In Defense of International Students

 

The Earth Is Not Flat

My previous post praised Harvard University President Alan Garber's speech, which defended bringing international students to Harvard. Admitting international students was, he said, "as it should be." Let me take a moment to explain, from my personal experience, why he was so very right. It is not just that international students gain benefits for themselves. They also bring great benefits to their professors and classmates.

Previous Post: “False Conviction Saps True Potential.” Wise Words from Harvard’s President

As our ignorant, xenophobic president, Donald Trump, vigorously (and maybe illegally) suspends visas for Harvard's international students, he leads American education, and American life, down a dark, angry path.

As the White House announced his proclamation, Trump said:

“We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country. Harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason!”

The legality of Trump's document request is highly suspicious under the 4th Amendment and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Those issues are before the courts. 

No, I never taught at Harvard. I happily spent my entire career teaching at excellent state universities. Yes, those universities recruited and admitted students from all over the world. I taught students from China, India, Europe, Russia, Central Africa, and Central America. From everywhere. I taught students who came to the United States to gain an international education. Some of them eventually became more prominent university professors than me.

Some of my students came to the United States to gain the benefits and prestige of an international education. Some came to escape certain torture and death if they returned to their home countries.

The international students were often among the most talented and industrious students in class. They were often inspiring. (I still fondly remember my foreign student who, distressed at receiving a B+ on one of his assignments, ran up to my desk in a panic: “Dr. Harpine! This has never happened to me before! How can I improve?” Of course he ended the semester with an A. With an attitude like that, how could he not?) My international students often conducted advanced research, sometimes, I am proud to say, under my supervision. Some of my international students eventually returned to their home countries, but many – maybe most – eventually settled in the United States and contributed, in their own way, to Making America Great.

Furthermore, my American-born students gained just as much, maybe more, as their international classmates. My American-born students attended class, participated in group projects, and made friends with students from all over the planet. The dedication that the international students showed was often inspiring. Many of them learned difficult subjects while studying in their second or third language.

It is one thing to learn about other cultures by reading anthropology textbooks. It is quite something else to become people's lifelong friends. It is quite something else to experience the humanity and personal qualities that international students shared with their American classmates. Maybe that is the outcome that Trump and his supporters fear the most. What do you think?

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: NASA, public domain

“False Conviction Saps True Potential.” Wise Words from Harvard’s President

Harvard University's 2025 Commencement

“A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.” Proverbs 15:1KJB

Sometimes the gentlest words tell us the most. At Harvard University’s 2025 commencement, University President Alan Garber pointedly reminded students that they had been educated to avoid rigid thinking and ideological devotion. Indeed, he warned the crowd that we take a terrible risk if we grow too sure of our own wisdom. Not raising his voice, not naming names, and avoiding all hostility, Garber challenged the Trump administration, not on its policies, not even on its rhetoric, but on its underlying philosophy (or lack thereof).

Garber defended Harvard University at the same time, and with the same words, that he used to give wise, gentle advice to the newly-minted scholars. On the one hand, commencement speakers want to honor the graduates and offer advice. Garber did that. Still, on the other hand, the United States government has lashed out at Harvard University for political reasons that strike against the school’s entire purpose. (Indeed, if we reject open inquiry and human community, we have rejected the concept of a university. After all, the word “university” comes from the idea of “universality.”) While Garber reminded everyone of the university's purpose, he also reminded the attendees, and the entire nation, that we all require human dignity, intellectual growth, and wisdom. He never needed to mention Donald Trump, for the context made his meaning obvious. 

So, Garber warned the graduates against complacent thinking:

“The world as it is tempts us with the lure of what one might generously call comfortable thinking, a habit of mind that readily convinces us of the merits of our own assumptions, the veracity of our own arguments, and the soundness of our own opinions, positions, and perspectives—so committed to our beliefs that we seek information that confirms them as we discredit evidence that refutes them.”

Anyone who watches Fox News or surfs through talk radio has heard willfully uninformed people spout absolute nonsense with complete self-confidence. Never mentioning those sources by name, Garber quietly rejected their underlying value:

“False conviction saps true potential.”

What a stunningly insightful axiom! For college graduates are potential in the making.


Trump's Attack on Harvard

Irked almost to the point of blind rage, President Donald Trump had placed severe restrictions on Harvard’s ability to recruit international students. Although a judge quickly ruled against Trump’s action, the shockwaves continued to roil the campus. In a sweeping, and possibly, illegal move, Trump canceled almost 1,000 research grants. Most of these were medical studies awarded by the National Institutes of Health. These included research into a TB vaccine, ALS treatments, and Alzheimer’s Disease. Trump justified the cuts by claiming that Harvard was “woke” (whatever that means) and falsely stating that many Harvard students were taking remedial math courses. (A glance at Harvard’s catalog shows that calculus is their lowest-level math course.) He accused Harvard of being antisemitic. (Garber himself is Jewish.) Harvard is reacting by suing the administration. 

Tom Hanks, Truth, and the American Way at Harvard University


What Is the Most Important Lesson University Students Can Learn?

Trump’s actions appear to arise from resentment rather than policy. Trump even canceled grants for artificial intelligence research, which is supposedly one of his priorities. The self-righteousness, the unwillingness to admit error, make it difficult for the Trump administration to see reason, much less to back down. Thus, Garber reminded the crowd that there are worse things than being wrong. He reminded them that it is only when we learn that we are wrong that we allow ourselves to grow, become better, learn new things, and have a better society. Learning, Garber insisted, requires us to take risks:

“Focused on satisfying a deep desire to be right, we can willingly lose that which is so often gained from being wrong—humility, empathy, generosity, insight—squandering opportunities to expand our thinking and to change our minds in the process.”

As Garber reminded the graduates, we too often require society to assure us that we are right.  We seek comfort and support, not wisdom, when we ask people to confirm everything we think.  That is a terrible mistake, for no one is always right. Instead, we must, Garber said, always be ready to revise our beliefs and move forward:

“My hope for you, members of the Class of 2025, is that you stay comfortable being uncomfortable.”

Garber did not urge the graduates to be self-confident. Instead, he urged them to live in intellectual discomfort, knowing that this is the path to personal growth.

Garber did not need to mention Trump. No one in the audience could possibly have missed his point. 


Should Harvard Welcome International Students?

Garber defended Harvard’s commendable practice of enrolling students from around the world. Yet, he made his point by implication. He never mentioned Trump. He did not complain about the government’s injustices. He did not refute Trump point by point. Argument and refutation would not suit the occasion.  Instead, Garber gently countered Trump's underlying values. That, in the long run, made a far more powerful argument. 

Tim Cook's Commencement Speech at Duke University - "Be the Last to Accept It"

Harvard has long enrolled foreign students, but it was no coincidence that Garber had specifically mentioned them at his speech’s outset. Not about to let a good point die out, Garber continued:

“Members of the Class of 2025 from down the street, across the country, and around the world.

“Around the world, just as it should be.”

Just as it should be! Instead of knuckling under to the Trump administration’s foolish idea that “America First” means “America Only,” Garber proudly stood by his worldwide values: “just as it should be.”

That is how Garber established his thesis, which was that true intellectuals never allow rigid, inflexible ideas to take over their lives. He stood up for America: not the America of Jim Crow, isolationism, or injustice, but the America that welcomes the free interchange of ideas, cultures, and people. Garber showed how to counter the false philosophy of fear and exclusion. Garber delivered a calm, gentle, and insightful speech for the ages. I hope that the graduates, who deserve our congratulations, remember his words forever. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Used by permission, courtesy of Harvard University

Down with Slogans! The Sad Case of Ron Johnson

Senator Ron Johnson

Speaking at the Wisconsin Republican Convention on May 17, 2025, Republican Senator Ron Johnson recently parroted a slogan:

“We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.”

We’ve all heard that one. 

Politicians love their slogans. “Make America Great Again.” “Stop the Steal.” “Make Love, Not War.” “Support Your Local Police.” Catchy? Surely. Do slogans make us think? No. Of course not. What a silly idea.

Slogans grab our attention. Slogans might state nationalism, prosperity, pride, anger, kindness, or hatred. But slogans rust our thinking. For example, “Stop the Steal” begs the question: was anything really stolen? If we say, “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem,” does that excuse us from studying the numbers? Certainly not.

What about “Black Lives Matter;” “White Lives Matter;” “All Lives Matter?” Catchy slogans, fine, but are they sincere? Or do some people just say “All Lives Matter” to hint that “Black Lives Don’t Matter?” (Yes, they are all good slogans, but they do no good unless they inspire us to treat one another better. Right?)

The problem: slogans are not policies. They are just slogans. If we want good policies, well, we need to work. We need to get facts and and think a bit. Slogans don’t do that. Slogans give us an excuse not to think. Slogans excite us, and I enjoy slogans the same as everyone, but we get stuck in slogans the same way we get stuck on muddy roads.

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap

Back to Senator Johnson, whose slogan could, but does not, raise legitimate questions: how much money do we need to spend? How much money do we need to raise? Who should bear the most burden: the poor, or the rich? Those are policy questions, and the slogan does not answer them.

Johnson wants Congress to cut government spending. There is, however, no such thing as “government spending.” Not really. The government spends money on many different programs: national defense, law enforcement, national parks, border enforcement, various types of medical insurance, food support, agricultural subsidies, Social Security, and administrative expenses. And much more.

So, which programs does Johnson want to cut to solve the “spending problem?” Slogans don’t answer that tough question. No Republican wants to cut national defense. Although they talk about it, no Republican is foolish enough to cut Social Security. Social Security helps elderly voters, the Republican party’s main voter base. At the moment, Johnson’s party is trying to cut Medicaid spending. They are, however, not cutting Medicaid enough to balance the budget, just enough to create hardship. In general, making cuts is hard and painful. If you cut National Parks, you anger people (like me) who love parks. If you cut Medicaid, are you ready to face the fallout as rural hospitals close? If you cut defense, will the nation still be safe? Anyone can spout smug slogans, but slogans aren’t policies. Slogans are easy; policies are hard.

Yet, Johnson’s slogan is nothing new, while policy ideas repeatedly vanish into the mist. Indeed, back in 2010, Senate leader Mitch McConnell announced that, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.” A year later, John Boehner said that, “Washington does not have a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem.” Chiming in, Orrin Hatch avowed that, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We all know we have a spending problem.” Sound familiar?

Sadly, politicians mouth their much-loved slogan, over and over, in a thought-free rhetorical style that would horrify any public speaking teacher. If your slogan is your thesis, a teacher would ask, where is your argument?

Thus, we still ask, how does Johnson want to manage fiscal policies? His slogan fails to enlighten us. Worse, once our empty slogans fill us with pious but unthinking indignation, how can we then talk through our nation’s needs? For slogans are the ultimate conversation-stoppers.

Instead of parroting slogans, we need to work on our problems. Sit down. Figure things out. Never imagine that great policies will fall out of the sky. The world dumps massive problems on us every day. Mindless comments never solve them. Not ever. Fiscal slogans are the harbingers of fiscal disaster.By parroting a slogan instead of analyzing and discussing problems, Johnson displayed rhetoric at its worst.

America: Think, or Die! 

Earlier Post: I Don't Like Political Slogans Because They Tell Me Nothing

_____________

P.S. In context, Johnson literally recognized that he was spouting a slogan, yet it never seemed to occur to him to couple his slogan with an actual policy: 

“Every other Republican leader saying some version of we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. I would hope you all agree with that.”

I hate to think of our leadership as a cult where our leaders make do with a slogan - the same slogan, the same unargued dogma, the same vacuous absence of ideas, year after year, decade after decade - with the idea that “I would hope you all agree with that.” Surely the world's greatest republic can do better. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official Congressional Portrait, via Wikimedia

“Liberation Day in America”: Trump's Tariff Speech

 

“So, this is the beginning of Liberation Day in America.” 

So said President Donald Trump when he announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles in an Oval Office address on March 27, 2025. “Liberation” is what rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver calls a “god term.” To Weaver, a “god term” is not a religious concept, but rather a metaphor that conveys cultural values that are too intense to question. The word “liberation” carries such power, and is so deeply seated in the United States’ cultural ideology, that few people would doubt it. Other “god terms” from various historical eras might include “progress,” “justice,” or “freedom.”

Viewed as nuts-and-bolts economics, Trump’s policies are dubious at best. Nevertheless, his conversation-stopping sales slogan – “Liberation Day in America” – turned his policy into a matter of pride, hope, and freedom. “Liberation Day” doesn’t make us think about economic charts or government statistics. Instead, it makes us think about ending slavery, emptying concentration camps, and gaining independence. “Liberation Day in America” elevates the discourse to patriotism’s greatest heights. That is the value-laden power of god terms.

That is, Trump pushed ideals, not theory. Trump’s pro-tariff argument assumes, quite falsely, that tariffs place a charge on exporters who exploit the United States. He explained this false premise by saying:

“We’re going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth, taking a lot of things that they've been taking over the years. They've taken so much out of our country, friend and foe. And frankly, friend has been oftentimes much worse than foe.”

He offered no proof that other countries have harmed us. Just because he says someone has harmed us does not make it so. Instead, “charge countries” falsely but persuasively switches the economic burden to the nations that Trump thinks are harming us. 

Trump’s argument overlooks a simple point, which is that importers, not exporters, pay tariffs - any tariffs! Importers pay tariffs as products arrive in American ports and then pass the cost to their customers. Tariffs are collected when imports are received, not when they are sent. This lays the expense directly on the United States, not the exporters. As the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research points out, “Studies show that tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration were almost entirely borne by U.S. consumers.” [italics added]

In Trump’s speech, however, liberation is the point. Studies are not the point. Having said that imports threatened the United States, Trump concluded that we must liberate ourselves from foreign competition. Trump promised that competitors would build factories in the United States and thus stimulate the United States’ economy. As history shows, that isn’t how it works.

Trump's Tariffs versus Henry Clay's "American System"

By using a god term, however, Trump shoved detailed economic questions aside. We’re talking about “Liberation Day in America.” We are not talking about statistics. No, we are talking about values: freedom and independence. Liberation. Liberty. The Statue of Liberty. A 25-cent coin carries the word “Liberty.” In Trump’s speech, we are liberating ourselves from foreign competition. “Liberation Day” creates a powerful image that makes America sound great. It is the kind of phrase that can inspire listeners to pride.

For, after all, Trump’s motto is “Make America Great Again.” Greatness is a value, and god terms like “Liberation” are about values. “Liberation Day” does not inform people about economic charts or statistics. How boring that would be! “Liberation” is a god term. We do not want other nations to exploit us, and Trump promised a great day of liberation. “Liberation Day” does not inform us, for Trump’s purpose was not to inform, but to make us feel free. 

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

Franklin Roosevelt's Speech against Tariffs

That image, the idea that Trump will free the United States of America, offers relief and salvation. Our culture values liberty above all else. That’s why the word “Liberty” adorns our coins, our statues, and our textbooks. A supposed hero who will, he promises, liberate us from our friends and enemies alike used a god term to remind us of our values and lead us to economic redemption. Are Trump’s tariff policies stunningly unwise? Sadly, yes, but that is not really his point. Is his rhetoric spectacularly compelling? Obviously yes. Underestimate value-driven speeches at your peril. “Liberation Day” might sound grandiose; it might defy logic, but its essence is powerful indeed.  

by William D. Harpine

________________

Research Note: Conservative rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver talks about god terms in his insightful book, The Ethics of Rhetoric. Kenneth Burke’s ground-breaking book A Grammar of Motives offers a somewhat different explanation of “god-terms.”  

Copyright 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image from White House YouTube Channel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What about Social Security?

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

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

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

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

But Trump told other lies. 


A Mandate? I Think Not

Asserting his power, Trump claimed that:

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

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


Ended a Non-Existent Mandate? I Think Not

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

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

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


An Autism Epidemic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Lies and More Lies?

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

Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Art of Squirming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Conclusion

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

by William D. Harpine  

____________

Research Note: 

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

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

Image: Official White House photo

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

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