Rhetorical Flourishes in JB Pritzker's Speech against Militarizing Chicago

JB Pritzker

“I am ringing an alarm,” said Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, speaking on August 25, 2025, to oppose President Donald Trump’s threat to federalize the National Guard to suppress crime in Chicago, Illinois.

Responding to that prospect, Pritzker held his August 25 press conference to speak against Trump's plan. He combined factual analysis with rhetorical language. Each of his rhetorical figures aimed to show that Trump’s actions conflicted with traditional American values. Not only did Pritzker’s rhetorical figures and tropes elevate the speech, but they also highlighted liberty. Liberty is, after all, what Patrick Henry once called America’s “precious jewel.” After all, language is not decoration: we think with words! Language defines how we think. 

Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?

So, let us look at how Pritzker used rhetorical figures, not to decorate his speech, but to persuade his listeners. 

Parallel Language

Parallel language (like Caeser’s “I came, I saw, I conquered”) connects ideas to show a pattern. Early in the speech, Pritzker’s parallel language helped him link several accusations into a chain:

“What President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted. It is illegal. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.”

Note the parallel language: “is unprecedented… It is illegal… It is unconstitutional… It is un-American.” The linguistic repetition showed the audience a common theme of wrongness. “Unprecedented,” Pritzker’s first criticism, separated Trump from the conservative philosophy that he supposedly represents. The conservative core is to avoid new things, and something that is unprecedented doesn’t sound conservative. “Unwarranted” stated that Chicago does not need Trump’s intervention. Escalating the rhetoric, “Illegal” and “unconstitutional” placed Pritzker on the side of the law and Trump against it. Finally, “un-American” summarized Pritzker’s argument: after all, things that are unwarranted, illegal, or unconstitutional do not sound very American, do they? 

Hidden in Pritzker’s brief statement was the rhetorical trope of “climax:” the final, culminating point, that Trump’s policy is un-American, put Pritzker’s protest on the altar of patriotism. “Un-American” became the culminating point, the principle that united Pritzker’s criticisms. Quite potent.

Donald Trump's 2017 Inaugural Address: Parallel Phrases

 
Jim Thompson, the Anti-Corruption Governor of Illinois: A Rhetorical Obituary

Rhetorical Question

Pritzker’s very next sentence asked a rhetorical question (like Shakespeare, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”): 

“If this was really about fighting crime and making the streets safe, what possible justification could the White House have for planning such an exceptional action without any conversations or consultations with the governor, the mayor, or the police?"

Pritzker then answered his own question: 

“Let me answer that question: This is not about fighting crime.”

Pritzker’s rhetorical question implied a paradox. He accused Trump of concealing his true motive, for, if Trump wanted to fight crime, he would have worked with the police.


More Parallel Language!

Continuing, Pritzker contrasted Trump’s purported goal against what Pritzker said was the true goal:

“This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to deploy the military in a blue city, in a blue state, to try and intimidate his political rivals.

“This is about the president of the United States and his complicit lackey, Stephen Miller, searching for ways to lay the groundwork to circumvent our democracy, militarize our cities and end elections.” [italics added]

Pritzker’s phrase, “This is about,” sought to uncover Trump’s real motives. Pritzker had already stated that Trump was not really interested in law and order. Instead, the military intervention is about Trump’s real motive: to undermine our system of government. By this point, Pritzker had pictured Trump as the enemy of that precious jewel, Liberty. Pritzker’s figure of speech distinguished Trump’s overt motive against the covert purpose.

Pritzker said “This is about” twice. Since Pritzker had already argued that the occupation was not about law enforcement, it was instead about (1) intimidating “his political rivals” and (2) circumventing “our democracy.” The repeated phrase showed the audience that Trump’s two hidden motives were as closely related as two cousins.

Let us not overlook Pritzker’s invective (like the classic, “my opponent is lower than a snake in the grass”) against Stephen Miller, the “complicit lackey.” Rarely do personal attacks elevate a speech, but is this an exception?


Comparison and Contrast

Comparison and contrast (Chaucer, “His horses were good, but he was not gaily dressed”) gives issues their context. Comparing and contrasting puts language to work analyzing problems. So, continuing, Pritzker contrasted crime in Chicago, which is a real problem, against the even worse crime problem that, he asserted, afflicts conservative regions:

“Like every major American city in both blue and red states, we deal with crime in Chicago. Indeed, the violent crime rate is worse in red states and red cities.”

Pritzker did not prove that point—it would have been wonderful if he had—but merely assumed that his listeners had followed the media’s crime reports. As Arianna Johnson points out in Forbes magazine, states that voted for Trump have murder rates 12% higher than Democratic areas. In 2020, of the 10 states that have the highest murder rates, eight consistently vote for Republican presidential candidates. For example, conservative Mississippi and Louisiana are at this writing ranked #1 and #2 in firearms mortality. Overall, conservative states have been more dangerous and crime-ridden than blue states. Yet Trump only threatened to occupy cities in states that voted for Biden. Does that make sense? It is that paradox that Pritzker addressed by comparing and contrasting. 

That is how Pritzker dispelled Trump’s pretense that he was attacking crime. Instead, the numbers showed that Trump was on an anti-liberal state agenda. Compare and contrast! Once again, these figures of speech were not decoration: the figure of speech carried a persuasive idea. Once again, Pritzker’s figure of speech highlighted Trump’s threat to liberty, that “precious jewel.”


Turning the Tables

The most powerful of all debating tactics is to turn your opponent’s argument around. During the last presidential campaign, Republicans repeatedly (and dubiously) accused President Biden and other Democrats of defunding the police.

Countering this in a bold stroke, Pritzker cited facts to show that it was Trump, not the Democrats, who cut police funding. In a lengthy section, Pritzker cited several ways that Republicans have downgraded law enforcement:

“If Donald Trump was actually serious about fighting crime in cities like Chicago, he, along with his congressional Republicans, would not be cutting over $800 million in public safety and crime prevention grants nationally, including cutting $158 million in funding to Illinois for violence prevention programs that deploy trained outreach workers to deescalate conflict on our streets. Cutting $71 million in law enforcement grants to Illinois, direct money for police departments through programs like Project Safe Neighborhoods, the state and local Antiterrorism Training Program, and the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative, cutting $137 million in child protection measures in Illinois that protect our kids against abuse and neglect.”  [Italics added]

Pritzker’s opening phrase “If Donald Trump” attacks Trump’s honesty. If is a powerful word; it makes us think. I hope that, by this point, the reader noticed the linguistic power of saying “cutting” over and over. Repetition has a power of its own, like the repeated blows that nail two boards together. Indeed, nailing down his argument, Pritzker then mocked the Republican Party’s talking point:

“Trump is defunding the police.”

Wielding Trump’s own phrase against him! So, now, who is on the side of law and order? By Pritzker’s argument, it certainly is not Trump. Turning the Tables regularly works, simply because the speaker uses the other side’s argument against them. Other than blustering, how could Trump respond? Could Trump suddenly say that it is good to defund the police? Not likely. 

Thesis and Antithesis

If we want to contrast two opposing philosophies, if we want to establish a moral opposition, we state a point and then its opposite. Thus, Pritzker specifically rejected Trump’s clarion call:

“Earlier today in the Oval Office, Donald Trump looked at the assembled cameras and asked for me personally to say, ‘Mr. President, can you do us the honor of protecting our city?’ Instead, I say, ‘Mr. President, do not come to Chicago.’”

Thesis: Trump requested an invitation to Chicago. 

Antithesis: Pritzker said, “do not come to Chicago.” 

The contrast clarified the conflict. 


Conclusion

Throughout this speech, a speech that history should preserve, Pritzker stood for freedom against tyranny. Pritzker’s parallel language piled Trump’s moral failings one on top of the next. His comparison and contrast highlighted the conflict between Trump’s pretend values and true motivations.

Pritzker’s rhetorical figures were neither beautiful nor inspiring. He didn’t talk like Abraham Lincoln or Daniel Webster. He talked like a fighter. Pritzker’s figures of speech linked his arguments the way a prizefighter links one-two punches. Pritzker’s invective invited his audience to condemn politicians who subvert their own values to serve an overlord. He scraped raw the difference between Trump’s actions and the goals that Trump only pretended to uphold. Overall, Pritzker’s rhetorical figures uncovered Trump’s hypocrisy and attacked his policy’s ethical failings. Pritzker’s rhetorical figures did not elevate his speech by lifting the soul or thrilling the heart. Instead, the figures elevated Pritzker’s speech by forcing us to think. By forcing us to face hard truths. It isn’t just what a speaker says: it is also how the speaker says it. 

by William D. Harpine

_________________

Research Note:

Over the centuries, rhetoricians have cataloged literally hundreds of rhetorical figures and tropes. Stanford University Professor Jonah Willihanganz has collected a nice summary of some of them. 

Of course, Patrick Henry’s wonderful metaphor of liberty as a “precious jewel” may be the most powerful figure that I mentioned in this essay! 

Ironically, Patrick Henry called liberty a precious jewel precisely because he opposed adopting our Constitution, fearing that the president would one day become a king. Did he have a point, after all? What do you think? “Will the abandonment,” Henry asked, “of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else.”

Several philosophers have commented on the ways that language expresses and influences the way we think. One of the most readable works on that theme is Suzanne K. Langer, Philosophy in a New Key.

Are you interested in Illinois politics? You might be interested in my otherwise unpublished paper, “A Cog in the Machine? Mike Howlett's Image in the 1976 Campaign for Governor of Illinois.” 

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of JB Pritzker, Maryland GovPics, Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

John Denver Made the Anti-Censorship Case to a Senate Committee

John Denver

Popular singer, songwriter, and actor John Denver spoke against censorship to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. He began by thanking the committee, and he thanked them with a key point, the exact human right that censorship threatens:

“It’s a great honor and a privilege to - to appear before you this morning and to take advantage of the opportunity given me in our free society to speak my mind.”

Censorship’s machination is to snatch that opportunity away. How did Denver make his case? The recipe for a good debate speech is to state your case, prove it, and turn to the big picture. Good debaters set the agenda! That is exactly what Denver did. Denver presented a model of the perfect debate speech. He testified on September 19, 1995, the same day on which Frank Zappa also spoke against music censorship.
Denver began his argument by opposing the Parents Music Resource Center’s (PMRC) proposal to involve the government in labeling sexual or occult content on record albums:

“Mr. Chairman, this would approach censorship. May I be very clear that I am strongly opposed to censorship of any kind in our society, or anywhere else in the world?”

Having stated his point, Denver then proved it with not one but two examples from his own artistic experience. The first was to note that one of his own songs was often mistakenly censored:

“I've had in my experience two encounters with th[is] sort of censorship. My song ‘Rocky Mountain High’ was banned from many radio stations as a drug-related song.”

Denver then, courteously but clearly, and in detail, showed that ignorance, not moral fortitude, motivated that censorship:

“This was obviously done by people who had never seen or been to the Rocky Mountains and also had never experienced the elation, the celebration of life, or the joy in living that one feels when he observes something as wondrous as the Perseides meteor shower, on a moonless and cloudless night, when there are so many stars that you have a shadow from the starlight, and you're out camping with your friends, your best friends, and introducing them to one of nature's most spectacular light shows for the very first time.”

How vivid! “Wondrous as the Perseids meteor shower;” “moonless and cloudless night;” “one of nature’s most spectacular light shows.” The fact that the song mentioned the word “high” – while referring to the Rocky Mountains, which are, after all, high – was enough to trigger ignorance – and censorship.

This was, Denver insisted:

Rocky Mountains

“Obviously a clear case of misinterpretation.”

Denver immediately challenged the committee to deny that future censorship would often entail the same ignorance and false reading:

“Mr. Chairman, what assurance have I that any national panel to review my music would make any better judgment?” 

 Denver then turned to his charming (but somewhat controversial) movie, “Oh, God.” In that film, John Denver played a grocery store produce manager who inadvertently became a messenger from God (brilliantly played by George Burns). Denver noted how people who misunderstood the film, who resisted its uplifting message, sometimes tried to suppress it:

“To my knowledge, my movie ”Oh, God!" was not banned in any theaters. However, some newspapers refused to print our advertisements, and some theaters refused to put the name of the film on the marquee. I don't believe that we were using the name of our Lord in vain. Quite the opposite, we were making a small effort to spread his message that we are here for each other and not against each other.”

Good debaters know, however, that it is never enough merely to refute the opposition. Yes, the censorship attempt was un-American and needed to be refuted. Following up, however, on “Oh, God’s” uplifting themes, Denver reminded the committee that there were more important problems. He reminded them that the world faced greater threats than R-rated songs. He reminded the committee that human beings can solve those big problems instead of fretting about what recordings children might or might not purchase:

“We can end hunger. We can rid the world of nuclear weapons. We can learn to live together as human beings on a planet that travels through the universe, living the example of peace and harmony among all people.”

In my own view, the PMRC’s attempt at censorship was unwise, and I think that the Senate committee showed poor judgment to entertain the idea. I gather that they were motivated by the prestige of the tiny group of powerful persons who sought the power to overrule the American people’s musical taste. Is it not a basic principle of conservatives that we, the people, not the government, decide what we think, say, or purchase? Why should that change just because some busybody doesn’t like a record? If they don’t like a record, don’t buy it. If they don’t want their children to hear it, don’t take them to the record store. Nowadays, watch over their Internet usage. Problem solved.

So, Denver stated his case precisely, right at the outset. He gave two examples to prove his point (after all, one example is never enough). He explained why the censorship that he experienced was so very wrong. He concluded by offering the committee a chance to abandon censorship and instead pursue a positive moral course.

Another speech at the same hearing!

Frank Zappa Delivered Shock Rock to a Senate Committee

In my younger days, I coached many superb college debaters, who often went on to fame and fortune. Still, it is a shame that I never had John Denver on my college debate team. We could have won many debate trophies! 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of John Denver: US Government photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of the Rocky Mountains, by William D. Harpine, Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Franklin Roosevelt's Speech Against Tariffs

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The protective tariff has dominated economic rhetoric almost since our nation’s dawning. From Henry Clay to William McKinley to Donald Trump, politicians promise (dubiously) that tariffs will be an “American System” or put “America First.” Those are powerful words. Tariffs are always popular, but they are usually a terrible idea.

Although tariffs might help the few, they will, overall, cause more harm than good. Writing for the conservative Cato Institute, Erica York remarks that: “It is dubious to claim that tariffs can be imposed with no economic trade-offs, and economists generally consider them to be poor tools for achieving various policy objectives.”

Tariffs Are Nothing New under the Sun: Trump's Tariffs versus Henry Clay's "American System" 

Franklin Roosevelt explained this important principle, almost alone among the United States' leaders. Speaking during the depths of the Great Depression at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on September 23, 1932, during his first presidential campaign, Roosevelt linked tariffs to the ancient battle between the rich and powerful versus the ordinary citizen:

“The issue of government has always been whether individual men and women will have to serve some system of government of economics, or whether a system of government and economics exists to serve individual men and women.”

Thus, Roosevelt did not discuss the economy by throwing out complex facts and figures and percentages, or by citing mathematical formulas. Instead, he put the tariff controversy in its human context. He showed how the protective tariff was a government regulation that harmed the overall economy, disrupted international relations, and degraded the nation’s welfare.

As Roosevelt spoke, the massive Smoot-Hawley Tariff had been crushing the world economy and, according to almost all economists, worsening the Great Depression. Economics Professor Kris James Mitchener comments that the Smoot-Hawley Act triggered “the mother of all trade wars.”

Thus, Roosevelt showed considerable insight when he noted how the anti-regulation businessperson:

“…is the first to go to Washington and ask the government for a prohibitory tariff on his product.”

As he spoke, building on that contradiction, Roosevelt developed the theme that the rich and powerful seek their own benefit at the nation’s expense. 


Roosevelt Opposed the Tariffs

Roosevelt placed the tariff into its historical background from the 1800s:

"The tariff was originally imposed for the purpose of 'fostering our infant industry', a phrase I think the older among you will remember as a political issue not so long ago."

 
Yet, after reviewing the history of the American economy (quite an enterprise for a short speech!), Roosevelt squarely ridiculed the contradiction of modern businesspeople who want to keep the government away from business and yet demand that the government protect them with tariffs. In contrast, Roosevelt insisted, as almost all economists do, that tariffs defend particular industries at a cost to the overall economy. Tariffs cause trade wars, he explained, and the trade wars restrict the markets to which American industries can sell their products. Oddly, instead of encouraging American business, tariffs force businesses to locate their factories overseas. While a few benefit, the many suffer a downturn. Roosevelt explained as he continued:

“Our system of constantly rising tariffs has at last reacted against us to the point of closing our Canadian frontier on the north, our European markets on the east, many of our Latin American markets to the south, and a goodly proportion of our Pacific markets on the west, through the retaliatory tariffs of those countries. It has forced many of our great industrial institutions who exported their surplus production to such countries, to establish plants in such countries within the tariff walls.”

(Doesn’t that sound just like Donald Trump’s trade war? But I digress.)


A Message of Hope

Yet, like all great leaders, Roosevelt ended his speech, not with fear, but with a message of hope. As a terrible economic depression wracked the world, Roosevelt urged the American people to fulfill their old values – which he called “the old social contract” – to avoid “a rising tide of misery engendered by a common failure” – and to work together as a common people, for economic recovery:

“… failure is not an American habit; and in the strength of great hope, we must all shoulder our common load.”

Of course, the economic troubles that the United States of America faces today, although real, have not reached the massive disaster of the Great Depression--yet. Still, we must ask whether we as a nation have failed to learn from history’s most terrible mistakes. Can we find leaders today who can explain why and how narrow economic policies harm the overall public? Can we find leaders who can help people understand difficult economic forces? Sadly, those questions remain open.

Unfortunately, politicians instead continue to promote harmful economic policies in the face of overwhelming resistance from economic theory and history. 


Tariffs Harm the Economy

So, yes, economic historians have long concluded that protective tariffs worsened the Great Depression. Indeed, studying the Great Depression, economists Mario J. Crucini and James Kahn suggest in the Journal of Monetary Economics that “the global escalation of the tariff war precipitated the collapse of world trade, along with declines of several percent in international output and investment.”

Reed Smoot

Similarly, Douglas A. Irwin writes in the Annual Review of Economics that, “Perhaps the most important ramification of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff was its role in triggering retaliation against US exports.” By economic principles, Roosevelt's controversial speech was squarely in the right. 

Yet, the public loves tariffs despite the historical evidence that tariffs and tariff wars harm the economy. So, is it any surprise that President Donald Trump embarked on a massive tariff war, not during a depression, but during a time of relative prosperity? His Press Secretary described this as an “America First Trade Policy” and an “America First economic agenda.” Did she not merely echo Henry Clay's speech on the pro-tariff American system? Or William McKinley's argument that tariffs and the American flag were patriotism's soul? 

McKinley's 1896 Speeches Made the Tariff Sound Patriotic - Just Like Trump!

Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” Speech, a Lesson in Positive Justice

Conclusion

The protective tariff is one of the United States’ oldest economic controversies, and thus one of the oldest subjects that political speakers discuss. Indeed, if we want to understand today’s political controversy, the old speeches, like Roosevelt's masterful speech to the Commonwealth Club, can be a great learning tool. Avoiding excessively technical discussions, Roosevelt used history’s lessons to help American voters understand how the protective tariff was hurting them while helping only the very few. People do not always understand technical arguments. Statistical charts make our eyes glaze over. People can, however, understand basic values. People can understand the eternal battle between the great and the small, between the haves and the have-nots, and between an overall view versus a narrow view. His grasp of human context helped Roosevelt gain a massive victory in the 1932 election. 

by William D. Harpine

____________________

Research Note: AmericanRhetoric.com is a terrific website, established by my graduate school classmate Martin J. Medhurst, that contains texts (and often videos) of American speeches. 

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Images of Roosevelt and Smoot, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

We Were Warned, but Did We Listen? Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Oval Office Meeting, February 28, 2025

We were warned. In 2016, Hillary Clinton warned us that Trump was a “Putin puppet.” We didn’t listen. In 2024, Kamala Harris told Donald Trump that Vladimir Putin was “a dictator who would eat you for lunch.” Yet, did anyone listen? Are Americans more worried about the price of eggs? Immigrant caravans? A bit of inflation? Those concerns dribble into triviality when American foreign policy falls on us like a collapsing dome. Minor issues mean nothing when an American president not only appeases a hostile dictator, but bows before him. Yesterday, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance lambasted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as he sought help defending his nation against Russian aggression. 

Betraying Ukraine, a friend, to appease a foe, Russia, appalls common sense. Could it have been stopped? Yes, for we were warned. Trump never kept his pro-Russia views secret. Too few people listened to the truth. Too few people are listening now. Speaking is only half of communication: listening is the other half, and it’s often much harder. Can we listen? 

Zelenskyy Warned Trump

During their White House meeting yesterday, February 28, 2025, Trump and Vance loudly berated Zelenskyy during negotiations over United States aid in the Ukraine-Russian war. The meeting was civil for a while, but Trump lost his temper when Zelenskyy reminded Trump that Russian leader Vladimir Putin threatened the United States just as he threatened Ukraine:

“Zelenskyy: ‘First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless –’

“Trump: ‘You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.’”

Zelenskyy’s warning was far from the first!

Trump Himself Had Warned Us

When Vladimir Putin sent an army against Ukraine in 2022, Trump praised him to the skies:

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’”

Trump continued:

“He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”

We Were Already Warned In 2016

The Oval Office exchange should have surprised no one. During Hillary Clinton’s third 2016 presidential debate against Trump, she warned the American people to beware, that Trump’s groveling subservience to Putin endangered American security. For example, noting that 17 American intelligence agencies had confirmed that Putin was interfering in the election, including illegal cyberhacking, for Trump’s benefit, Clinton warned us:

“I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this, and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in this election. That he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past. Those are the questions we need answered.”

Evading the issue, Trump responded that Putin was smarter than Clinton:

“Trump: Putin from everything I see has no respect for this person.”

Responding, Clinton called Trump a puppet: 

“Clinton: Well, that’s because he would rather have a puppet as president of the United States.

“Trump: No puppet. You’re the puppet.

“Clinton: It is pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyber attacks against the United States of America. That you encouraged espionage against our people. That you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do. And that you continue to get help from him because he has a very clear favorite in this race.”

We were warned, but Clinton’s warnings were not heeded.


We Were Warned in 2024

We were warned again just before the 2024 election. During her only debate against Donald Trump, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris warned the voters of Donald Trump’s antipathy for America’s allies and his willingness to surrender Ukraine to the Russians:

“If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now. And understand what that would mean. Because Putin's agenda is not just about Ukraine.”

Rightly placing the controversy in its geopolitical context, Harris immediately continued:

“Understand why the European allies and our NATO allies are so thankful that you are no longer president and that we understand the importance of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known, which is NATO. And what we have done to preserve the ability of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians to fight for their Independence. Otherwise, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe.”

I cannot imagine how she could possibly have expressed herself more clearly, more forcefully, or more accurately. More than a debater, she spoke like a stateswoman.

Kamala Harris Said Trump Admired Hitler. Do Voters Care?

Alas, a spike in the price of bread and eggs horrified the voters in 2024, and they thought everything would be better under Trump. Sadly, bread and eggs remain costly under Trump, while the Cold War alliances that long averted global holocaust are collapsing into a flaming ruin.

The voters were warned. They didn’t listen.

Conclusion: We Were Warned

Clinton warned us. Her warnings sounded rather intellectual and maybe she used too many big words. Still she was clear. Harris warned us. She was precise and forceful. People just didn’t believe her. Or maybe they didn’t trust a woman to keep the nation safe. Foolish, foolish, foolish.

A few days ago, Republican Senator John Curtis decried a UN vote that took Russia’s side: “I was deeply troubled by the vote at the UN today, which puts us on the same side as Russia and North Korea. These are not our friends. This posture is a dramatic shift from American ideals of freedom and democracy.” Sadly, however, most top Republicans still go along with Trump and his bizarre foreign policy. 

The truth is, that, a generation earlier, Ronald Reagan warned us (to great ridicule) that Russia was an “evil empire.” But we forgot all the lessons. For decades, the policies of containment and deterrence led to a continuing but uneasy peace between the two great powers. Indeed, the Soviet Empire collapsed under the force of Reagan’s diplomacy.

Biden Countered Russian Disinformation about Ukraine. Are People Listening?

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

"Peace for Our Time?" Neville Chamberlain's Speech about Appeasement

Such world-shaking events now fade into forgotten history. Russia has surreptitiously supported Trump and the Republican Party, often using underhanded electronic means. Robert Mueller’s famous report confirmed this beyond dispute. Attacking the United States from within, corrupting our political system to near collapse, Russia now seems ready to fulfill Nikita Khrushchev’s long-ago chilling threat: “We will bury you.”

(Stunningly, Trump’s newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has just now ordered the Pentagon to shut down its project against Russian cyberhacking. We were warned!)

We were warned. We are still being warned. Remember that utterances are only half of public speaking – the other half is listening. Wise men and women spoke; too few voters listened. Yet, even as the darkness closes on us, never give up. Never lose confidence in freedom. Never believe anything until you have studied both sides. Never lose faith in representative government. And, when good people warn you—listen to them!

It is never too late to learn. We must learn to sort truth from obvious falsehoods. We must shake aside our complacency and face dangers, both domestic and foreign. We must never give up hope. We must learn to hear both sides of controversies. We must listen.

For we were warned about all of this.

by William D. Harpine  

Copyright ©2025 by William D. Harpine

Donald Trump, Prophet of American Doom and Restoration? His 2025 Inaugural Address

Donald Trump's 2025 Inauguration

“The future is ours, and our golden age has just begun.”

So said United States President Donald Trump during his second inaugural address, delivered in the United States Capitol on January 20, 2025. Trump warned that Joe Biden’s presidency had crushed America. However, by returning to the old ways, rejecting sexual variations, providing security, and ensuring justice, Trump promised to restore the United States of America. Conservatives blame disasters on change. Restoring the old ways brings renewal. Simple.

Although I doubt very much whether either Trump or any of his advisors realized it, he spoke in the prophetic style of repudiation and restoration – a rhetorical program that has echoed through American political rhetoric since the nation’s founding, and which, historically, reflects the teachings of the ancient Hebrew prophets. I question Trump’s accuracy—the nation is not really declining, and Trump’s policies will restore nothing of value—but the metaphorical pair of doom and restoration nevertheless carries great power. Return to the old ways, and everything will be fine—that was Trump’s message.

This theme resonates through centuries of conservative speeches. “The whole land shall be desolate,” the biblical prophet Jeremiah warned (Jeremiah 4:27). Subsequently, prophets of restoration, like Zechariah, showed that a nation can restore justice only by returning to the old ways: “Turn ye unto me, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you” (Zechariah 1:2). While they brazenly ignore Zechariah’s moral imperatives, conservative speakers from the Puritans to Barry Goldwater often warned of impending collapse. Indeed, although I don’t think Trump and his speechwriters know anything about Jewish or Christian teachings, they clearly absorbed the attitude. (Although, unlike Trump, the prophets demanded mercy for poor people and immigrants, Malachi 3:5.).

Disaster!

So, early in his inaugural address, Trump cited an apocalyptic “crisis of trust.” Speaking to the Capitol crowd, Trump complained, with his billionaire sponsors literally listening from the front rows, but without a trace of irony, about a “radical and corrupt establishment:”

“As we gather today, our government confronts a crisis of trust. For many years, a radical and corrupt establishment has extracted power and wealth from our citizens while the pillars of our society lay broken and seemingly in complete disrepair.” [italics added]

Continuing, Trump complained that his predecessor’s government was unable to manage even the simplest emergencies, while “stumbling” through “catastrophic events.” Trump elaborated on the bizarre conspiracy theories that had propelled his campaign rhetoric:

“We now have a government that cannot manage even a simple crisis at home, while at the same time stumbling into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad. It fails to protect our magnificent, law-abiding American citizens, but provide sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals, many from prisons and mental institutions that have illegally entered our country from all over the world.”

Natural disasters, including hurricane Helene, which devastated the mountainous areas of North Carolina, and terrible fires in Los Angeles, spread terrible misery. Scientists might partially attribute these disasters to climate change. In contrast, Trump attributed them to the government’s moral failure:

“Our country can no longer deliver basic services in times of emergency, as recently shown by the wonderful people of North Carolina — who have been treated so badly and other states who are still suffering from a hurricane that took place many months ago or, more recently, Los Angeles, where we are watching fires still tragically burn from weeks ago without even a token of defense.”

Trump’s hyperbolic language callously ignored the massive efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and California firefighters. But I digress.

Having reviled his predecessor’s alleged failures, Trump promised to restore the United States:

“After all we have been through together, we stand on the verge of the four greatest years in American history. With your help, we will restore America promise and we will rebuild the nation that we love — and we love it so much.” [italics added]

Donald Trump's 2017 Inaugural Address, Part 1: Parallel Phrases

Donald Trump's 2017 Inaugural Address, Part 2, "American Carnage"

Restoration!

Trump, however, assured the nation that he would restore what was lost. He would restore what was lost by reversing Biden’s “betrayal.” Trump would return the United States to the old ways:

“My recent election is a mandate to completely and totally reverse a horrible betrayal and all of these many betrayals that have taken place and to give the people back their faith, their wealth, their democracy, and, indeed, their freedom. From this moment on, America’s decline is over. And we are going to bring law and order back to our cities.” [italics added]

Trump promised, not only to restore the United States, but to return to the 19th century concept of American exceptionalism and to bring about a new golden age – an age of peace – an age of unity – an age of power:

“We will be a nation like no other, full of compassion, courage, and exceptionalism. Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent, and totally unpredictable.”

Donald Trump, official portrait

Among his many proposed reforms, Trump promised to remove government protections for minority races or people who did not conform to conservative sexual behavior. Indeed, rejecting Civil Rights reforms like Affirmative Action, Trump promised to restore the nation’s traditional racial and sexual attitudes:

“This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life. We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.

“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”

Those statements, which much shocked mainstream moderators, make perfect sense if we understand that Trump sought to restore what was lost. The 14th amendment to the Constitution promised everyone “equal protection of the law.” Conservatives have never liked the 14th. The 14th mandated change—and, to Trump, change caused our troubles.

Trump also promised to restore traditional sexual mores. Scientists contend that sex and gender are far from simple. The Cleveland Clinic points out that about 1%-2% of people are not unambiguously male or female, and many people vary from the XX or XY chromosome types. For example, some people might be XYY. Instead of facing such complexities, Trump promised to outlaw them. To return to the old ways. To value tradition, not newfangled ideas. To keep things simple.

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address: A Call to Service

Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God:" Prophecy in American Rhetoric

Move Forward by Going Back!

So, overall, probably without realizing it, Trump spoke in the prophetic rhetorical tradition. Just as ancient prophets sought to restore the old ways, Trump sought to restore tradition. If that required him to misrepresent the Biden administration, to overlook basic biology, or to make absurd promises, so be it. It was the formula, not the facts, that carried his power. We failed, he said, because we changed. To succeed does not mean to move forward: it means to restore what we have lost. To go back. To restore what we forsook. To restore our old values. Such was the prophetic message as often (mis)represented in American rhetoric, and such was Trump’s agenda.

by William D. Harpine  

_____________

Research Note: American speakers from Jonathan Edwards to Daniel Webster to Ronald Reagan spoke in the prophetic style. Now, I do not in any way mean that Judeo-Christian teachings require us to move backwards, nor that the prophets rejected basic moral teachings. Evidently unknown to Trump, the prophets wrote of caring for the marginalized and spreading justice. I refer instead to the way that American speakers talk in the prophetic tradition. Prof. James Darsey has written that radical speakers often quote the Old Testament prophets. My University of Illinois mentor, Prof. Kurt Ritter, published an important and much-cited research article about the jeremiad, the typical American doom-saying rhetoric that warns us of upcoming calamity. Prof. James Gilmore and his colleagues have written brilliantly about jeremiad themes in Trump’s earlier speeches.

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Trump's inauguration: United States Congress, public domain

Image of Donald Trump: official White House portrait, public domain

Kamala Harris Said Trump Admired Hitler. Do Voters Care?

Kamala Harris

Wise speakers adapt to their audience: their listeners’ values, goals, fears, and ambitions. Effective public speaking begins with the audience. Always. Public speaking teachers have taught that for, literally, millennia. Why don’t politicians figure it out? Why doesn’t Kamala Harris figure it out?

Unfortunately, we see Kamala Harris repeating Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign mistakes. As we should recall, Clinton spent much of her campaign pointing out Trump’s association with and appeal to evil people. For example, she ran advertisements linking Trump’s agenda to the Ku Klux Klan’s agenda. That was pointless. Donald Trump’s supporters had long since made peace with the man’s deep moral flaws. After all, they had heard the Billy Bush tape, where Trump boasted about committing sexual assault: “I moved on her like a bi--h.” They knew that Trump’s crowd had chanted, “Hail, Trump” while flashing Nazi salutes. 

Clinton’s advertising campaign proved that Trump was evil. His supporters already knew that. Did they care?

Along the same lines as Hillary Clinton, at an October 24, 2024 campaign event in Clarkston, Georgia, Kamala Harris made a valid point that embodied a rhetorical mistake. She complained about Trump’s alleged admiration for Adolf Hitler. She said:

“In fact, just this week, America heard from John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, who was Trump’s White House chief of staff, who said that, as president, Trump praised Hitler — take a moment to think about what that means — that Trump said, quote, ‘Hitler did some good things’ —

“AUDIENCE: Booo —

“THE VICE PRESIDENT: — and that Trump wished he had generals like Hitler’s, who would be loyal to Trump and not to America’s Constitution.”

Although I do not have a particularly high opinion of John Kelly, I do trust him to tell the truth on matters like this. But what political difference do his claims make? Not much. That is because conservative voters have quit agonizing about Trump’s moral flaws.

John Kelly's Speech about Frederica Wilson: How to Lose Credibility, and Fast


The social sciences help us understand why. Linguist George Lakoff explains that liberal voters gravitate toward candidates who express a “nurturing mother” metaphor, while conservative voters are looking for a “strong father.” Candidates like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, or (although male) Joe Biden offered their supporters a nurturing mother metaphor: they offered a nation of justice, support, and goodness. Those qualities do not dominate conservative thinking.

Instead, Donald Trump offers power. He does not talk about bringing justice to immigrants: he talks about expelling them. He does not talk about fixing the immigration system; he talks about closing the border. He does not talk about reforming government; he talks about ripping it up. He calls the United States government “the Deep State.” That does not mean that all conservative voters prefer evil and disorder. That would not be true. What is true is that conservative voters want their leaders to protect them from real and imaginary dangers. That is why voters in North Dakota, more than a thousand miles from the Mexican border, treat immigration as issue number one.

So, Kamala Harris made Trump’s seeming admiration for Hitler into a central campaign point. Core Democratic voters, obviously, are offended. Conservatives, in contrast, ask, “so what?”

Do you want proof? According to recent polls, General Kelly’s revelations seem to have made little difference in this closely contested election. Some of Trump’s supporters, no doubt, think that a new Hitler would be great. The bulk of Trump’s supporters have found ways to rationalize Trump’s anti-American views, and there we are.

Trump’s voters simply rationalize his wickedness. That is why Kamala Harris cannot budge them by reminding them that Trump spreads evil ideas. They already know that. They have known that for years. “I’m not voting for a preacher,” they say, over and over, like a mantra. They complain that Kelly is a traitor, or that Democrats are big meanies. They can then swallow hard and accept that Trump admires Hitler.

What Trump’s supporters could never accept, however, would be that Trump is weak. (Do you remember when his crowd booed as Trump recommended vaccination?) If Harris wants to budge shaky Trump supporters, she needs to talk about his whining and equivocating. She needs to point out Trump’s weaknesses: his terrible presidential record on the economy, his griping about the election, his fear of electric boat batteries, and so forth. Those things show Trump to be weak. Trump’s supporters might care about those things.


Does Donald Trump Lead His Supporters, or Do His Supporters Lead Him? Oops, He Asked Them to Take a Vaccine.


People who value social justice already support Harris. People who fear Hitler’s reincarnation already support Harris. If she wants to pick up undecided voters, or to sway any of Trump’s less committed, supporters, Harris needs to focus on what they care about. What they care about is strength. And weak leaders terrify them. It is pointless for her to tell undecided voters that Trump is evil. She needs to show them that Trump is weak.

If a speaker wants to persuade people, it’s time to identify what the audience cares about. Nothing else matters.

The First Trump-Biden Debate: Do Coronavirus Masks Show Weakness?

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

by William D. Harpine

____________

PS: Is Trump another Hitler? Of course not. Hitler wrote his own book.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

Trump and Vance Spread Lies about the Haitian Immigrants. But Here Is My Family's Story.

Immigrants at Ellis Island

If you live in the United States, unless you are 100% Native American, you are an immigrant or the descendent of immigrants.

All the Republican talk (and when I say “talk,” I mean “lies”) about the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio got me to think about my maternal grandparents. I am thinking about them because their lives were so like those of the Haitian immigrants, and the challenges they faced were so similar. 

Did Trump Reset the Agenda When He Falsely Accused Haitians of Eating Pets?

My grandfather Michael and grandmother Anna left Ukraine in the early 20th Century to escape a terrible potato famine. The Ukrainian economy having long been oppressed by Russian, Austrian, and Polish overlords, the people began to starve when the potato crops failed. The Ukrainian diet consisted of little bits of cheese, wheat pastries stuffed with potatoes, lots of other potatoes, and meat once a year for Easter.  They had small gardens. The Easter meal featured a slice of bologna-like meat. It was not unlike the diet that hundreds of millions of European poor people ate at that time. Opportunities to advance, to gain an education, or even to find productive employment, simply did not exist. A person’s ambition, ability, and dedication were irrelevant.

Desperate, and unable to feed their children, Ukrainians sent many of them to America, the land of

Statue of Liberty

opportunity, where the Statue of Liberty would greet them with the promise of freedom and justice: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

So it was with Michael and Anna. Sixteen years old, Anna stepped off the boat, with minimal paperwork, with few marketable skills, and knowing no English. She made her case to the authorities and walked into the United States. Knowing no Ukrainian, the clerk at Ellis Island misspelled Michael’s last name (doing the best he could) and off to the piers Michael went.

Local charities helped them. They learned that western Pennsylvania’s steel mills were hiring. Michael and Anna each moved there, with nothing to their names. Michael and Anna married. A skilled carpenter, Michael took a mill job. His country fiddling talent made him popular but didn’t really help economically. Anna sold eggs. They never really mastered English (their family and friends could understand their patois just fine). They worshiped at the Ukrainian church. They never had much money until their older children grew up and built them a two-story country home with a huge kitchen, on a lot with generous garden space. Michael made much of the house’s cabinetry.

Michael and Anna raised twelve children. The older children, who were shuffled to the back of the classroom and received little special help, learned English in school and taught it to their brothers and sisters. My mother, one of the younger children, never really learned Ukrainian (she could understand it but not speak it). She was still placed in the back of the classroom, simply as an act of ethnic bigotry. She joined the choir and the debate team. Graduating at the top of her high school class, she was denied the valedictory scholarship, which instead went to a boy. She moved to Washington (like many children of immigrants, seeking work where she could find it) and became an office worker in the Pentagon. Like everyone in my family, she read voraciously.

Others of Michael and Anna’s children included engineers, a nurse, loving homemakers, and two American Army war heroes. My Uncle Peter died in the Ardennes, nineteen years old, fighting against Nazis. Michael and Anna’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren, now scattered across the land, include people dedicated to the law, medicine, and many other professions. Yes, at least one of us became a university professor and author.

Michael and Anna’s story is not unique. It is nothing special. It is repeated, literally millions of times, across this great land. It is the same story that the Haitians in Springfield are writing today.

If you want to make America great, that is how it is done. And, trust me, Trump (himself the grandson of immigrants and husband of an immigrant) has no clue. That same cluelessness, of course, explains why Vance specifically and shamelessly admitted that he was lying about the Haitian immigrants:

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” [italics added]

His eager voters do not seem to care that Vance was lying. That is because facts and reality do not create their resentment. No, to understand the hostility toward immigrants, we look only to the dark forces of fear and suspicion.

The moral of this story? Yes, receiving immigrants, people who speak an unfamiliar language, sing their own songs, and worship in their own way, does affect the receiving communities. It always does. It is, nevertheless, the American way. Employed immigrants also strengthen our economy and make the US a stronger nation. As a recent article in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy notes, tax-paying immigrants can have an indirect helpful effect on the nation’s fiscal health.

Emigration is even harder than immigration. People leave their native lands, almost always because they are fleeing a nightmare. Immigrants often face suspicion, hostility, injustice, and anger. My mother, her brothers, sisters, and parents certainly did. Yet, they contributed their own small part to making America great.

And, in contrast, as Trump and Vance give their loathsome speeches, they are not just lying about the Haitian immigrants. They are lying about America.

As I have often said, speakers can make their point by telling a story. This is my family's story.

by William D. Harpine

____________

Earlier Posts About Immigration Speeches:

Romans 13, Jeff Sessions, and the Cultural Heritage of Conservative Immigration Policy

How Did Donald Trump's Story about Police Heroes Help Him Make a Point about Immigration?

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image of Ellis Island: Library of Congress, public domain

Image of Statue of Liberty: National Park Service, public domain

Did Trump Reset the Agenda When He Accused Haitians of Eating Pets?

Donald Trump

During his September 10, 2024 debate with Kamala Harris, brimming with indignation at the latest nonsensical conspiracy theory, Donald Trump complained about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio:

“They're eating the cats. They're eating - they're eating the pets of the people that live there.”

This debate was otherwise a failure for Trump, according to the polls, even in the minds of many Republicans. That is because Harris appeared to be stronger, better prepared, and more articulate. She seized the political agenda. Nevertheless, Trump re-seized the political agenda by lying about cats (and dogs). It was a delayed effect. So, in that twisted way, Trump turned the worst part of an embarrassing debate loss into a remarkable political advantage.

Of all the ridiculous things that Trump said during the debate, his comment about cats and dogs was the silliest – the most absurd – the most easily discredited. But for days after, the press could hardly talk about anything else. Thus, by lying through his teeth, Trump retook control of the agenda. People quickly forgot about what a terrible impression he had made while debating, and they forgot how much better Harris did than he did. None of that mattered any more. That is what “seizing the agenda” means. No, it all came down to the pets. Was anyone actually eating the pets? No, of course not. How silly. That wasn’t the point.

As one of her debating techniques, Harris cleverly provoked Trump into spewing out his conspiracy theories. Never one to overlook an opportunity, Trump immediately launched into a diatribe that may well be the lowest point in recent American politics. He argued that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio had been stealing and eating people’s pets. (The fact that his diatribe succeeded makes one tremble in horror):

“And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora [Colorado] or Springfield [Ohio]. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame.”

This was, of course, like Trump’s other conspiracy theories, not true. The rumor, which apparently originated in right-wing social media posts, arose entirely from a real case in which a woman who is not an immigrant, who lives in an entirely different part of the state, and is said to have frequent run-ins with the authorities, was found cooking a cat. Now, I like cats, and I am against people eating them. However, the Haitian immigrants in Springfield were not eating cats.

Earlier Post: Did Kamala Harris Set the Agenda When She Debated Donald Trump?

Springfield’s mayor, Rob Rue, and local police quickly denied that they had any believable reports that Haitian immigrants were stealing people’s pets, much less eating them. Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, urged for calm. He explained that the Haitian migrants had been in Springfield for years, that they were good residents and hard workers, and that they had helped to revitalize a struggling town. He emphasized that they were legal immigrants:

“What we know is that the Haitians who are in Springfield are legal. They came to Springfield to work. Ohio is on the move, and Springfield has really made a great resurgence with a lot of companies coming in. These Haitians came in to work for these companies. What the companies tell us is that they are very good workers. They’re very happy to have them there. And, frankly, that’s helped the economy.”

Unfortunately, DeWine’s fact-based talk collapsed in the face of anti-immigrant anger. DeWine reported that Springfield has received 33 or more bomb threats, many (but not all!) from overseas. It has become necessary to scour the schools for bombs every morning before classes begin. A cultural event was canceled to prevent anti-immigrant violence.

Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, the son of immigrants, held a town hall in Springfield, where he told a packed audience full of Trump hats that he wasn’t going to talk about cats (apparently realizing that the falsehood was too silly for words), but that he was troubled that so many immigrants had come to the city. Sidestepping the issue further, he said that the big problem was “illegal immigration,” neatly sidestepping the fact that the Haitian immigrants had arrived legally:

“What is the right legal immigration policy in this country? I’m guessing it’s illegal immigration. If you are first act of entering this country breaks the law, you should not be able to enter this country.”

Quickly seeing a way to gain readers and viewers, the press gave abundant attention to Ramaswamy’s slippery comments. Sensing a golden opportunity, Trump himself plans to visit Springfield, much to the mayor’s anxiety, presumably to spread more anti-immigrant ideas.

Even worse, vice presidential nominee J. D. Vance got on television and admitted that he had been lying about the Haitian refugees. Indeed, Vance repeated false claims about the refugees even after his staff determined that the claims were false.

He said:

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” [italics added]

So, let’s summarize:

During the debate, Trump made an utterly false and unreasonable complaint about Haitian immigrants who are, first, legally present, second, not eating cats, and, third, making an economic contribution to what had been a dying community.

 
Trump and his supporters quickly generalized the issue. Did it really matter whether the immigrants were legal or not? No, it turns out that they were immigrants, and this was enough to anger many conservatives. For years, I have heard Republicans declare that they support legal immigration, but not illegal immigration. That similarly noble position has, apparently, puffed into the ether.

 
Trump, Vance, and other Republicans are spreading a story that they know to be false. Doing so, they displaced the public agenda for several days, obliterating complaints about Trump’s poor debate performance.

What does it mean that Trump and his supporters have reset the agenda? It now becomes harder to talk about Springfield’s real issues, or the real issues of immigration. Trump and his supporters have filled the discourse with outrageous, easily disproven lies. Sheer malice. Having reset the agenda to immigration, not Trump’s debate performance, they now skitter and scamp to a variety of inconsistent positions. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they switch from one complaint to the other. No, it’s not really the cats that are the real issue, the complaint is that the hospitals are packed. No, it is not really about cats and dogs either; instead, it is that some of the Haitians are bad drivers. No, Trump is not really concerned about cats or dogs. The issue, they say, is that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have opened the border and invited families to come to the U.S. and work.

Trump started the issue by flat-out lying about the immigrants. Caught out, Trump and his supporters simply squirm from one point, to the next, to the next, never settling on one argument, and thus never leaving themselves open to basic dialectic. Arguing with them is like wrestling with a huge ball of half-chilled Jell-O.

On a more complex level, however: by resetting the agenda, Trump has refocused the campaign. We were no longer talking about his confused, awkward debate performance. We, instead, started talking about the issue that made Trump famous: opposition to immigrants. Or, put it this way: Trump lost the debate on September 10, but, within a few days, he and his supporters gleefully rewrote the scoresheet and claimed victory.

Much of the press was hostile to Trump’s arguments. That is not the point at all. No, the point is that for about a week, the press and the pundits talked about Haitian immigrants and cats, to the exclusion of almost anything else in the political realm. Inflation, the economy, the coronavirus – and everything else – almost vanished from public discourse. The (mythical) cats ruled. Trump’s terrible debating was forgotten, and we forgot about his terrible debate because everyone was busy hassling over the most absurd thing he had said during the debate.

Such is American politics.

The cat-eating immigrants were not the only false conspiracy that Trump brought up during the debate. Wishing to be complete, Trump also ranted that FBI crime statistics were fudged, accused former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of being complicit in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol building, accused Harris of “weaponizing” the government against him, and falsely claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Those are old-hat conspiracy theories. No one much cares about them anymore. No, it was the cats that captured people’s attention. Now, the cat conspiracy theory was the silliest of the bunch, since no speck of evidence supported it, but it was new. It got people’s attention. People like cats. People like cats more than they like people. Trump and his supporters latched onto the accusation and refused to let it go.

So, people who think that Trump lost the debate because he lost on the issues are missing the point. For example, analyzing the debate right after, Republican pollster Frank Luntz wrongly speculated that Trump’s ranting about the cats and dogs while failing to discuss real issues would cost him dearly:

“The conversations about people eating dogs and cats, calling the leader of Hungary one of the greatest world leaders, repeatedly missing the opportunity to focus on inflation and affordability and the complete inability to present his point of view without completely tearing into her, into Joe Biden, into whomever was in his sights.”

I wish that I believed that Luntz was right. However, Trump recognizes, like no politician before him, that huge segments of the population could not care less about what is, and is not, true. It is not clear that Trump’s tirade about people stealing and eating pets helped him. What is clear is that he regained control of the agenda. We are talking about the issues that he wants us to talk about.

Heaven help us.

by William D. Harpine

______________________

Earlier Posts:

Biden Versus Trump, the June 27, 2024 Presidential Debate

Did Donald Trump Change the Subject and Set the Agenda at the RNCC Fundraiser?

Copyright ©  2024 by William D. Harpine

Official White House photo, public domain