Trump's March 4, 2025 Speech to Congress: Why Are His Lies So Persuasive?

“Believe it or not, government databases list 4.7 million Social Security members from people aged 100 to 109 years old. It lists 3.6 million people from ages 110 to 119. I don’t know any of them. I know some people that are rather elderly, but not quite that elderly…. But a lot of money is paid out to people, because it just keeps getting paid and paid.” 

So President Donald Trump said during his speech to Congress yesterday, March 4, 2025, but he spoke falsely. Unfortunately, falsehoods, distortions, twisted arguments, and outright lies filled Trump’s speech. Politicians tell lies: who would have thought? The real question is, what makes these lies persuasive?

There is a rhetorical reason that massive chains of falsehoods persuade people. The RAND Corporation calls this technique the “Firehose of Falsehoods.” The answer lies in the numbers. A basic propaganda technique is to unload, not one lie, but a vast number of outrageous lies. It’s not a single lie, it’s a firehose. Tell one lie, and the audience might catch you. Spray out enough lies and, well, that is a different story A barrage of arrogant lies can persuade people when a single mild fib does not. To echo the old slogan, quantity has a quality of its own.

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

There’s also a psychological reason that massive chains of falsehood persuade people. The psychological theory called the Elaboration Likelihood Model states that people who lack the time, attention, or ability to check facts will tend to believe things that they have heard repeatedly.

So, look at a few of Trump’s outrageous statements.


What about Social Security?

Whenever someone says, “believe it or not,” as Trump did, my Spidey sense tingles away. Trump expounded further:

“And it really hurts Social Security and hurts our country, 1.3 million people from ages 150 to 159 and over 130,000 people, according to the Social Security databases, are age over 160 years old.”

Now, Wired magazine notes that the problem in the Social Security spreadsheet results, not from real data, but from a programming glitch. The chart was created by an obsolete programming language called COBOL that failed to read death dates for older Social Security recipients. Furthermore, Lee Dudek, the new Acting Commissioner of Social Security, notes that “These individuals are not necessarily receiving benefits.” 

Analyzing the problem in yet more detail, FactCheck.org notes that, although some ineligible people do receive Social Security benefits, the number is nowhere near as great as what Trump claimed. Social Security’s data shows that fewer than 90,000 actual Social Security recipients are 100 years old or older. That sounds about right. So, Trump was just carelessly wrong. Since his claims had been publicly refuted weeks earlier, he has no excuse. 

But Trump told other lies. 


A Mandate? I Think Not

Asserting his power, Trump claimed that:

“The presidential election of November 5th was a mandate like has not been seen in many decades.”

ABC News’ fact checkers note, however, that: “Trump's margins of victory — both in raw votes and in percentages — were small by historical standards.” In fact, in the final election results, Trump received 49.9% of the popular vote, against 48.3% for his opponent, Kamala Harris. Trump won, yes, but a popular vote advantage of only 1.6% hardly counts as a mandate.


Ended a Non-Existent Mandate? I Think Not

Well, the lies poured on. Trump claimed that he saved the auto industry by ending an “electric vehicle mandate:”

“We ended the last administration’s insane electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto workers and companies from economic destruction.”

Oddly, as ABC’s fact checkers note, the Biden administration did not impose an electric vehicle mandate. The administration had signed off on stricter automobile emission standards, which Trump did, in fact, revoke. But an electric vehicle mandate? Didn’t exist.


An Autism Epidemic?

Is there an autism epidemic? Vaccine skeptics and vegetarians cite a supposed autism epidemic to support their views of clean living. Trump’s unqualified Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Trump himself, have repeatedly harped on that.

So, it was no surprise in yesterday’s speech when Trump said:

“Not long ago — and you can’t even believe these numbers — one in 10,000 children had autism. One in 10,000, and now it’s one in 36. There’s something wrong. One in 36. Think of that.”

However, a research team led by Sebastian Lundström published this in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2022 said:

“Much – or even most– prevalence increase seems to reflect changes in diagnostic practice and ascertainment.”

Similarly, Tony Charman finds in the prestigious journal The Lancet Psychiatry, 2025, that:

“The authors argue this finding does not indicate rising prevalence per se but changes in the GBD methodology, specifically the exclusion of studies relying on passive case finding (registries or administrative estimates), which underestimate prevalence. The authors found no evidence of an increase in prevalence across a 15-year time window.”

In other words, the supposed increase in autism seems in large part to reflect changing diagnostic criteria, plus more interest by mental health professionals when they work with clients.


Lies and More Lies?

Tell one lie, and you probably persuade no one. Tell a hundred lies? Well, that’s different.  Suppose that Trump tells ten lies in a row. One after the other. Let us suppose that most of the lies are either invented out of thin air, or sucked from the dim recesses of Fox News or Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s dubious website. Lies are easy to produce, since they can arise from nothing, but they are often troublesome to refute. Any debater knows that it is hard to prove a negative.

Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Art of Squirming

ABC News’ fact checkers reviewed 12 of Trump’s claims, finding only one to be true, while marking the others with labels like “false,” “misleading, or “lacks context.” FactCheck.org, the premier fact-checking website, studied 12 of Trump’s claims, including some that were different from those that ABC examined, finding all 12 to be dubious. For example, they noted that Trump falsely claimed that Panama had turned control of the Panama Canal over to China. Trump lied about alleged savings from the Department of Government Efficiency and fentanyl shipments from Canada—among other falsehoods.

Now, think about it. After all, how many readers are going to study 12 (or more) seemingly nit-picking fact checks? Or look at several fact checkers? Or examine scientific and historical literature for themselves to verify every throwaway claim that Trump blustered out? Even the fact checkers got exhausted, which is why different fact checking websites covered different claims. It takes time; it takes effort. Isn’t it easier just to dismiss the fact checks as “liberal propaganda” or, maybe, “all politicians tell lies, who cares?”

And that is how the Firehose of Falsehoods overwhelms our critical processes.

Unfortunately, a barrage of lies overwhelms people’s critical capacities. I spent hours just looking up the fact checks that I cited above, and I hardly scratched the surface of Trump’s onslaught. If I didn’t want to write this blog post, would I spend that much time on it? Not likely.

For it was not just one lie. It was a firehose. Suppose someone lies to you and you check them. Fine. But what if someone pumps out dozens of lies? Some of them will slip through. Keep in mind, of course, that many of Trump’s falsehoods have long circulated on Fox News, talk radio, and social media. The Firehose of Falsehoods floods our search for truth. Quantity has a quality of its own.

I have posted previously about the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, developed by psychologists Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. Their theory claims how people process and respond to persuasive messages. They show that when people use the Central Route to process a persuasive message, they gather information and think critically. However, the Central Route takes time. It takes effort. It often requires skills that not everyone has.

The alternative is the Peripheral Route. When people lack the time, ambition, or skill to use the Central Route, they might look at the source’s attractiveness or perceived expertise, or simply the frequency with which messages are received, or other trivial criteria. That is where Trump’s cascade of lies works. People who use the Central Route will quickly reject Trump’s ludicrous claims. People who use the Peripheral Route might be impressed by Trump’s self-confidence, charismatic speaking style, and, most of all, the relentless firehose of misinformation. At that point, sadly, quantity takes on a quality of its own, and, audiences can get overwhelmed.


Conclusion

Trump’s rhetoric could never persuade wise, careful listeners, but wise, careful listeners are not his audience. To be fair, no one has the time or ability to study and verify every single persuasive message. Trump obviously knows that. By presenting a deluge of obvious, easily discredited lies, Trump carried his listeners on a roller coaster ride of bluster, suspicion, paranoia, and absurdity. As a master of those dark arts, Trump follows the path of the Big Lie. As Goebbels demonstrated in the previous century, if you want to tell lies, go big.

by William D. Harpine  

____________

Research Note: 

Here is the original article about the Firehose of Falsehood. Any current persuasion textbook will discuss the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Richard Perloff's book is worth a look. I have blogged about the Elaboration Likelihood Model several times. This post about Paul Ryan seems apropos to the moment:

Paul Ryan Gave a Speech about Civility, but Are We Listening?

Image: Official White House photo

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Trump Against the "Radical Leftists"

Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

The Psychological Theory of Repetition

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Repetition Was Relentless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing New Under the Sun

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

Earlier Post: Negative Campaigns Go Way Back!

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

by William D. Harpine

______________

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo

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

Trump speaking on January 6, behind protective glass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Firehose

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

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


#1, Trump claimed that the election was stolen

What Trump Said:

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

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

The Facts:

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

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

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

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

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

What Trump Said:

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

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

The Facts:

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


#3, Trump Claimed That Votes Have Not Been Counted

What Trump Said:

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

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

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

The Facts:

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


#4, Trump Connected the Coronavirus with Election Fraud

What Trump Said:

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

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

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

The Facts:

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

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

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


#5 Trump Bragged about the Economy

What Trump Said:

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

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

The Facts:

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

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

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


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

What Trump Said:

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

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

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

The Facts:

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

#7, Trump Complained That Late Votes Went for Biden

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


What Trump Said:

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

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

The Facts:

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


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

What Trump Said:

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

The Facts:

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


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

What Trump Said:

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

The Facts:

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

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

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


Many Lies, a "Firehose of Falsehood"

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

Can Trump Be Refuted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________

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

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

___________

A Rhetorical Dilemma

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

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

___________

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

___________

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


A Rhetorical Disaster?

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

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

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

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

by William D. Harpine

Follow-up post: 

Election Count Conspiracy Theorists Get the Math Wrong

Copyright © 2024 William D. Harpine

Image: Voice of America, via Wikimedia Commons

Biden Countered Russian Disinformation about Ukraine. Are People Listening?

Joe Biden, White House photo

Dishonest political propaganda is nothing new. In the ancient Roman Republic, Octavian (the future Emperor Augustus) smeared Mark Antony by stamping propaganda slogans onto coins. People who handled the coins could read that Antony was a corrupt, promiscuous drunk. Unfortunately, in the 21st century the only change is that technology enables governments and media figures to spread disinformation better than ever. Nothing can stop liars from telling lies, but can people learn to stop believing them ? Even minimal critical thinking can help people reject disinformation. This works, however, only if people think about the propaganda.

Yesterday, February 18, 2022, United States President Joe Biden used a White House speech to warn the world that Russian President Vladimir Putin intends to invade Ukraine in the next few days. Frightening news indeed. Biden spent much of his speech discussing a Russian disinformation campaign. Russia falsely accuses Ukraine of starting the conflict. The disinformation campaign presumably helps to solidify Russian public opinion while spreading confusion around the world. The disinformation provides an imposing (but false) moral justification for the impending war. At the same time, however, Biden pointed out that Russia’s disinformation campaign defies logic. That’s no surprise.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has ancient roots. Europe’s rulers have for centuries divided Ukraine into pieces and kicked the country around like a soccer ball. Many Ukrainians, especially in the east, speak Russian, not Ukrainian, at home. As civil war breaks out, some eastern regions seek to align with Russia. Russia has already annexed the Crimea. A huge Russian army surrounds Ukraine and violence has already broken out. Ukraine’s problems are complex. The propaganda that Biden discussed is not. 

_____________________

Earlier Post: How Do Political Bots Spread Propaganda?
_____________________


The Russian Disinformation Campaign in Ukraine

Biden pointed out that the Russian government is flooding their own public with false information. Let us be clear that disinformation is not just wrong information. Disinformation intentionally replaces truths with falsehoods. Disinformation attempts to remove reality from public discourse. 

Why would Russia spread disinformation? Well, no sensible public actually wants to fight wars. Biden’s point was that the Russian government spreads false information to overcome the public’s natural reluctance. Thus, the Russian government can launch small attacks and blame them on Ukraine, hoping that the fog of war will conceal their intentions. Similarly, the Russian government can claim that Ukraine is marshalling an attack against Russia, hoping that patriotism will blind Russian citizens to the more troubling reality. 

Disinformation must be countered. So, Biden discussed how Russia used misinformation to spread confusion about recent Russian atrocities:

“For example, a shelling of a Ukrainian kindergarten yesterday, which Russia has falsely asserted was carried out by Ukraine. We also continue to see more and more disinformation being pushed out by — to the Russian public, including the Russian-backed separatists, claiming that Ukraine is planning to launch a massive offensive attack in the Donbas.”

What about Critical Thinking?

Biden next showed the obvious holes in the Russian propaganda. His first point was that no evidence supported the Russian perspective. That, in itself, is unlikely to persuade anyone. Disinformation specialists know how to create false evidence. Realizing that, Biden next pointed out that the Russian propaganda was illogical. A moment’s reflection shows that Ukraine has nowhere near the military capacity to take on a major power like Russia. (Propaganda artists, of course, work hard to make sure that their listeners never engage in the tiniest moment of reflection.) Biden explained those points simply:

“Well, look, there is simply no evidence of these assertions, and it and devies [sic] — it defies basic logic to believe the Ukrainians would choose this moment, with well over 150,000 troops arrayed on its borders, to escalate a year-long conflict.”

Continuing, Biden reviewed more of Russia’s falsehoods:

“Russia state media also continues to make phony allegations of a genocide taking place in the Donbas and push fabricated claims warning about Ukraine’s attack on Russia without any evidence. That’s just what I’m sure Ukraine is thinking of doing — attacking Russia.”

Will Biden’s point persuade people? In the 21st century political world, I’m beginning to despair that people will slow down for even a moment to think about basic logic. That, however, is exactly what Biden asked his audience to do.


The Propagandists’ Playbook

Biden next discussed the consistent Russian trend of proposing pretexts to justify their planned invasion. Biden’s persuasion tactic was to establish a trend. Since people expect the future to resemble the past, Biden sought to help people see that the Russian propaganda is not an isolated event, but rather part of a long-standing pattern of deception:

“All these are consistent with the playbook the Russians have used before: to set up a false justification to act against Ukraine. This is also in line with the pretext scenarios that the United States and our Allies and partners have been warning about for weeks.”

Yet, disinformation often works. People often accept it, willingly and uncritically. The New York Times reports that most Russians believe the crisis is not Russia’s fault. Their government’s relentless propaganda campaign has bore fruit. People can, of course, choose to believe one government or another. Or, they can engage in critical thinking to sort good information from bad. 

So, Biden established that the Russian propaganda follows a long-standing pattern. That simple act of logic should, one would hope, help people realize that Russia was spreading propaganda. But will that work? Every time? Will it work this time? Who is listening? Who is thinking independently? 

_____________________

Earlier Post: European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Earlier Post: Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch Worked Hard to Establish Her Credibility 

_____________________


Is Logic Persuasive?

Believe it or not, persuasion experts have argued for decades about whether logical argument even persuades people. Of course, disinformation succeeds only if people abandon logical thinking. So, it was reasonable that Biden attempted to engage his audience’s rational thought processes.

That might work. Accepted persuasion theory suggests that logic can persuade people, but, alas, only under certain conditions. Logic might persuade people if the audience members feel qualified to analyze the issue and are willing to take the time to do so. Generally, in the absence of logical thinking, people might instead believe whatever they have heard most frequently, or to believe things because they find the source attractive. By trying to get people to think about how illogical the Russian misinformation is, Biden took the high road. Let us hope that more and more listeners take the high road as well. Reason is humankind’s greatest gift. Will we use it?

Biden asked a lot from his listeners. Many people know little about foreign policy, and Ukraine (my maternal grandparents’ home country), seems so far away. Many people worry more about their own finances or health than they do about foreign affairs. Still, a republic’s citizens owe it to themselves to understand matters of world-shaking significance. Will we learn to evaluate propaganda, or will we just swallow whatever is fed to us? Let’s hope for the best.

_____________________

Research Note: The Elaboration Likelihood Model, which I have discussed several times in my blog, says that there are two routes to persuasion. Listeners use the Central Route when they devote time and energy to evaluating the evidence, weighing arguments and counter arguments, and considering whether an argument makes logical sense. Otherwise, people are inclined to respond to persuasion by the Peripheral Route, which requires less effort, but produces less solid attitude and behavior change. You might want to read this excellent explanation written by the Elaboration Likelihood Model’s creators.

Historical Notes: Over the centuries, Russia’s spy agencies have become incredibly skilled at producing sophisticated, often hateful disinformation. This dates all the way back to the czars. Russian governments come and go, but Russia’s secret services live on. 

You might want to read this fascinating article about the Russian government’s 19th Century racist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The article is written by my communication colleague Marouf Hasian, Jr. Hasian is one of America’s top scholars of public persuasion, and I’ve had the privilege of appearing on the same panel as him a couple of times at communication conventions. The article hides behind a paywall, but most libraries should be able to get you a copy.

On a broader scale, this article by Seth Jones reviews Russian disinformation aimed at corrupting American elections over the past 60+ years. Indeed, the Russian government has long been skilled at spreading propaganda. 

How complex is Ukraine’s cultural history? Just as an example, both of my maternal grandparents considered themselves to be 100% Ukrainian by birth. Yet, neither was born under Ukrainian sovereignty. My grandfather was born in a Ukrainian-speaking area of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  His hometown is part of modern Ukraine. (I have not yet been able to trace my grandmother’s birth.) As I said, rulers have kicked Ukraine back and forth throughout its history. We are all, I suppose, created by our past. 

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

Coronavirus, CDC Image

Right-wing firebrand Ryan Fournier recently complained on his Twitter account that the government uses the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to control people. He gave no support to public health. Instead, he invited his followers to fear the power that big government was exerting on their lives: 

“Los Angeles will soon require a VACCINE PASSPORT if you want to enter a:
Bar
Restaurant
Nail salon
Gym
Stadium
Mall
Museum
This is no longer about the pandemic. It's about control!”

Anyone who follows conservative anti-vaccine and anti-mask rhetoric hears the same phrase, over and over: “It’s about control.” It’s not about public health, they imply, it’s about control. Do they have a good argument to prove that? Of course not. Instead, they mindlessly repeat “It’s about control” over – and over – and over.

Indeed, what conservative listeners hear all day from their favorite media and elected officials is: “It’s about control.” “It’s about control.” “It’s about control.” The same phrase, pounded into their brains with the force of jackhammers.

Let’s start with two premises:

1. The coronavirus vaccines and face masks have been proven to be quite safe and effective.
2. For some reason, American conservatives have taken the virus’ side in this pandemic.

Since the substantive arguments against the vaccines and masks are absurd, American conservatives rely, instead, on two simple persuasive techniques: repetition and misdirection. The same methods that stage magicians use to fool their audiences. 

________________________

What are some of the absurd arguments against public health? Prominent conservatives have claimed that the vaccines magnetize a person’s body to the extent that brass keys (which, of course, are not magnetic) will stick to a person’s body. They allege that tiny octopus-like creatures are injected along with the vaccines. (No, I didn’t make that up). Or that the vaccines contain microchips. Or that they alter a person’s DNA. Or that face masks like the ones surgeons wear all day trap carbon dioxide. Only the most deluded people will believe such nonsense. Although there turn out to be more deluded people than I would have expected, conservatives need to reach a larger audience. Conservatives turn to repetition and misdirection because their substantive arguments are ridiculous. They have no other choice.

________________________

Repetition

The point is that, whatever conservatives lack in content, they make up in repetition. In a massive six-month study, Media Matters found that Fox News hosts, guests, and announcers attacked coronavirus vaccines almost every day. Fox News offered a wide range of bizarre accusations, one of which is the argument that vaccines are about government control, not about health. Fox News also routinely falsely claimed that vaccines were killing people, that they were ineffective, or that the coronavirus can be cured by quack medicine treatments.

Here was my moment of epiphany. The other day, wanting to stay alert while driving, I turned on a local talk radio station. Hour after hour (it dawned on me) talk radio hosts rant about the vaccines and masks, say that the masks and vaccines are all about control, and tell people that they are dangerous. Then, of course, public health misinformation is also all over Facebook and any number of right-wing websites. Rarely do conservatives present any evidence. Even less often do they present evidence that is remotely credible. That’s not the point. The point is that they repeat wild accusations constantly. Fox News and talk radio addicts expose themselves to a constant run, an endless, frantic flood, of misinformation. Absurd lies. Obvious nonsense. And why do they believe the nonsense? The answer: repetition. It’s not that the information is good, or even that it makes sense, but that many conservatives hear the misinformation all day and all night. Televisions in military bases and airports blare Fox News constantly to captive audiences. Many people subscribe to cable just so they can be misinformed.

Worse, the exact phrase – “It’s about control” – crops up over and over. Listeners’ minds are programmed to believe that “It’s all about control.” It’s not just that the false idea is repeated, but that the exact words are repeated in a direct, simple, easy-to-remember formula. Let’s take a look.


“It’s About Control”
There are many examples of the standard formula. Pedro Gonzalez, appearing as a guest on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, complained about military coronavirus vaccination mandates:

“The answer to your question is that this isn’t about public safety, it’s about control.”

Likewise, Tennessee congressional representative Diana Harshbarger proudly posted on her website that she opposed President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates:

“‘The recent vaccine mandates by President Biden are nothing short of authoritarian government overreach that infringe upon our American civil liberties,’ said Congresswoman Harshbarger. ‘The Biden administration has revealed that this isn’t about COVID-19, it’s about control.’” Americans have rightfully lost their trust in President Biden to provide accurate guidance when it comes to COVID-19 as he continues to put politics over science.’”

Agreeing that it is all about control, actor Kevin Sorbo, who played Hercules on television, posted on his social media that:

“It’s not about a mask, it’s about CONTROL.” 

Similarly, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt tweeted that:

“But gov’t shouldn’t mandate those masks or masks for kids. It’s about control and I’m fighting back.”

Also concerned about government control, preacher Dr. Jimmy DeYoung, Sr. asked a guest on his talk radio show:

“Could this vaccine be another form of government control of the people?”

Not long after, Dr. DeYoung became one of several unvaccinated right-wing, anti-public health radio hosts to die from a coronavirus infection. It seems that it is dangerous to believe your own propaganda. Who would have guessed? 

_____________________

Further Reading: Tucker Carlson and the Conservative Fantasy of Perfect Vaccines

Elaine's Post: We Must Have Mask and Vaccine Mandates to Protect Children

Elaine's Post: Why Do People Fear the COVID-19 Vaccine More Than They Fear COVID-19? The Perception of Control  - Elaine discuses the psychology of vaccine hesitancy.
_____________________

And the Repetition Filters on Down –
Does this constant repetition about “control” have an effect? Alas, it does. Perfectly ordinary people find themselves echoing the same phrase: that public health measures are all about control. They even repeat the exact words – “It’s about control” – over and over, like tape recorders, like automata who are programmed to repeat a favorite phrase while never thinking about what it means. 

For example, refusing to take a mandated vaccine, substitute teacher April Johnson wrote to a local newspaper:

“But it’s not really about science or being ‘safe.’ It’s about control. Our state government doesn’t think we, the people who elected them, are capable of making our own choices. They are using fear tactics to steal away personal liberty, bit by bit. But I won’t comply. I won’t play the game.”

Aha! She repeated the magic phase, “It’s  about control.” Of course, any number of demonstrators are waving signs like the one in a recent Boulder protest, which said: 

“It’s not about the virus. It’s about control.”

Similarly, Shannon Long, a speaker at a recent Maryland school board meeting, complained that it was all about control. According to the news report:

“Ms. Long complained about ‘politicians and their bull-- — science. This is not about health. It’s about control.’”

Not to be outdone, a speaker at a North Carolina school board meeting was even more defiant as she protested government control:
 

“‘The reason for these mask mandates is not the health of our kids. It’s all about control,’ one woman said. ‘We do not consent. We do not comply.’”

“It’s about control” has, by sheer force of repetition, programmed itself into ordinary people’s brains. People who would otherwise have lived perfectly normal, good lives immerse themselves in conservative discourse and, by sheer force of hearing the repetition, begin to parrot right-wing phrases. I can’t say that they are parroting ideas. They aren’t. They are parroting words that have pounded into their minds. 

In other words, conservatives use the jackhammer approach to persuasion.


And Misdirection!
A rational, issue-based discussion of vaccines and masks would focus on the actual issues. Does the FDA have good evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective? Are there documented harms from the vaccines, or do masks really trap your carbon dioxide? Discussing substantive evidence will get conservatives only so far, since they don’t really have much evidence. Talking about microscopic octopi and DNA modification only gets you so far. But as soon as conservatives say, “It’s about control,” we are no longer debating the same issues. We are, instead, questioning whether we want to let the government tell us what to do. Do we want the government to tell us how to raise our children? Do we want the government to make health decisions on our behalf?

There is, of course, nothing new or tyrannical about public health. I grew up in the era of polio quarantines. The Founders of our Republic imposed quarantines and other public health measures when they thought they were necessary.

Of course, unfortunately, on the whole, the conservative public knows no more about history than they do about science. And so, the pandemic rages on – needlessly, and tragically.

For, in real life, it is not about control.

_____________________

Further Reading: People Did Not Believe Cassandra’s Warnings About the Trojan Horse, And People Didn’t Believe Bill Gates’ Warning about Viral Pandemics

Elaine’s Post: COVID-19 Misinformation and Lies Are Killing Young People

Further Reading: Trump and the Maskless Crowd: Masks Are a Flag Issue for Conservative Voters
__________________

Research Note: A theory of persuasion called the Elaboration Likelihood Model says that there two different ways that audiences can process information. They can take the Central Route, which means they gather information and analyze the issue. Or they can take the Peripheral Route, in which they rely on otherwise irrelevant cues like the attractiveness of the source, or the simple repetition of the message.

People who feel qualified and willing to analyze information carefully will engage in critical thinking when they hear persuasive messages. People who, for whatever reason, are not analyzing the information will instead rely on cues. The simple fact that so many people have heard “It’s all about control” so many times gives them a peripheral cue. Repetition can persuade people–if they don’t spend time and effort to analyze the facts.


Citizenship Note: Yes, the conservative media outlets are utterly irresponsible. The rest of the public does, however, need to listen to what they are saying. There is, for example, no reason that the anti-public-health hysteria should have caught public health experts off guard. Right-wing propaganda goes under the radar only if people refuse to turn on their metaphorical radar sets and pay attention to what conservatives are saying. Yes, conservatives often live in a media bubble. When they emerge from that bubble, however, they can sometimes become quite dangerous. Pay attention.

[Note: In this post, I supplied italics every time someone said, “it’s about control.” The words are the same; I just added italics.] 

P.S. I love Kevin Sorbo's shows. Especially Andromeda. Just saying. 

Dr. Fauci's Persuasive Methods: Stay Calm, Give Information, Stick to the Facts. Will That Work?

Image: US Senate

A speaker can persuade people either by (1) playing shallow tricks or (2) giving in-depth information. Dr. Anthony Fauci, United States’ most prominent expert on pandemic viruses, testified yesterday by remote link to the United States Senate Health,Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Fauci’s rhetorical instincts led him to give a sober, detailed scientific analysis of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, providing information, adopting a scientific attitude, and trying his best to maintain his high credibility in a politically-charged environment.

Fauci’s opening statement gave people a chance to think about and analyze scientific information about the pandemic. Often, the best way to persuade people is to give them trustworthy information.

Fauci faced several persuasive challenges: first, he needed to present scientific information in a way that the general public could understand easily. Second, since President Donald Trump has given out enormous amounts of inaccurate scientific information, even to the extent of asking about injecting disinfectants into coronavirus patients, this televised hearing gave Fauci a chance to establish public health’s factual basis. Third, Fauci needed to ratchet down the raw emotions that have marred the coronavirus debate: to penetrate the fog and reestablish reality.

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

Let’s start with Fauci’s introduction, which established the tone of a scientific briefing. He began by saying, “thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss with you today the role of the National Institutes of Health” in preparing research. He immediately previewed his points:  “The strategic plan we have is fourfold. One, to improve the fundamental knowledge of the virus and the disease it causes. Next, to develop new point-of-care diagnostics. Next, to characterize and test therapeutics, and finally, the most safe and effective vaccines.”

That preview laid out a scientific agenda with no hint of politicization. Public speaking teachers usually tell speakers to begin with an attention-getter, such as a story, interesting fact, or dramatic quotation. Dr. Fauci didn’t do any of that. He already had his listeners’ attention and showed no sign of wanting to get people more worked up than they already were. He just jumped to his points.

Fauci mentioned that progress had been made in developing coronavirus diagnostic tests and research in developing antiviral drugs and serum therapies. We all know that President Trump and other Republicans have promoted the antiviral drug Remdesivir as a potential cure. Presumably, they hope that effective cures will make it possible to shut down onerous public health measures like quarantines, lockdowns, and massive testing. Ignoring that controversy, Fauci simply explained that a large-scale trial of this medication gave a result that was “statistically significant but really modest.” Thus, not challenging the conservatives’ point, Fauci acknowledged the drug’s value but emphasized that Remdesivir would not by itself end the pandemic.

Fauci explained that various organizations were developing different vaccines, giving us “multiple shots at goal,” but cautioned, again, that there is no certainty that any one vaccine would work or not cause harmful effects. “The big unknown is efficacy,” he explained; in other words: “how durable it will be.” Again, he mentioned progress and promising research, but tamped down expectations just a little bit.

And Fauci threw in a certain amount of scientific jargon, just enough to clarify that he truly was an expert. For example, “in addition, we'll be looking at convalescent plasma, which is plasma from individuals who recovered from COVID-19 to be used in passive transfer either in prevention or treatment. In addition, hyperimmunoglobin, which can be used as a gamma globulin shot. We’ll be looking at repurposed drugs as well as immune-based therapies and host antibodies.” In general, he offered a long list of NIH research efforts into vaccines and possible therapies for the novel coronavirus.

The big issue on the public’s mind, course, is whether public health measures such as widespread shutdowns should continue. To summarize, Fauci made it clear that several medical procedures were being investigated, but that none was ready for widespread use. In their absence, the implication, which he left unspoken during his opening statement, is that global public health measures are the only remaining choice.

Fauci ended with optimism: “hopefully our research efforts, together with the other public health efforts, will get us quickly to an end to this terrible ordeal we are all going through.” But not only did this offer hope: it established credibility. Since conservative conspiracy theorists maintain that public health measures are a fascist plot to suppress America, Fauci reminded everyone that he endured the same burdens as everyone else.

So, what’s going on? The president and other politicians have been looking for quick, easy solutions. Fauci’s unspoken thesis was that there are no quick, easy solutions. Yet, unlike a political debater, Fauci never stated or refuted opposing points of view. This created the impression that, as a scientist, he intended to work far above the political fray and was merely conveying information. On the one hand, this could enhance his credibility with people who want to understand what’s going on. On the other hand, unfortunately, his fact-filled analysis inevitably aggravates people who do not want to devote time and effort to understanding the difficult scientific issues that we face.

So, let me bring up two points from communication theory. The first is that a long tradition in scientific talk requires scientists to be anti-rhetorical. That is, scientists expect each other to reject any effort to be eloquent, use flowery language, or appeal to people’s emotions. My graduate school professor Joseph W. Wenzel wrote an important article in the Quarterly Journal of Speech, 'way back in 1974, entitled “Rhetoric and Anti-Rhetoric in Early American Scientific Societies,” showing that early scientists placed great value on sounding sober, factual, and, well, “scientific.” That tradition continues. While politicians might try to be emotional and eloquent, scientists want the listeners to believe that they are simply presenting facts. Fauci may have hoped that his straightforward scientific approach would cool down the emotions and help people think. He gave cleverly non-rhetorical rhetoric. That leads to my next point:

Second, facts can persuade people. In-depth persuasion results when people receive and process information. I have blogged several times about the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, which holds that people will process information when they have the time and ability and interest to do so, and otherwise resort to superficial cues such as the kind that President Donald Trump excels in giving them. I think most people listening to the hearing already knew what President Trump had been saying. Fauci did not refute Trump directly, which would merely have erupted into non-scientific controversy, but instead tried to give the public information that they could analyze and use better to understand what was going on.

Two Ways to Speak: Emotionally, or Reasonably? Elaboration Likelihood Model

Of course, angry people will not take time to analyze and process scientific information. The calmer Fauci sounded, the less risk that he would make people even angrier. And uninformed people have been getting truly angry.  Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh recently commented that: "All these blue state governors that want to keep their states locked down, it's purely political." Yesterday, conservative firebrand Michelle Malkin called Fauci a “public health fossil.”

Coronavirus public health measures like quarantines and lockdowns create terrific economic and social stress. Fauci is the target of numerous personal attacks and conspiracy theories. Most of these are launched by people who resent quarantines. His response yesterday took the high road. His persuasive methods were engineered to ratchet down the controversy. He gave people things to think about. Will that work? Some people will think about what he said and some won’t. Reality is not always popular. In the long run, however, information-based persuasion can be more effective and longer-lasting. So, there may be hope for all of us.

P.S.: I cannot overlook the contrast between Dr. Fauci, who courteously stood up for what he believed, and other experts who failed to correct President Trump's misinformation.

P.P.S. Fauci spoke from his book-littered home-office, which is just the kind of place that I would expect a scientist to have. The Internet noticed.