Biden Turned the Tables on the Topic of Student Loan Forgiveness. A Clever Debating Tactic.

Biden answers a reporter's question

Turning the tables on your opponent is often a clever debating strategy. Use your opponent’s own argument against them. President Joe Biden recently announced a program of partial forgiveness for student loan debt. Republicans immediately held that this was unfair to people who had already paid off their student loans.

In his White House speech announcing his student loan forgiveness program, Biden listed the expected facts and figures. He reviewed the personal problems that Americans face due to crushing student debt. That was all fine. His speech was calm, drama-free, and thoughtful. Ho-hum. The zinger came at the end, when he answered a few questions. Let’s look at what happened.

As Biden was walking out of the room, a reporter asked whether forgiving current student loans was fair to people who had already paid off previous student loans. Biden turned the tables on the questioner. Unable to say that his policy was equitable for everyone, which it obviously was not, Biden pointed out that conservative economic policies also lacked equity. Here’s how the exchange went:

“Q Mr. President, is this unfair to people who paid their student loans or chose not to take out loans?

“THE PRESIDENT: Is it fair to people who in fact do not own a multi-billion-dollar business if they see one of these guys give them all a tax break? Is that fair? What do you think?”

Why was that such a clever debating tactic? First, Biden’s response was short and crisp. A long answer would invite a convoluted response, which Biden had no interest in dealing with. Second, Biden shifted the burden of proof to his questioner: “What do you think?” Third, shifting the burden of proof, he broadened the issue to overall policy instead of just the one specific issue.

Biden’s point was that the same argument that Republicans were making against his student debt forgiveness plan could equally be made against programs favored by Republicans. Both policies lacked equity.

If, however, Biden’s opponents opposed loan forgiveness, Biden pressed them to reject their own previous positions. The challenger is then led either to defend loan forgiveness or to condemn the Republican’s previous policies. By broadening the concept, Biden challenged the questioner's assumption that policies must be equitable. 

Turning the tables often tames a debate opponent because the speaker uses the other side’s argument against them. They cannot very well refute their own argument, can they? Chalk up a point for Biden. 

___________________

How Did David Hogg Turn the Tables on President Trump to Advocate Gun Control?

AOC Turned the Tables on Republicans in Less Than a Minute During the Coronavirus Relief Bill Debate

How Does Tucker Carlson Use Personal Attacks Instead of Proof about Climate Change?

Image: White House YouTube channel

Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God:" Proof-Texting as a Rhetorical Tactic

Jonathan Edwards

In his 1741 sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Jonathan Edwards terrified his congregation with a masterpiece of Gothic imagery. High school literature students marvel at Edwards' vivid metaphors. Edwards’ speech is, equally, however, a desolation of bad logic and ghastly argumentation. Ripping a single phrase from the Bible out of its context, Edwards created an imaginative masterpiece. He drew his power from the superstition of words. Religion scholars call this proof-texting. The idea is that the Holy Bible is divinely inspired, and therefore every sentence, every phrase taken out of context, must be literally true. Conservative preachers (and politicians!) use proof-texting to this very day. Let’s look at how Edwards cites one vague, marginally relevant Bible verse to prove that God hates his congregation. Edwards’ proof-text created the illusion that the speaker had proven something, even though the text itself proves little.


The Bible Phrase

Edwards took his text from Deuteronomy 32:35: “Their foot shall slide in due time.”

That was it! His sermon’s purpose was to develop that one short phrase. I’ll tell you more about that in a moment. What we must notice about his speech, however, is the terrifying imagery. That imagery distracts us from the logic and reasoning.

Deuteronomy 32 is the Song of Moses, in which Moses criticizes the people of Israel for unfaithfulness. Not only did Edwards rely on one single verse; he didn’t even cite the entire verse! Let’s look at the entirety of verse 35:

“To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.”

While we’re at it, let’s also look at the much more conciliatory verse 36, which seems to qualify the threat. Cleverly, Edwards skipped it:

“For the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.”

Imagery, but What Happened to the Context?

Taking the Reformed Church doctrine of predestination to an extreme, Edwards inflicted upon his congregation such terrifying imagery as: 

“If God should only withdraw his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power.”

Or

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire.”

I have no idea how many Christians lost sleep after studying this speech in English class. I am nothing but a spider held over a fire by a God who abhors me? Eek!

But “Their foot shall slide in due time” doesn’t prove any of that, does it? It serves only as a springboard for Edwards’ theology. In fact, “slide” makes me think of accidentally falling down a muddy slope. Edwards turns sliding into a deliberate act by God.

How did Edwards move from sliding down a slope to the horrors of being cast, unworthy, into a burning pit? What did Edwards leave out? What did he add?

Let’s look at what Deut. 32:35 did not say. Now, Edwards' sermon said:

“That the reason why they are not fallen already, and do not fall now, is only that God’s appointed time is not come.”

That’s quite Calvinist, which is fine, but did his truncated Bible verse say that? No. It only said, “Their foot shall slide in due time.”

Edwards next threw in the concept of original sin. Again, that’s fine, but Deut. 32:35 doesn’t say this:

“They are already under a sentence of condemnation to hell.”

That is, Edwards re-interprets his fraction of a Bible verse to suit a theological point.

Continuing, Edwards depicted God as an arbitrary, capricious ruler who, in terrifying anger, saved or destroyed people on a whim:

“In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of, all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.”

Well, to belabor the obvious, verse 35 doesn’t say that. Worse, as we saw above, verse 36 (the context) said that God will repent of his anger. Context is not the proof-texter’s friend.

Proof-Texting Helps the Speaker Prove Things that Are Not Proven

So, proof-texting often gives the unscrupulous public speaker not one, but two contradictory advantages:

First, Edwards quotes the Bible verse mostly out of context. That enables the speaker to blithely ignore the historical and literary background. A Bible verse that means one thing in context can squirm out of that context to mean something quite different.

Second, since Edwards cited only a few words from his verse (occasionally supplementing them with cryptic references to entirely different Bible books), he freed himself to spin his own meaning. A more serious Bible scholar might want to explicate the Song of Moses with sensitivity. Edwards never intended to do that. Regardless of whether his message was theologically reasonable, his proof-text failed to support it. Instead, he cited a snippet of a Bible verse to give himself, not proof, but a metaphorical springboard. Indeed, what did his proof-text prove? Not much, really. The text in question, viewed literally but in context, proves that God both threatens and upholds his people. Ultimately, proof-texting is, too often, an unscrupulous technique that unscrupulous speakers use so they can play make-believe. They can pretend that the Bible (or other source) supports their opinion. The Bible (at least in Deut. 32:35) neither said, nor clearly implied, Edwards’ terrifying threats.

So, first, proof-texting requires an underlying text that the audience will accept as indisputably true. Second, it requires absolute literalism, a rigid denial that cultural or literal context could help the listener understand the text. The words take on a magical meaning, making context irrelevant. Not always, but often enough, the proof-text creates the illusion that the speaker has proven something. Edwards’ fiery language distracted the listener from the lack of logical content. Likewise, Edwards’ proof-texting gave the impression that the Bible proves his argument. In the hands of a good theologian, proof-texting draws listeners into the world of biblical morality. In the hands of a charismatic charlatan, proof-texting becomes the ultimate deceptive technique. Gullible listeners swallow a conclusion because an authority seems to prove it. Proof-texting often creates a superstition founded on words.

I don’t mean simply to rant about a historical speech by an otherwise-forgotten pastor. Nor do I intend to question the underlying theology; that’s not my field. I’m just analyzing Edwards’ argument. I point out that Edwards led his audience to think that he had proven something. In fact, however, he had proven little. Unfortunately, this rhetorical tactic continues to afflict us. A favorite tactic of conservative speakers, proof-texting lives on today:


Jeff Sessions, Romans 13, Proof-Texting, and the Magic Power of Words

Paula White Prayed against Trump’s Enemies and Showed How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate

__________________________

I don’t want readers to think that I am against sermons. I have previously posted about sermons that I thought were excellent. Here are three of my favorites. (For others, type “sermon” in the “Search This Blog” box to the right.)

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

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

Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana’s Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?



Research Note: Here is a quick explanation of proof-texting by Jessica Ellis. 

Image: Public Domain in the United States, via Wikimedia Commons

John Kennedy Spoke for World-Wide Freedom and Independence in his 1962 Fourth of July Speech

Independence Hall

A good ceremonial speech teaches a lesson—sometimes a policy lesson, sometimes a moral lesson. In his 1962 Fourth of July speech, President John Kennedy told the nation that American independence depended on peace and independence throughout the world.  He spoke of values that implied major foreign policy decisions. 

As a decorated combat veteran of the Pacific war, Kennedy understood how injustice in one part of the world could affect us all. He taught a vital moral and political lesson. Furthermore, as the 21st Century United States becomes increasingly isolationist, it is a lesson for us to remember today.

Speaking at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, Kennedy insisted that Independence Day is not just about a historical event, but a value. That value, however, gave rise to powerful action that formed our new nation. Praising the Declaration of Independence, Kennedy said that it was a unique document because it gave:

“…the final irrevocable decision that it took to assert the independence of free states in place of colonies, and to commit to that goal their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.”

Yet, independence comes with obligations, with a place in the world. That is why Kennedy urged the United States to protect everyone’s freedom across the globe. It was, he explained, the United States’ moral obligation to do its part for world freedom. Indeed, Kennedy explained that injustice anywhere threatened all of us:

“On this fourth day of July, 1962, we who are gathered at this same hall, entrusted with the fate and future of our states and nation, declare now our vow to do our part to lift the weights from the shoulders of all, to join other men and nations in preserving both peace and freedom, and to regard any threat to the peace or freedom of one as a threat to the peace and freedom of all.”

Kennedy pledged the United States’ moral and physical strength to protect world freedom and justice:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred [honor].”

So, yes, Kennedy praised the Declaration of Independence. That was his proper thesis. From that praise, however, he drew a moral lesson. He showed that the United States had world responsibilities. But moral values imply moral actions. Kennedy also gave a policy lesson. That lesson was for the United States of America to stand up for world freedom.

World War II taught us that conflict and tyranny can reach across the world to affect us. The rise of authoritarianism in the United States itself should warn us of continuing dangers from within. We do not have ceremonies like Independence Day just to make us feel good. No, we celebrate to remember what is important in our lives. The lessons of the past give us wisdom for the future.

Earlier Post: Should ceremonial speeches cause controversy?

Earlier Post: America a Dream? Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Independence Day Speech

____________


Research Note: Chaïm Perlman and Lucie-Olbrechts-Tyteca expounded the view that ceremonial speeches convey basic values. Their monumental book is available in academic libraries and large bookstores.

Image of Independence Hall: © William D. Harpine

Image of John Kennedy: Kennedy Library

America Is a Dream? Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Independence Day Speech

Declaration of Independence

On July 4, 1965, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his audience an Independence Day dream. Americans have heard two kinds of 4th of July speeches. The first kind is unapologetically patriotic. These speakers assume that the nation is already perfect. However, the second kind challenges us, if I might echo the preamble to the United States’ Constitution, to become more perfect. Echoing his “I Have a Dream” speech of two years earlier, King compared America to a dream. He led his audience from the past’s revolutionary ideals to a future in which those ideals would come to life.

When I was a child, a patriotic speech invariably preceded the Fourth of July fireworks. The speaker discussed patriotism and war heroes, carefully quoting something or other that Thomas Jefferson said. In contrast, King gave the other kind of 4th of July speech. King asked the United States of America to live up to its revolutionary values. So, the first kind of 4th of July speech praises the United States as a perfect beacon of light. The second kind gives us ideals for which we can choose to strive.

To establish the values to which our nation strives, King quoted the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

King then emphasized the Declaration of Independence’s inclusive values. He noted that Jefferson did not say “all white men,” but instead said “all men.” King added that Jefferson did not say “all gentiles,” nor did he say “all Protestants.” (Many of us today would agree that Jefferson should have said “all persons” instead of “all men.”)

Jim Crow still dominated large swaths of the United States’ 1965 political landscape. King’s 4th of July speech argued that the Declaration of Independence stated an ideal, not an accomplished fact. It stated, King said, a dream. Indeed, the United States itself was a dream:

“I would like to discuss some of the problems that we confront in the world today, and some of the problems that we confront in our own nation by using as a subject The American Dream. I choose this subject because America is essentially a dream.”

Continuing, King reminded his audience that human rights are not the government’s gift. Instead, they are basic rights that heaven grants to all of us. The United States’ founding ideal was to recognize everyone’s fundamental worth:

“It says that each individual has certain inherent rights that are neither derived from or conferred by the state. They are gifts from the hands of the almighty God. Very seldom, if ever, in the history of the world has a socio-political document expressed in such profound, eloquent, and unequivocal language, the dignity and the worth of human personality.”

No, the United States of 1965 did not recognize everyone’s rights. In 1965, most public schools and institutions were de facto segregated. Even today, in 2022, many people justly question whether women, poor persons, and ethnic minorities enjoy equal rights. However, can the dream become true? King had devoted his rhetorical life to a dream: equal opportunity for everyone.

Maybe the “more perfect union” gives us an ideal that we can strive for it but never reach, something like a physics problem. To the end of his life, however, King expressed his deep faith that United States could fulfill the dream. In a torrent of metaphors, he spoke of an emerging freedom:

“And so, with this faith in the future, we will be able to adjourn the counsels of the staff, rise from the fatigue of darkness, to the buoyancy of hope. And we will be able to bring into being this new society and realize the American dream.”

Ending, King repeated the same hymn verse that concluded “I Have a Dream:”

“Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we are free at last!”

Yes, on the one hand, we have heard 4th of July speeches that praised American freedom as unquestionable fact. How dare you question America! On the other hand, King’s searing language promised that the dream of American liberty of which Jefferson spoke would become real. King cited the past but looked to the future. If one loses hope, what could our values possibly mean?

In more recent years, 4th of July speeches have all but disappeared. To all my fellow Americans, happy Independence Day! Enjoy your fireworks and your hot dogs, but never forget our ideals.

_____________

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

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

Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" Made Biblical Morality a Public Imperative

Thanks once again to rev.com for creating these historically vital transcripts.

Senator Graham and the Word Mystery of Entitlement Reform

During the Fox News debate between Vermont's liberal Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and South Carolina republican Lindsey Graham, Graham repeated a common conservative talking point about "entitlement reform." Well, it wasn’t really a talking point; it was just a word game, a silly phrase that conservatives love to parrot. The trick was to use a word to mean the opposite of what people think it means. One simple word, "entitlement," creates a fog of rhetorical smoke:

“Entitlement reform is a must for us to not become Greece.”

As we’ll see, the idea is that entitlements are not entitlements. Of course, that makes no sense at all. Graham quickly slipped in that “entitlement reform” meant addressing Medicare and Social Security spending. Graham correctly pointed out that we cannot balance the federal budget merely by making cuts in so-called discretionary spending. Graham, like many conservatives, pictures entitlement reform as a good thing that will appeal to his conservative supporters.

We all the time play with political words. We're not anti-abortion, no, we're pro-life. We're not pro-abortion, we're pro-choice. Anything to hide our intent. Republicans aren't against Social Security; no, they are for entitlement reform. 

But—here is the problem. You probably couldn't find twenty republican voters who actually want to cut Medicare and Social Security. Many Republicans, however, strongly support “entitlement reform.” All the same, Graham let it slip during the debate that we need to cut Medicare and Social Security so we don't turn into Greece. Whatever. 

Comparing the United States to Greece is obviously silly. The United States is an economic powerhouse, while the United States dollar is the world's reserve currency. Greece does not even have its own currency and does not control their own monetary policy (they use the Euro).

Passing over that, however, let's look at that nasty word—"entitlement.” The word “entitlement” brings up all kinds of nasty images: self-entitled welfare moochers, self-entitled high school students who think the world owes them straight A's, lazy, self-entitled government workers who sleep on the job. Plenty of stereotypes.

Instead, however, what “entitlement” actually means is that you are legally entitled to get something. I am entitled to withdraw money from my bank account. Retired people pay into Medicare and Social Security during their working years, and they are entitled to draw on them when they are no longer working. Yet, if I talk with one of my many Republican friends about “entitlements,” they angrily explain that Social Security is not an entitlement because they paid into Social Security and they are fully entitled to withdraw the money when they retire. We have heard that a lot, don't we? It doesn’t make a bit of sense, does it? Social Security is not an entitlement because, drum roll, we are entitled to receive it? As if “entitlement” and “entitled” mean opposite things. Huh?

How did that poor word get so twisted? Well, we have heard people use “entitlement” as a dirty word for so many years that we now think it is bad to be entitled to something. It's reached the point that many people think, like my Republican friends, that they are somehow not entitled to receive entitlements. They are, however, they say, entitled to receive Social Security. Or something like that. Doesn’t make much sense, but there we are.

If we look at the federal budget, there are basically five sections: Medicare, Social Security, National Defense, Medicaid, and everything else. If we want to balance the budget by making cuts, where do we go? That’s a problem. No Republican will vote to cut National Defense. That leaves “entitlements:” especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are top targets. But why? For the Republican Party's electoral support comes mostly from elderly voters who depend on Medicare and Social Security to survive. Of course, elderly voters want to cut neither Social Security or Medicare. Worse, attempts to cut Medicaid only appeal to elderly, conservative voters until they figure out that Medicaid keeps the nursing homes open. As soon as elderly voters figure out that Graham wants to balance the budget by cutting benefits for elderly voters, his political career will crash to the ground. As long as he talks about entitlement reform, however, he can pretend to be fiscally responsible. It's all about words. 

What's going on there? The Republican Party depends heavily on elderly voters. Elderly voters are not stupid. If Republicans are foolish enough to vote huge cuts in Medicare and Social Security, their political movement will disappear into the history books. Members of Congress know this. So what can they say? What is their alternative? 

That's easy. Smoke and mirrors gave Graham his only logical alternative. It all comes down to a word. Yes, the word “entitlement” is the rhetorical equivalent of the smoke and mirrors used by stage magicians. When he said “entitlement reform,” Graham stirred up all the negative images about self-entitled goof-offs and moochers. Did he have a serious policy proposal in mind? Of course not. He talked like a fiscally conservative person who wants to stop spending money on undeserving people. In real life, the numbers don't support any policy like that. “Entitlement reform,” which really means “cut Social Security and Medicare,” would be a political disaster for Republicans if they ever enact it. Which they obviously won’t.

Instead of producing actual policy proposals, Graham, like many other Republicans, simply reversed the meaning of the word “entitlement” to create a fog of non-existent public policy. Are we really entitled to receive Social Security because it’s not an entitlement? Honestly, how can anyone twist language into a knot like that? And how can voters fail to see through it? For conservatives make no secret of their wish to cut Social Security and Medicare. 

Anyway, Republicans have been fearmongering about Social Security’s supposed impending collapse ever since I took my first summer job in 1970. They’ve been wrong for more than 50 years, and silly word games don’t help. 

Words Matter: Trump's Announcement Speech Promised Not to Cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security

Image: CBO

Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the January 6, 2021, Committee, Spoke from Tradition

January 6 hearing

As conservative fundraisers Richard Viguerie and David Franke pointed out, the idea of being a conservative is to preserve what is best from the past. That was the point that Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the January 6, 2021, Committee, made in his opening statement on June 9, 2022. speaking in a calm, quiet voice, Thompson reminded the United States that we had a long-standing history of peaceful transfer of power—until 2016, when Republican President Donald Trump cited transparently bogus claims that the election had been stolen, leading to a riot in the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes. Thompson did not merely make good arguments: he used the conservative movement's top moral premise against them. He showed that Donald Trump had broken with tradition. This was not merely a factual speech: Thompson drove a stake through the heart of the Republican Party’s central value system.

Yes, tradition should be a conservative’s strong point. Ironically, it was the liberal Representative Thompson who cited tradition. He especially emphasized the tradition set by Abraham Lincoln. Thompson reminded us that the first Republican president insisted on a peaceful transition, even in the dire circumstances of the Civil War. Indeed, Thompson literally turned the Republican Party's entire history against them. Nevertheless, we all needed to hear it.

First, Thompson reminded us that, although Lincoln expected to lose the 1864 election, Thompson's speech insisted on respecting the voters’ judgment. Thompson explained:

“Thinking back again to the Civil War, in the summer of 1864, the President of the United States believed he would be a doomed bid for reelection. He believed his opponent, General George McClellan, would wave the white flag when it came to preserving the Union. But even with that grim fate hanging in the balance, President Lincoln was ready to accept the will of the voters, come what may.”

Next, Thompson explained that Lincoln considered that it was his duty, his solemn responsibility, to turn the White House over to the next president and to cooperate with the next president during the transition:

“He made a quiet pledge.

“He wrote down the words, ‘This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. And it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect.’ ‘It will be my duty.’”

Thompson’s story did not stop there. He showed that Lincoln made no empty promise to accept the election. Instead, Thompson explained, Lincoln asked his top advisors to make the same pledge:

“Lincoln sealed that memo and asked his cabinet secretaries to sign it, sight unseen. He asked them to make the same commitment he did. To accept defeat if indeed defeat was the will of the people. To uphold the rule of law. To do what every President who came before him did… and what every President who followed him would do. Until Donald Trump.”

“Until Donald Trump:” an unbroken line of presidents willingly accepted the people’s will, until Donald Trump came along with his transparent lies and nonsensical conspiracy theories to inspire a revolt against the constitutional process.

With that, Thompson had come full circle. He had reminded his audience that tradition required presidents to follow the constitutional and legal processes. He demonstrated, beyond any possible dispute, that it was a Republican president who broke the tradition. He used the Republicans’ premise against them: the principal contention of republican politicians and voters is that they, and they alone, stand for the nation's traditions. Thompson demonstrated that, in contrast, it was the Republican Party who had abandoned tradition. They and the former president refused to follow Lincoln's example.

This was the debate technique called “turning the tables.” That is, Thompson took the Republicans’ own premise, which was the importance of tradition, and use it to condemn President Trump's actions. What were the Republicans going to do? Were they going to tell Thompson that he was wrong, and the tradition should be ignored? Of course not! How could any conservative say that tradition is bad? To argue with Thompson, a Republican would need to repudiate the very idea of conservativism.

To date, Republicans have protested that the hearings are a distraction from pressing issues like gasoline prices or that it is a witch hunt. what they cannot do—what they cannot possibly do—is to argue with Chairman Thompson’s argument from tradition. He did not merely show that they were wrong. He quietly ripped away their entire philosophical foundation. Thompson’s speech was not flashy, but it was devastating.


PS: Was it absurd for Trump to say the election was stolen? Absolutely. As I finish this post, I am also watching the hearing’s second day, with Trump’s own advisors saying that they repeatedly told Trump that the claims were false and unsupported.

Image: US Congress

Joe Biden's Emotional Gun Control Plea: "Enough!"

Joe Biden Speaking from Cross Hall 

In the wake of the horrible school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, which took the lives of nineteen children and two teachers, President Joe Biden made an emotional plea for gun control: “Enough!” Over and over, he said “enough.” Biden's rhetorical tactic was to repeat: “enough,” “enough,” “enough.” This was a trope of language, not of logic. The speech was not so much a rational argument as an emotional pounding.

So, speaking from Cross Hall, the White House’s entrance hallway, Biden said less about the cold, hard data that Democrats adore, and instead appealed to people’s hearts:

“For God’s sake, how much more carnage are we willing to accept? How many more innocent American lives must be taken before we say “enough”? Enough.”

Although Biden offered arguments to support his position, the linguistic trope - “enough” - drove his speech. “Enough” conveyed his frustration and impatience. For, how can we persuade people who resist persuasion? By calling “enough” Biden moved away from his usual tactic of reason and compromise toward a rhetoric of pleading. “Enough” is what we say to a child who won’t stop misbehaving. It usually works. “Enough is what we say when we are tired of giving reasons and try to appeal to people's conscience. That might work—if people have a conscience. But Biden’s trope evolved during the speech: enough gun violence. Enough bad pro-gun arguments. Enough delay. Enough waiting for people to vote for gun control. One step led to the next.

After memorializing the Uvalde massacre and commemorating the victims, President Biden reminded us how far we have traveled as the nation transitions from a peaceful state to a coast-to-coast armed camp:

“A few years ago, the family of the inventor of the AR-15 said he would have been horrified to know that its design was being used to slaughter children and other innocent lives instead of being used as a military weapon on the battlefields, as it was designed — that’s what it was designed for.

“Enough. Enough.”

Biden then pointed out what he saw as the absurdity that ordinary people would need to carry powerful rifles with large-capacity magazines:

“The damage was so devastating in Uvalde, parents had to do DNA swabs to identify the remains of their children — 9- and 10-year-old children.

“Enough.”

Biden continued the trope of “enough” as he refuted a common pro-gun argument:

“Look, I know some folks will say, “18-year-olds can serve in the military and fire those weapons.” But that’s with training and supervision by the best-trained experts in the world. Don’t tell me raising the age won’t make a difference.

“Enough.”

A basic principle of persuasion teaches that people will only act if they think the problem has a solution. Biden's solution was the ballot box. Since polls frequently show that most Americans favor some degree of gun control, Biden recommends the ballot box as the solution to the mass killings:

“I’ve been in this fight for a long time. I know how hard it is, but I’ll never give up. And if Congress fails, I believe this time a majority of the American people won’t give up either. I believe the majority of you will act to turn your outrage into making this issue central to your vote.

“Enough. Enough. Enough.”

With that in mind, “enough” no longer only meant that we have tolerated the violence too long. “Enough” meant that Biden has tired of the gun lobby's unwillingness to compromise. It means more than that, as well. “Enough,” at the end of Biden's speech, also said that it was time for every voter to stand up and vote for candidates who will address the gun problem. it meant that we have waited too long:

“My fellow Americans, enough. Enough. It’s time for each of us to do our part. It’s time to act.”

Biden said “enough” more than a dozen times during the short speech. Yes, he also presented evidence and reasoning. However, cold, hard facts don't always persuade people. Every parent learns that sometimes you need to pound a point home. Likewise, sometimes a speaker needs to pound a point home. One word, “enough,” repeated, to drive home the enormity of mass murder, the horror of school shootings, and the need to act. Biden uttered a rhetorical pounding. Did we listen?

________________

Earlier Posts about Gun Control Rhetoric: 

Donald Trump's 2018 Speech Supporting Gun Control

Mark Robinson: A Citizen Stands for the Second Amendment

Second Amendment's Ambiguous (and Rhetorical) Wording

Second Amendment's Creative Ambiguity

Wayne LaPierre's Dark Gun Control Vision