Kamala Harris' Speech at West Point: Tradition and Innovation

Kamala Harris

For the first time in history, a woman gave the commencement address to the graduates of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. On May 27, 2023, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke to congratulate the cadets. For the most part, her speech was conventional and safe, but she did take time to celebrate the increasing role of women in the United States military. Like a long line of liberal speakers before her, she (paradoxically) located innovation in the firm service of tradition. The tradition was the tradition of innovation, and, yet, innovation is, of course, the opposite of tradition.

So, Harris commented that:

“So, to the Class of 2023 and to all the cadets here today: You stand on the broad shoulders of generations of Americans who have worn the uniform, including many barrier breakers and trailblazerss.”

When she said, “generations of Americans,” she emphasized tradition. When, in her next breath, she talked about “barrier breakers and trailblazers,” her point was innovation. Breaking barriers. Blazing new trails.

She continued that theme a moment later, reminding the cadets that:

“In fact, this year, you celebrate the 75th anniversary of the integration of women in the military, as well as the desegregation of our military. (Applause.)”

So, once again, she combined tradition (75th anniversary) with an integration policy that many conservatives would still consider to be innovative.

Harris concluded that section by addressing what she called a “fundamental truth:” 

“Our military is strongest when it fully reflects the people of America.”

Harris speaks at West Point 

Harris took time to congratulate Cadet Mary Bell, whose mother was also a West Point graduate, and Cadets Aaron Hall and Claire Dworsky, whom she had nominated to West Point when Harris was a United States Senator. She didn’t need to remind the audience that the Bells and Dworsky were women. Listeners could draw the link for themselves.

Bringing women and minorities into a complete role in the military has represented a dramatic, although gradual, change in the military forces. Tradition and “fundamental truth” are, however, conservative watchwords: the paradox of traditional innovation.

Harris’ persuasive tactic was to imply that innovation is traditional. It's unclear to me that this argument has ever convinced any conservative. It does, however, recast innovation into a new context. The argument from tradition asks conservative listeners to think about whether they should, or should not, live up to the fundamental principles of equality and liberty that most of them espouse.

Finally, although she didn't say so, the fact that it was Harris - a minority woman - giving the speech gave living proof to the growing role of women in the American polity. Good for her.

Kamala Harris Acceptance Speech at the Virtual DNC Convention: Breaking Ground with Caution

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

President Macron's Speech to Congress: Reminding the USA of Its Traditions

_______________

P.S.: Conservatives promptly jumped on social media to claim that conservative firebrand author Ayn Rand gave the 1974 commencement speech at West Point. That is incorrect. Rand did make a brief 1974 appearance at West Point, but she was not the commencement speaker. Howard H. Callaway was the 1974 West Point Commencement Speaker.

Also, while we're at it, the United States Military Academy campus is a gorgeous architectural wonder on the banks of the Hudson River palisades. Visit if you get the chance. It’s worth the drive. 

Research Note: Harris’ tactic has a long tradition! For example, in his award-winning book The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America, Professor James Darsey points out that progressive speakers often quote the Hebrew prophets.

Images: Official White House photo, White House YouTube Channel    

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

Donald Trump, White House photo

On May 10, 2023, a crowd of about 400 people, including Republicans and independent voters, but no Democrats, gathered at St. Anselm College, a Benedictine school with a lovely campus. CNN was sponsoring a town hall for former President Donald Trump. CNN’s highly respected journalist Kaitlan Collins moderated the event as Trump spewed one falsehood after another. For example, Collins asked about Trump's call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to change the election results. 

Collins: "You asked him to find you votes."

Trump: "I didn’t ask him to find anything. Let me just say."

Collins: "We’ve heard the audio tape, Mr. President."

And so the town hall continued. [And on that tape, Trump indeed did ask, “So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”]

Throughout the event, the audience cheered and clapped when Trump lied, cheering even more loudly when Trump complained about being fact-checked.

Of Trump’s many lies, maybe his lies about the 2020 election were the most brazen. As PolitiFact points out, Trump and his supporters have long been falsely claiming that he won the 2020 election. In fact, PolitiFact corrected more than eighty election lies by Trump and his supporters before 2020 was even over. There have been false, easily disproven claims that ballot boxes were stuffed, that voting machines changed votes, and so forth. More recently, Dominion Voting Systems recently won an enormous settlement from Fox News, which had repeatedly promulgated lies about the election. Collins was right that it was entirely untrue to think that the election was rigged or stolen. 

Did either the truth or fact-checking affect Trump during the Town Hall? No!

Instead, Trump told the Town Hall audience:

“We did fantastically, we got 12 million more votes than we had, as you know, in 2016. I actually say we did far better in that election, got the most that anybody’s ever gotten as a President of the United States. I think that when you look at that result and when you look at what happened during that election, unless you’re a very stupid person, you see what happens. A lot of the people in this audience and maybe a couple that don’t, but most people understand what happened. That was a rigged election, and it’s a shame that we had to go through it. It’s very bad for our country.”

Collins promptly told Trump that the election was not rigged:

“It was not a rigged election. It was not a stolen election. You and your supporters lost more than 60 court cases on the election. It’s been nearly two and a half years. Can you publicly acknowledge that you did lose the 2020 election?”

Trump turned to the audience and said, “She doesn’t understand.” What did Collins, an extraordinary journalist, not understand? Simple. She didn’t understand that facts were not the issue. Few people in that crowd cared about the facts.

Trump continued:

“Let me just go on. If you look at True the Vote, they found millions of votes on camera, on government cameras where they were stuffing ballot boxes. So with all of that, I think it’s a shame what happened. I think it’s a very sad thing for our country.”

Collins rightly pointed out that this was false. As USA Today had already reported, Trump lost 61 of 62 election lawsuits, winning only one minor victory in Pennsylvania.

As if we didn’t get the point, Trump also said:

“All over the world they looked at it. It was a rigged election. It’s very bad for our country.”

Who were “they?” Trump never said.

After almost an hour, Collins again insisted:

“The election was not rigged Mr. President; you can’t keep saying that all night long.”

However, Trump did keep saying that. The audience cheered and clapped every time he told the lie. Evidence wasn’t the point. Group loyalty was the point.

In general, Trump’s loyal supporters derive their morality from loyalty to the group and admiration for Trump. The partisan audience cheered and clapped to demonstrate group solidarity. Furthermore, let us not think that Trump’s core supporters adopt a false morality because they love Trump. It’s the other way around. They love Trump because he encourages them to reject conventional morality and indulge their most selfish impulses. More precisely, Trump redefines morality as cult-like loyalty: “My Trump, right or wrong.” Mainstream pundits keep talking as if pointing out Trump's lies will somehow make people turn against him. How ridiculous.

So, yes, CNN moderator Kaitlan Collins repeatedly fact-checked Trump for his many lies during the town hall. That was useless. If facts contradict the cult’s consensus, who needs facts? That is, it seems, why Trump turned to the crowd and said, “She doesn’t understand.” That was exactly the point. An experienced, well-prepared journalist, Collins pursued accuracy and truth. Trump, and the crowd, did not. Instead, Trump and the crowd endorsed a group consensus based on group identify, not facts. Collins did her level best, but Trump was right: she did not understand. 

What Collins, trained as a journalist, could not fully understand is that religion, politics, and group loyalty can destroy normal moral thinking in a heartbeat.

So, yes, most people have personal moral values. Nevertheless, group loyalty and group consensus often matter more. That’s what creates cults. That’s what creates the Trump phenomenon. That’s what we saw last night at the town hall.

Realistically, most people who support Trump already know that he lies and lies and lies. It was probably worthwhile to remind them that Trump is deeply dishonest. It was, alas, useless to offer correction to Trump’s supporters. It may have been useful to remind the larger audience that watched this event on the television that there is still such a thing as truth.

The First Trump-Biden Debate: Interruptions for a (Non) Cause

Why Does Donald Trump Curse, Insult People, and Call People Names?

Donald Trump Polarized the Nation at CPAC, and That Was His Point

So, yes, CNN moderator Kaitlan Collins fact-checked Trump for his many lies throughout the town hall. That was noble but, perhaps, useless. If facts contradict the cult’s consensus, who needs facts? An experienced, well-prepared journalist, Collins pursued accuracy and truth. Trump, and the crowd, did not. Collins did her level best, but Trump may have been right: maybe she did not understand.

What Collins, trained as a journalist, could not understand is that religion, politics, and group loyalty can destroy normal moral thinking in a heartbeat. False loyalties can wipe out all concept of truth and falsehood, good and bad, right and wrong, to the point that people no longer care what the truth might be. 

So, yes, people have personal moral values. Unfortunately, group loyalty and group consensus often matter more. That’s what creates cults. That’s what creates the Trump phenomenon. That’s what we saw last night at the town hall.

In a larger sense, then, what can we do? Probably nothing! Many folks value the clarity that cult-like settings offer them. Joining a movement makes them feel strong. Their charismatic leader inspires them and comforts them. The only solution is to outvote them, and that won’t be easy.

“Truth Buried by Lies:” The Serious Side of Joe Biden’s “Dark Brandon” Speech

____________________

Once again, thanks to the good people at rev.com for preparing a complete transcript of the town hall.

Jim Rhodes' Speech Prior to the Kent State Shootings: Rhetoric of Polarization

Jim Rhodes

Polarization is not a rhetorical technique that brings us together. No, the entire idea of polarization is to rip us apart. Polarization implies the two opposing sides support values that are not only different, but opposite. Irreconcilable. One side evil, the other good.

On May 3, 1970, Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes gave a speech about anti-Vietnam War demonstrations on the Kent State University campus. The next day, May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard shot and killed four students, one of whom was not even involved in the demonstration, and injured several others. Over the years since, we have heard much about the victims' viewpoints. That is only right.

Nevertheless, to understand this horrible event, it is not enough just to study the victims. What values lay behind the violent conservative response? What rhetoric justified that response? We must squarely face the rhetoric that made May 4 possible. As a conservative Republican, Rhodes took a strict law and order stance toward the demonstrators. To accomplish that, Rhodes used two rhetorical techniques that are typical of right-wing rhetoric: he reset the issue in terms of conservative values, while he sought to polarize his audience. My goal is to shed light on how, in retrospect, Rhodes inflamed an already-volatile situation. In the name of social order, Rhodes sought to divide the state of Ohio.


Setting the Values Issues

The demonstrators worked from one set of values, which was to oppose what they believed to be a needless and cruel war. Rhodes’ values instead revolved around the fear of disorder.

The underlying cause of the campus violence was that many students were upset about military conscription combined with President Richard Nixon’s decision to invade Cambodia, thus expanding the Indochina war. We might see that Rhodes’ speech brought up a variance in people's values. To Rhodes and his conservative voter base, the issue was not opposition to the war, but rather the preservation of order. It was not a matter of whether the war was right or wrong; indeed, Rhodes never discussed the war at all. The ROTC building on campus had been burned by persons unknown, while local merchants were bitter about ongoing vandalism in downtown Kent, which was only a short walk from campus. The escalation of the war was real. The campus and community violence was real. Which was more important? 

To a conservative, maintaining public order becomes the paramount value. Emphasizing that underlying value, Rhodes protested that:

“… they have threatened and intimidated merchants and people of this community.”

He talked about the destruction on campus:

“… you cannot continue to set fires to buildings that are worth $5 and $10 million because you cannot get replacements from the General Assembly.”

Rhodes returned to the same theme near the end of the speech:

“… the campus now is going to be part of the County and the State of Ohio. There is no sanctuary for these people to burn buildings down of private citizens—of businesses in a community and then turn into a sanctuary. It's over with in Ohio.”

So, mentioning absolutely nothing about the war or the validity of the students’ concerns, Rhodes focused exclusively on the question of maintaining public order. He was right, of course, to the extent that the demonstrations had become violent and there surely was a need to restore order. My point, however, is that this was the only value he discussed. His goal was not to reconcile with dissidents, but to drive them away. This leads us to polarization.


Polarizing the Issues

Indeed, the values of law and order linked directly to his next rhetorical technique, polarization. Polarization occurs when a speaker divides the audience into two categories: good and bad, with no middle ground. Everybody is on one pole or the other. If the speaker had acknowledged any merit whatsoever to the students’ protests, polarization would become impossible. And, yes, Rhodes’ speech was not only one-sided, but extremely polarizing.

So, let us back up and look at how the speech began. Rhodes characterized the demonstrators as: 

“probably the most vicious form of campus-oriented violence yet perpetrated by dissident groups and their allies in the state of Ohio.”

The words “most vicious,” artfully chosen, place the demonstrators purely on the side of wrongness.

Indeed, Rhodes insisted that the demonstrators’ only goal was to destroy higher education:

“The same group that we're dealing with here today--and there are three or four of them—they only have one thing in mind and that is to destroy higher education in Ohio.”

Even more, Rhodes placed the demonstrators among the most evil of the evil, equating them with the Nazis, communists, and Ku Klux Klan alike: 

“They're worse than the 'Brown Shirt' and the communist element and also the 'night riders' in the Vigilantes.”

As the speech ended, Rhodes complained again about the violence:

“And last night I think that we have seen all forms of violence—the worst.”

That was pure polarization. The demonstrators were not just bad, they were “the worst.” Indeed, Rhodes did not ever call them “demonstrators.” He called them “dissidents.” To a conservative who values social order at all costs, the term “dissidents” depicts the demonstrators as a threat, not only to the campus, but to the orderliness of society.

Rhodes warned about the efforts to, as he said, “start taking over communities.” That, of course, tied back to the question of law and order, the ultimate value for conservative rhetoric.

Thus, working from his value premises, with a clear distinction now made between the peaceful community and law enforcement, on the one hand, against the dissidents on the other hand, he had led his audience to a point far beyond compromise or accommodation. There was a battle between good and bad, a battle between order and disorder. Rhodes’ speech left no room for any idea of peace or lawful dissent. Instead, violence and dissent had become mashed together as evil values, to be contrasted with the good values of law enforcement and public order. Accordingly, Rhodes had set up the audience to receive his concluding point, a promise:

“to use every part of the law enforcement agencies of Ohio to drive them out of Kent.”

For, if we face a polarized battle between good and evil, banishing evil becomes our only choice.

No, Rhodes made no attempt to see any side of the issue other than his own. It was never his purpose to lead Ohio into a sense of unity, where the two sides could understand one another. That is not what polarization is about. With polarization, we ultimately have a clash of incompatible values, and the only acceptable solution is for the good values to overcome the bad ones. 

Rhodes himself was not solely responsible for the tragedies of May 4. Kent State University’s campus leadership was utterly inept. The guardsmen were poorly trained and badly led. We may never know whether they were ordered to shoot, or by whom. Ultimately, however, May 4 was the result of polarization, with two opposing sides unwilling or unable to see the other’s point of view.

In fact, radical speakers of the left and right alike often try to polarize their audiences precisely to prevent compromise. The polarizing speaker wants to force everyone to vacate the middle ground and choose one side or the other. Such speakers, ultimately, seek neither social order nor agreement. What they seek is division and disorder. Always. Polarization serves no other goal. Many people think that society needs justice and order alike. Yet, polarization stops us from combining justice and order; instead, we are asked to choose.

And the Aftermath...

On a personal note, I lived in Kent from 1985 to 2005. It's a wonderful community with a remarkable regional university. I did much of my academic research (click William D. Harpine’s Publications above) in Kent State’s enormous library. Even so, many years later, the campus and the community remain bitterly divided. It is, of course, no secret that our nation never fully reconciled after the Vietnam War. So, in 1970, with the demonstrators believing that the war was a monstrous evil, while Ohio’s conservatives felt that social order was far more important than peace, how could anyone expect them to reconcile? How were they to recognize their common humanity? As time goes by and we face comparable questions over and over and over, polarizing rhetoric will never help us answer them.

___________________

Jerry M. Lewis’ Speech about the Kent State Shootings

Steve Bannon's Value Voters Summit Speech: Rhetoric of Polarization

___________________

Research note: to read more about the rhetoric of polarization, the standard source is The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, by John Waite Bowers, Donovan J. Ochs, Richard J. Jensen, and David P. Schulz. 

Image from the Fremont News Messenger, in Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center (via Wikimedia Commons, public domain) 

“Truth Buried by Lies:” The Serious Side of Joe Biden’s “Dark Brandon” Speech

Joe Biden, WH photo

United States President Joe Biden ended his speech at the April 29, 2023 White House Dinner by slipping on a pair of sunglasses and joking about “Dark Brandon.” In between the first part of the speech, which told a series of political jokes, some tasteful and some not, and the concluding sunglasses, the president made a serious point about journalism. His point was a moral one. Dark Brandon did not tell the correspondents to get better at critical thinking. He told them, and the nation at large, to get better at honesty.

As our political world is increasingly dominated by conspiracy theories and wild accusations, too many members of the public begin to wonder what is real and what is not, which sources are trustworthy, and which are not. Too often, people responded exactly the way the liars prefer: we became cynical about everyone—including the people who are telling the truth. In a world spinning with lies and mistrust, we find ourselves unable or, more likely, unwilling, to sort out what is real from what is outrageously false. This is not just a matter of critical thinking: it’s being willing to think. It’s a matter of being willing to accept the truth of things we don’t like. It’s a matter of being prepared to face truth, and to realize the truth is better than error.

So, Biden warned that falsehood was dominating the United States’ political discourse:

“As I said last year at this dinner, a poison is running through our democracy and parts of the extreme press. The truth buried by lies, and lies living on as truth.

“Lies told for profit and power. Lies of conspiracy and malice repeated over and over again, designed to generate a cycle of anger, hate, and even violence. A cycle that emboldens history to be buried, books to be banned, children and families to be attacked by the state, and the rule of law and our rights and freedoms to be stripped away. And where elected representatives of the people are expelled from statehouses for standing for the people. (Applause.)”

Indeed, the recent Fox News-Dominion lawsuit uncovered massive evidence that Fox News hosts knew perfectly well the Democrats did not steal the 2020 election, but reported otherwise because it was profitable to tell lies. The Fox News debacle, however, is only the latest in a long, dishonorable string of anti-communication events. State and local officials throughout conservative areas have embarked on a massive, disgraceful effort to remove books about civil rights from school shelves.

Students of persuasion have known for centuries that credibility is by far the most powerful tool that a speaker can wield. Yet, the underlying theme of cospiracy theories is not to establish credibility, but the opposite: to delegitimize the idea of truth. To destroy the very concept of credibility. We live in a world in which a majority, not a mere fringe, of Republican voters continue to endorse the ridiculous lie that the 2020 election was stolen from them. As absurd accusations and wild conspiracy theories swirl around like killer hornets, people begin to wonder whether anyone can be trusted. More insidiously, they begin to wonder whether maybe the truth is in the middle, that maybe some portion of the conspiracy theories might have some validity. In what is sometimes called "bothsidesism," people move toward a soggy middle ground where truth and lies live in balance. People begin to think that the middle, the moderate view, is to believe some truths and some lies. That only seems fair, I guess. That, really, is the ultimate danger. After all, a constitutional republic depends, above all else, on a functioning flow of information. 

This is a moral issue, not just a political question. It is not just a question of whether we do or do not know how to engage in critical thinking. No, it’s a question of whether we are willing to engage in critical thinking. Are we willing to step up and distinguish between truth and falsehood? Are we prepared to reject ridiculous but comfortable lies? Are we willing to recognize other people’s rights as equal to our own?

So, Dark Brandon called out extreme forces in politics and the media alike who spread falsehoods and suppress knowledge. Ultimately, it all needs to come down to us, the citizens of the United States of America, does it not? Can we welcome truth even if it does not support a particular perspective; can we open our eyes and minds to knowledge that makes us feel uncomfortable? Using the bully pulpit, the rhetorical power of the presidency, Biden put on the dark glasses, but asked us to take off our blinders. He reminded the assembled journalists that there is a difference between truth and falsehood. Of all our rights, the rights that make a constitutional republic possible, by far the most important is the interchange of ideas. If the news media fail us, where else can we go?


Michelle Wolfe versus Donald Trump: Who Was Worse? The 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch Worked Hard to Establish Her Credibility

Why Did Jay Sekulow Propound So Many Conspiracy Theories? Why Are Conspiracy Theories Persuasive? I Have Some Scary Thoughts about Those Questions.

Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

Abraham Lincoln and the Definition of “Liberty:” A Lesson for Our Time

Statue of Lincoln, Lincoln Memorial

In his April 18, 1864 “Address at a Sanitary Fair,” President Abraham Lincoln put his finger on the central difference between conservative and liberal rhetoric. That difference lies how we define “liberty.” Pretty much all Americans believe in liberty, but we don't all mean the same thing. 

The issue in 1864 was whether slave-masters should have the liberty to enslave people and deprive them of their own liberty. That question, as we shall see, resembles controversies that still trouble us today. With his usual lawyerly precision, Lincoln explained the definitional dispute like this:

“The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.” [italics added] 

Yes, during the American Civil War, the Confederates talked endlessly about liberty, complaining bitterly that Lincoln’s policies threatened their liberty. The only liberty they talked about very much, however, was the liberty to enslave other people and commandeer the products of their labor for themselves. Indeed, in his inaugural address as President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis concluded:

“It is joyous in the midst of perilous times to look around upon a people united in heart, where one purpose of high resolve animates and actuates the whole; where the sacrifices to be made are not weighed in the balance against honor and right and liberty and equality.” [italics added]

The Confederate Constitution itself began by promising the “blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” [italics added] Yet, in an act of supreme irony, Article IV of the same constitution preserved the institution of slavery. So, remembering Lincoln, we must ask, “whose liberty?”

Lincoln correctly noted that these definitions of "liberty" utterly conflict with one another. The question is, whose liberty, and at what expense? At what point, Lincoln implied, does my right to have liberty conflict with your right to have liberty?

Lincoln illustrated this dilemma perfectly with one of the clever analogies that sprinkle through his lesser-known speeches. With that analogy, he showed that a liberator invariably interferes with the freedom of the oppressor:

“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty.” [italics added] 

We encounter this issue repeatedly in the 21st century United States of America. Consider the gun rights issue, for example. Taking an uncompromising view of the Second Amendment, many state legislatures have adopted Stand Your Ground laws while authorizing the permitless concealed or open carry of firearms. These laws greatly protect the liberty of gun owners. At the same time, what about the rights of people who gun owners might wrongfully shoot? When people get shot, their own liberty is irretrievably destroyed, is it not?

A recent event illustrates this dilemma perfectly. An Instacart delivery team in conservative Florida was shot at by a homeowner when they accidentally pulled into the wrong driveway. Was the homeowner merely exercising his Second Amendment gun rights? But what about the liberty of the Instacart team to deliver their products without being shot at? Is the liberty of the homeowner to shoot at someone who made an innocent mistake more important than the liberty of law-abiding working people who are trying to scratch out a living? In any case, local law enforcement decided that the homeowner was within his rights and no charges were filed. 

The Second Amendment's Creative Ambiguity

Why Does the Second Amendment's Ambiguous Wording Cause So Much Confusion?

Abraham Lincoln, White Supremacist: The First Lincoln-Douglas Debate

So, delving into the definition of “liberty,” Lincoln pointed out, first, that we must ask: who is entitled to liberty? Second, however, we equally need to ask, what should we do if one person's liberty interferes with another's? When we use one word to describe two different things, we only confuse the issue and claim for ourselves virtues that we may or may not possess. Just as in 1864, the American people are, as Lincoln said, "much in want" of a definition of liberty. In particular, just as in 1864, conservatives love to talk about “liberty” and “freedom,” but they do not mean the same thing by those words that I do.

"Liberty and justice for all!"

_________________

Historical note: Despite its scary name, a “Sanitary Fair” was a fund-raising event to alleviate the suffering of wounded and disabled Union soldiers.

Citizenship note: If you ever have a chance to visit Washington DC, my natal city, a trip to the Lincoln Memorial is an inspiring life event, never to be forgotten. 

Image: National Park Service

Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” Speech: Greater than the Legend?

Patrick Henry

On this date, March 23rd 1775, the future governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Patrick Henry, rose to speak at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia. Supposedly, his fire-breathing speech pounded the ear with violent metaphors:

“Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!”

He ended by shouting, “Give me Liberty, or Give Me Death!”

No one questions whether Henry spoke that day, nor does anyone doubt Henry’s revolutionary fervor. The famous speech, however, is a forgery.

It is a forgery that does great disservice to Patrick Henry’s reputation. In real life, Patrick Henry, a trained lawyer, was known for a calm, reasoned style of speaking that appealed to the mind and conscience rather than to the hormones of rage. When we praise Patrick Henry as the man he never was, do we not do a great disservice to the thoughtful, creative leader that he was in real life?

Worse, how did we reach the point where we do not actually know what he said on such an important occasion?

To answer that question, we need to reflect on changes in technology and culture. Of course, in 1775, no one could make tape recordings or movies, much less iPhone videos. Most speeches were never recorded and thus were quickly forgotten. In some cases, the speaker might have had a prepared manuscript, which might or might not reflect the words that actually came out of the speaker’s mouth, and which might or might not be preserved for posterity. In other cases, a shorthand reporter might take detailed notes about the speech and produce a reasonably accurate transcript. In yet other cases, speakers would write up a text of the speech later—which might, or might not, reflect what was actually said—and publish it as a broadside or pamphlet. There was sometimes good money in that. Unfortunately for history, the group at St. John’s Church was planning rebellion and treason against the British crown, and it would have been the height of foolishness for them to keep excessively detailed records. So, they didn’t.

How do we know about this speech at all? Well, as it happens, in 1817, decades after the speech, Henry’s biographer, William Wirt, tracked down some elderly folks who had attended the speech and picked their brains to obtain their recollections. Wirt himself never met Patrick Henry. Wirt then produced a rather fanciful rendition that bore little resemblance to Henry’s character or ability. Wirt published his version of Henry’s speech in his 1817 book, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry.  On occasions when he could find accurate texts of other speeches, Wirt happily published them. We all know, however, that human memory fades and that we often remember things as we wished they had happened rather than according to what was real.

St. John's Church, ca. 1901

Wirt’s book in no way reflected the work of a professional historian or serious journalist. His book is a panegyric that turns Henry into something of a mythical patriotic figure. Indeed, near the end of his book, Wirt describes his subject as “the celebrated Patrick Henry of Virginia; a man who justly deserves to be ranked among the highest ornaments, and noblest benefactors of his country.” That fawning praise is all well and good, and maybe Patrick Henry even deserved it. Unfortunately, neither Henry’s greatness nor Wirt’s admiration are substitutes for having an accurate text of his speech.

Yes, we can thank Wirt for (many years later) interviewing people who knew Henry personally and compiling details about the man’s life that otherwise might be forgotten.

At the same time, by imagining that Patrick Henry said things like “There is no longer any room for hope,” or “The next gale that sweeps from the north, will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms,” Wirt created the impression that Patrick Henry was a fire-breathing, passionate fear-monger. Wirt created a character, not a historical figure. Nothing is more at odds with what history knows about Patrick Henry’s oratory. We do have accurate texts of several of Patrick Henry’s speeches; all of them are calm, well-reasoned, and thoughtful. Patrick Henry spoke during the Age of Reason. His audience, which included future presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, could not possibly have been impressed by the rantings of a lunatic. Instead, they were concerned with fact and reason. More likely than not, in real life, that is exactly what Patrick Henry gave them. Only the murkiness of the past led anyone to think otherwise.

On a future occasion, I hope to write about one or more of Patrick Henry’s real speeches. In the meantime, it does a great disservice to Henry’s memory to portray him as the overwrought creature of a later, more romantic age. The founders of our republic, who were well-versed in political theory and history, were interested in creating a sound, well-governed republic. When we honor the United States of America’s founders, let us not join Wirt by imposing upon them the values of a less rational era. These people were leaders, not seething demagogues. Today, in the 21st Century, the partisanship against which those men often warned threatens to tear our nation to pieces. This would be a good time to harken back to the values of reasoned, calm, and logical discourse. 

Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?

___________________

P.S. In an important research article, my distinguished colleague Judy Hample argues that “Liberty or Death” has “cultural authenticity” even though it lacks “textual authenticity.” What do you think? Feel free to comment below.

Images: U. S. Senate, via Wikimedia Commons; Library of Congress, via Wikimedia Commons. 

Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address: The Republicans Fooled Only Themselves

Joe Biden at 2023 State of the Union

At last night’s State of the Union Address, delivered to the United States Congress, President Joe Biden proved that bullies never win. The rhetorical issue was heckling. Biden correctly accused some Republicans of seeking to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. Conservative firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene heckled, “liar!” Then, in a brilliant rhetorical move, Biden promptly took Social Security and Medicare cuts completely out of the national discourse. Be careful when you heckle . . . for effective heckling requires great skill, while the speaker always gets the last word.

As a matter of public speaking skill, Biden’s exchange worked because he adapted to his audience and responded to the moment. Helpfully, Biden had those obnoxious things—facts—mostly on his side. The Republicans’ heckling failed, not just because they were rude, but also because they were unprepared to discuss policy. By the time he was finished, Biden not only turned the tables on the Republicans' heckling, but, for the moment, the Republican Party’s clumsy attempt to cut Social Security and Medicare.

 

So, here is what Biden said and how the Republicans heckled him

About halfway through the speech, Biden brought up the debt limit crisis, Social Security, and Medicare: 

“Let us commit here tonight that the full faith and credit of the United States of America will never, ever be questioned. Some of my Republican friends want to take the economy hostage — I get it — unless I agree to their economic plans. All of you at home should know what those plans are. Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I am not saying that is a majority. Anybody who doubts it, contact my office and I will give you a copy of the proposal.” [italics added] 

A large group of Republicans promptly booed. Greene shouted “liar.”

Biden quickly dropped his hammer:

“I am glad you see it. I enjoy conversation. That means if Congress doesn’t keep the programs the way they are, those programs will go away. I don’t think it is a majority of you, I don’t even think it is significant. I am politely not naming them, but it is being proposed by some of you. Folks, the idea is that we are not going to be moved into being threatened to default on the debt if we do not respond.” [italics added]

A bunch of Democrats then cheered.

Seeing no reason to quit while he was winning, Biden then pointed out the (sudden) bipartisan agreement:

“So folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare off the books now, right?” [italics added] 

Bang! Taking advantage of the hecklers, Biden shoved the Republicans’ main talking point right off the table. He then announced that the Republicans had reached a bipartisan, indeed, unanimous agreement:

“All right. We got unanimity. Social Security and Medicare are a lifeline for millions of seniors. Americans have been paying into them with every single paycheck since they started working. So tonight, let’s all agree — and we apparently are — let’s stand up for seniors. Stand up and show them we will not cut Social Security. We will not cut Medicare. Those benefits belong to the American people. They earned them. If anyone tries to cut Social Security — which apparently no one is going to do. If anyone tries to cut Medicare, I will stop them. I will veto it. [italics added]

"I will not let Medicare be taken away, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. But apparently that will not be a problem.”

“But apparently that will not be a problem” sounded suspiciously like gloating. Grasping the moment’s importance, Biden emphasized that both sides had now agreed. The Republicans agreed with Biden by booing and heckling. How remarkable. Note that Biden also summarized why Medicare and Social Security made a big difference for Americans. He reminded Congress that American workers have paid into these programs with “every single paycheck.” He promised that he would stop anyone who tried to cut these programs. Time for a victory lap! The debt limit battle was now over except for some mopping up and handwringing.


What about heckling?

Now, witty, clever, and to-the-point heckling is a time-honored rhetorical tradition. Nevertheless, my graduate school mentor Kurt Ritter insisted that boorish heckling should never be tolerated. Biden brilliantly not only shut the boorish hecklers down, but he actually used their heckling against them to nail down his policy proposals.

"OK, Boomer:" Chlöe Swarbrick Teaches Us How to Put a Heckler Down Flat

The Lost Art of Heckling: How to Heckle and Not Sound Like an Idiot

Hear! Hear! Three Cheers for (Tasteful and Witty) Heckling

A Tale of Two Heckles: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Jabs Kevin McCarthy - And Resets the National Debate

Did Republicans really want to cut Medicare and Social Security?

The fallback position when Greene shouted “liar!” was for Republicans to pretend that they had never wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare. That, on the one hand, is good for policy. Medicare and Social Security cuts have now been swept off the bargaining table. But had they threatened to cut Social Security and Medicare? Of course they had. And when Republicans denied that they wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare, well, they themselves were the liars. Let’s look at that.

Let’s start with basic math.

Math shows that the massive cuts that Republicans seek can only be obtained by cutting “entitlement” programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (See the Treasury Department chart.) We know perfectly well that Republicans will never vote to cut National Defense. Discretionary spending (national parks, border enforcement, the FBI, and so forth) represents only a small part of federal expenditures. That leaves entitlement cuts. Policy-wise, Republicans have painted themselves into a corner: their elderly voting base depends on Social Security and Medicare, not to mention Medicaid (which didn’t come up yesterday). Tax cuts for the rich have been a hallmark of Republican policy for more than 40 years. Fiscal responsibility, by which they mean balancing the budget like a family checkbook, has been a hallmark of Republican rhetoric since forever. Alas, those goals don’t add up, setting the stage for Biden’s anti-heckling.

Do Republicans seek Social Security and Medicare cuts?

Oh, yes, despite Greene’s heckle, a powerful Republican core has long sought to rip up Social Security and Medicare. In 2010, for example, conservative Senator Mike Lee said this on video:

“I’m here right now to tell you one thing you probably have never heard from a politician: it will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it up from the roots and get rid of it.”

Liars, be warned: in the 21st Century, there’s always a video!

The Talking Points Disease: The Sad Case of Mike Lee's Have More Babies Speech

Lee is not alone. Last summer, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham warned that the United States needs to make cuts (“reforms”) in “Medicare and Social Security and other entitlement programs.” He absurdly said that “entitlement reform is a must for us not to become Greece.” Graham correctly noted that discretionary funding can’t be cut enough to balance the budget.

Senator Graham and the Word Mystery of Entitlement Reform

Indeed, just last week, former Vice President Mike Pence brought up a DOA proposal to replace Social Security with private investments for future retirees. Ludicrously, Pence called this a “modest reform.”

Why did the Republicans collapse?

So, yes, many Republicans want to chop up Social Security and Medicare. One presumes that this is because their anti-government doctrine requires them to oppose entitlements. All the same, their voting  base is elderly, stuffing the Republicans into a self-created quandary. Reacting, they neither took a coherent position nor did they defend their ideas. Instead, they heckled. Now, effective heckling needs to be witty and intelligent. The Republican’s heckling was neither. I very much fear that the Republican Party has become so enamored of its own dogmatic talking points that they are no longer either willing or able to conduct even the simplest policy analysis. Lindsey Graham’s careless interview expressed a tiny bit of truth. If, indeed, the United States wants to balance the federal budget entirely by making cuts, Medicare and Social Security need to be on the table.

That begs two important questions. First, is balancing the federal budget an important policy goal? Although politicians act as if it is, knowledgeable economists, liberal and conservative alike, do not see this as a simple issue. Second, why is taxing billionaires such a terrible idea? There are no easy answers in economics. We fall into the abyss if we pretend otherwise.

Do Republicans still want to cut Social Security and Medicare?

What a silly question. Will they give up just because Biden bludgeoned them at the State of the Union? Of course they aren’t giving up. Biden humiliated them and temporarily shut them down and will now win the debt limit fight, but that doesn’t mean that Republicans have finished.

Remarkably, even after the Republican debacle at the State of the Union speech, Jim Geraghty, writing for the National Review Online, which is the closest that we have to a responsible conservative publication, responded that Democrats and Republicans alike were in “collective denial” about the need to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. Geraghty cited official figures that Medicare and Social Security would eventually be unable to pay full benefits.

Just as promptly, in the same publication, Philip Klein explained that what he called fiscal responsibility required cutting Social Security and Medicare. Klein complained about the “grotesque bipartisan moment.” Horrified, not by the boorish heckling, but by the way Republicans caved, Klein said: 

“There were plenty of things to dislike in President Biden’s State of the Union speech, but the most grotesque moment actually was one of the most bipartisan: when both Republicans and Democrats stood with Biden to applaud the idea of not touching Social Security and Medicare, which both desperately need to be pared if there is any hope of the United States escaping a fiscal crisis.” [italics added] 

Before I get back to public speaking issues, let’s remember two obvious math points:

First, one way to make sure that Social Security and Medicare will be funded in the future is to cut benefits. That obviously continues to be the conservative agenda.

Second, increased revenue accomplishes the same goal. Could we tax the billionaires, for example, as Biden advocated in his speech?


Conclusion

So, the Republicans’ heckling failed, not only because they were rude, not just because they were not witty, but also because they failed to inform themselves. Not only were they uninformed about basic economics, but, worse, they also did not even know their own public policy positions.

In contrast, Biden’s anti-heckling offered basic facts. He cited the Republicans’ own bargaining position. Once the Republicans heckled themselves into a corner, Biden tightened the issue down with force. He said, not once, not twice, but over and over, that he was glad the two sides had reached unanimity. He literally tricked the Republicans into bipartisanship! In the face of the Republicans' heckling, Biden remained upbeat, positive, and complimentary of his opponents. 

The United States still faces a debt limit squabble, but the Republicans’ negotiators now face a big problem, a deep, self-inflicted wound that incapacitates their position. They hurt themselves because they did not know how to heckle (or, in this case, when not to heckle). If they had just zipped up their mouths, they could have continued with their policy goals. Biden in contrast, demonstrated extraordinary anti-heckling technique.

“I enjoy conversation,” Biden said. All communication entails interaction. Politicians forget this basic rule at their peril. 

________________

P.S.: Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy had warned his caucus to behave themselves during Biden's speech. It didn’t help.

Images: White House webpage, US Department of the Treasury