's speech. For example, Lisa Mascaro of the Associated Press noted yesterday that “The president’s note of encouragement offers a reset for lawmakers after frustrations mounted and tempers flared overnight as the Senate stalled out, unable to expedite the package to completion.” Similarly, reaching a more conservative audience, Fox Business reported that “President Biden touted the bipartisan infrastructure deal and job growth in a speech Friday following the release of a robust July jobs report, while also renewing the push for Americans to get vaccinated against COVID-19.” Since most people get political information secondhand – this has been true for centuries – news reports like those gave Biden a secondary audience for his speech. That’s the bully pulpit at work.

________________

Earlier: Trump's 2018 Calm, Rational Infrastructure Meeting

Earlier: George W. Bush and the American Vision

Earlier: Biden's Delta Variant Speech

________________

Conclusion

The president is not a dictator. The Constitution limits Biden's power. The Constitution does not, however, limit the people’s power. If Biden can persuade the people, members of Congress will fall into place like the sheep they are. One speech, of course, will not be enough, William McKinley gave dozens of speeches about the ratification of the 1899 Treaty of Paris. Let us keep our ears open: is Biden going to push infrastructure with the vigor it will require? So far, it looks as if he will. By reaching out to the public in speeches like this, Biden is on the right track. If he continues to push his agenda to the public, the infrastructure bill might struggle its way through Congress.

________________

P.S.: When I was a young man, infrastructure bills passed automatically. Hordes of lobbyists used to descend on Congress to hawk highway projects, public waterways, public drinking water and waste disposal, and so forth. More recently, unfortunately, hardened antigovernment attitudes have made it difficult for Congress to pass urgently-needed legislation. Thus, the need for Biden's speech. 

P.P.S. Biden wore a tan suit during his presentation. Maybe that was because of the hot Washington summer. Or was he mocking conservatives who once made fun of Barack Obama’s tan suit? Nonverbal communication, including clothing, makes a difference.

P.P.P.S. Although most media outlets have done a terrible job of reporting about the infrastructure legislation, the liberal website Vox gives a nice rundown of the bill’s major provisions.

Research note: In his book The Rhetorical Presidency Jeffrey Tulis explains how presidents back to Theodore Roosevelt bypassed Congress to speak directly to the public. Professor Melvin Laracey shows that presidents as far back as Abraham Lincoln found ways to reach out to the public about legislation.

For my own writings about President William McKinley’s innovative speaking career, click on William D. Harpine’s publications above.

Image: White House YouTube channel

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

Biden at Ford Rouge Center

On May 18, 2021, President Joe Biden spoke at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center in Dearborn, Michigan. Biden reaffirmed the Democratic Party’s traditional links to American industry, labor, and labor unions. Using a seemingly random selection of speech techniques, he showed that Americans—workers, industry, and government—need to work together to move to a new industrial future. 

Biden emphasized making progress through unity. What did he talk about? First, Biden recognized union, government, and industry leaders. He made jokes and friendly comments about several of them. He talked about cars and his childhood. He emphasized how unions represent unity: in an ideal world, where everyone works in unity to accomplish great things. He gave examples of past American successes. He explained that we need to work together to build a better future. 

Whereas, too often, conservatives like to pretend that we are the greatest when we’re not, Biden pointed out that the United States has fallen behind because we have fallen asleep. His opening pleasantries, his examples, and his arguments all aimed toward the theme of unity, of working together to make progress. His speech was not traditionally organized; instead, seemingly unrelated speech tactics led the audience back to his central theme.

Making That Critical Audience Connection

Biden began by connecting himself with his audience. He began by thanking the United Auto Workers for their support in his political career:

“I want to say something else up front: I’m standing here because, about 180 years ago, when I first got elected to the Senate, Gov — (laughter) — the UAW elected me.  (Applause.)”

Let’s remember, that for many years, the Democratic Party often overcame the Republican Party’s huge campaign coffers because labor unions supported them. Biden told stories about his father’s work ethic. He casually mentioned that his father operated a Ford dealership. 

Biden greeted various dignitaries. He pointed out  “a good friend of mine: Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.” He also acknowledged United Auto Workers leaders and Ford executives Bill Ford and Jim Farley. He thanked Ford and Farley “for hosting us, and investing in our workers and in our country.”  All very chatty. Later in the speech, he hailed Representative Elissa Slotkin and the controversial Rashida Tlaib. Confronting the tremendous criticism that Tlaib often faces, Biden said:

“I tell you what, Rashida — and I want to say to you that I admire your intellect, I admire your passion, and I admire your concern for so many other people.  And it’s my — from my heart, I pray that your grandmom and family are well.”

In other words, he called out and praised leaders of government, industry, and labor: people who often find themselves in conflict. Yet, they were all in the room, and seemingly shared goals.
 

An Alternate Perspective: Trump's Speech at the Whirlpool Factory

And Now, Biden’s Thesis!

Biden’s point was that the United States faced a crucial decision, whether to move forward with modern industry. He was, after all, speaking at an industrial research facility. He warned:

“We’re at a great inflection point in American history.  How we handle the next 4 to 10 years is going to determine where we’re going to be 30, 40, 50 years from now.  It’s one of those moments in American history.

“This is an incredible facility.”

More Introductions!

After recognizing even more dignitaries, Biden then asserted unity among the government, labor, and industry leaders whom he was recognizing. Indeed, he turned the routine task of recognizing guests into a rhetorical technique: 

“Labor, industry, federal, state, local leaders all together.  That’s America at its best.  And that’s what I so admire about what Bill Ford is doing here. 

“And I — you know, I want to — so everything that these workers, this historic complex, and this state represent is something that I hope gets modeled around the country.  It’s about respect.  It’s about dignity — the dignity of work.” 

 
We Need New Industry

Ford’s electric research facility is not a traditional auto-making plant. It was, Biden explained, the industry of America’s future:

“And I wanted to be here today — the day before you unveil the next generation of America’s bestselling vehicle to the entire world — to thank you.  Thank you for showing how we win the competition of the 21st century.  You know, how the future is going to be made — it’s going to be made here in America.  Made in America.  (Applause.)”

Biden drove that point home, stressing that “look, the future of the auto industry is electric. There’s no turning back.” He then quoted union leader Rory Gamble, who said “The American auto industry is at a crossroads.” Biden emphasized that the United States needed to move ahead in industry, not backwards: 

“And the real question is whether we’ll lead or we’ll fall behind in the race to the future; or whether we’ll build these vehicles and the batteries that go in them here in the United States or rely on other countries; or whether the jobs to build these vehicles and batteries, that are good-paying union jobs with benefits — jobs that will sustain and grow the middle class.” [Italics added]

But There Is a Challenge

Biden warned his audience that China was racing ahead with new industrial technology. He didn’t deny it. He didn’t beat his chest and pretend that the United States was winning. Instead, he challenged his audience, and as he did so, the rest of America: “Right now, China is leading in this race. Make no bones about it; it’s a fact.” 

Biden pointed out that the United States used to lead in research and development, but, due to the United States’ lack of investment in basic research, technology and infrastructure, China has now badly surpassed the United States: 

“You know, we used to invest more in research and development than any country in the world and China was number eight — or, excuse me, number nine.  We now are number eight and China is number one.  Can’t let that be sustained.”

 
On to the Politics

Toward the end of his speech, Biden reviewed the legislative proposals in the proposed “American Jobs Plan.” He listed three points that the proposal made:

 “One, transform our infrastructure.  Our infrastructure is ranked like 38th in the world.”

And, next: 

“Two, we’re going to boost our manufacturing capacity.  That’s why the American Jobs Plan invests in new and retooled union facilities: grants to kickstart new battery and parts production, loans and tax credits to boost manufacturing of these clean vehicles.” [Italics added]

Finally, he talked about the Plan's research and development component:

 “It also makes the largest investment in research and development in generations.”

Biden reminded his audience that it was government investment that propelled American industry in the past: “It was the Defense Department and NASA that got the modern semi-conductor industry on its feet decades ago. We started it. Your tax dollars.” [Italics added]

As his speech neared the end, Biden pulled his comments together into a brilliant package, ending with this punchline:

“Bottom line: The American Jobs Plan is a blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America — a blue-collar blueprint to build America.  (Applause.)  And we need automakers and other companies to keep investing here in America.”

 Finally, Biden pointed out that we all need to work together for the nation to succeed:

“This is the United States of America.  There’s not a single thing — and I believe this with every fiber in me — that not a single thing — nothing — beyond our capacity when we act together.  And that’s exactly what we’re about to do, starting with all of you.”

 
Conclusion

Biden’s theme – progress through unity – emerged gradually from a collection of seemingly unconnected comments. Biden didn’t just give this speech at an industrial research facility for his health. He wanted the audience to think about the future. He didn’t call out so many different dignitaries just to be friendly. No, indeed, he wanted to show that all those different people from different groups had come together to help industry make progress. His examples, stories, and historical comments all pointed at that central theme, that Americans need to work together to develop new industry. 

Political scientist Jeffrey K. Tulis’ book The Rhetorical Presidency points out that American presidents can bypass Congress and speak directly to the American people. This recognizes that when the voters are behind something, the politicians will often fall into line. Frankly, I wonder why Biden is not giving speeches like this three and four times a week. Congress, as it stands, is inflexible, hidebound, partisan, and dysfunctional. Nevertheless, if Biden can win the war of ideas, the members of Congress will bend over like the spineless minions they are.

The Republican Party’s premise, of course, is that government needs to get out of the way and let industry succeed. In this speech, Biden argued that the entire nation needs to work together for American interests to succeed. He helped his audience realize that, although labor and industry often are in conflict, each needs the other. He pounded on the warning that we cannot live in the past.

On a personal note, it has bemuses me that businesspeople tend to vote for politically conservative candidates. Why? I guess they want low taxes. However, every successful business person will tell you that today’s success only belongs to yesterday, and that business needs to move forward. Yet, they seem to think that the opposite is true of government. That doesn’t make much sense, does it? Worse, as Biden pointed out, research and development, largely financed by the government, fueled America’s past success. Why have we forgotten that lesson?

 

P. S. There is nothing new about the Democratic Party’s connection with labor, which often helps to overcome the Republican Party’s enormous financial resources. If you’re interested, the first chapter of my book about the 1896 presidential campaign shows how William Jennings Bryan exploited just that relationship more than a century ago. You can find a copy at many university libraries, and it’s available for sale in paperback. 

Image of Biden's speech: White House YouTube Channel