Frank Zappa Delivered Shock Rock to a Senate Committee

Nazi Book Burning

Shock rocker Frank Zappa, who often appeared in concert without the benefit of a shirt, spoke to a Senate Committee wearing a traditional blue business suit, short hair, and a neatly trimmed mustache. In a dignified voice, he railed against music censorship:

“The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years, dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal’s design.”

Now, often to their detriment, liberals often prefer to state their outrage with big words, weaselly expressions, and pompous philosophical insights. That just wastes time. Zappa’s blunt, plain, and sometimes-insulting language was more likely to make the enemies of liberty squirm.

This September 19, 1985 testimony to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee’s hearing on Rock Lyrics and Record Labeling delivered some shock rock to a committee that needed to hear it. Zappa’s forceful, harsh, and condescending language exposed the PMRC’s (Parents Music Resource Center) plainly unconstitutional anti-liberty stance. His harsh language was exactly what the enemies of freedom needed to hear. This was no time to say that “both sides have a point,” nor did Zappa see a need to ramble around his point. He saw this as a time for controlled outrage.

The PMRC was a now-defunct group of prominent political wives who wanted to censor sexual and occult music. They sought to protect children. The combination of Susan Baker, wife of Republican Treasury Secretary James Baker, and Tipper Gore, future Democratic Vice-President Al Gore’s wife, made the PMRC’s attack truly bipartisan. Indeed, as Zappa noted, the proposal was a manifest assault against the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights:

“Taken as a whole, the complete list of PMRC demands reads like an instruction manual for some sinister kind of 'toilet training program' to house-break all composers and performers because of the lyrics of a few.

“Ladies, how dare you.”

A threat to the Constitution deserves rebuke. Zappa avoided the typical liberal techno-language. For example, he did not say, “The PMRC threatens our precious liberties.” Who would care? No, he gave the attack on our Constitution the contempt it deserves: “sinister kind of ‘toilet training program,’” “house-break,” and the condescending “Ladies, how dare you.”

Although I mostly oppose ad hominem arguments, Zappa’s attack on the PMRC itself made an important point. Zappa’s point was that the PMRC was not a real organization, but rather a small group of powerful busybodies who wanted to dictate artistic expression to the entire country. Zappa recognized that this was no time to respect his opponents. No, it was a time to mock:

“I can't say she’s a member because the PMRC has no members. Their secretary told me on the phone last Friday that the PMRC has no members, only founders. I asked her if it was a cult. Finally, she said she couldn’t give me an answer and that she had to call their lawyer.”

Was this tiny group of important dignitaries a “cult”? Zappa’s hyperbole, dripping with sarcasm and hyperbole, gave the Senate committee a chance to notice the group’s tiny size and excessive influence. Turnabout is linguistic fair play! A name like “Parents Music Resource Center” sounds like a major, ever-so-proper charitable organization. By snapping out the word “cult,” Zappa reduced them to a tiny clique of busybodies – which is what they were.

Like many communication professors, I am close to a free speech absolutist, and I agree with Zappa’s point. Yes, Zappa’s lyrics often repulsed me (I never cared for his music), but he could express social commentary like no rock and roller before or since. He brought compassion for the poor into the ears of middle-class teenagers. A healthy republic can afford to let people listen to his message:

“They won't go
For no more
Great mid-western hardware store
Philosophy that turns away
From those who aren't afraid to say
What's on their minds
(The left-behinds of the Great Society)”

Was that politically correct? No. Did America want its children to hear Zappa’s message? Probably not. Did Zappa have a right to say it? Yes, I think he did. Should censors stop him just because he was obnoxious? No. If you don’t like his music, don’t buy his records. I never did. Problem solved.

When we drive toward censorship, we steer over a dangerous precipice. Who is to say what is right, and what is wrong, for people to hear? Do we gain anything if we protect our children from provocative ideas? Do busybodies really think that teenagers will never think about sex until they hear a song about it? Should we hide racial conflict from our children? Do uncomfortable topics make people feel uncomfortable? Well, the world is not a comfortable place.

Harrison Ford's Climate Speech Used Language and Voice Skillfully

Zappa would have none of it. He defended the United States Constitution with vivid, forceful, and uncompromising language. He laid bare the censors’ hypocrisy and self-importance. Articulate and uncompromising, he refused to talk about censorship on Tipper Gore’s own ground. That is, he did not frame the talk as an opportunity to protect or defend children. Instead, he stated the issue in libertarian terms, using language that no one could misunderstand.

Furthermore, we still need to defend the United States against censorship, and we still need to give freedom a firm, precise, and affirmative defense. Sadly, censorship once again rears its ugly, un-American head in 2025. School libraries are banning books by Toni Morrison and Anne Frank. Any book, no matter how tasteful, featuring an LGBT character is instantly branded as pornography. The Trump administration is using the full force of the federal government to stop schools from teaching about racial history and theory. The National Parks may need to strip mention of slavery from the Liberty Bell museum, as if not mentioning slavery could solve our problems. Today’s self-appointed guardians of religion and good taste are eager to block the teaching of the basic science of evolution, and even to deny fundamental astronomy and geology. Like Tipper Gore and Susan Baker, today’s busybodies know how to sound dignified and righteous. Yet, busybodies always have evil effects, and, when we confront them, we need to speak more like Frank Zappa. At least once in a while. 

by William D, Harpine

Follow-up from the same hearing: John Denver Made the Anti-Censorship Case to a Senate Committee

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Brazilian President Lula Asked, Do We Have the Courage to Succeed?

President Lula, 2008

“Imagine if we started to discuss this with our universities, with our data centers, the issue of artificial intelligence in a Latin American language, you know. … The only reason we may not do it is if we lack the courage to do it.” [italics added]

Do we have the courage to succeed? Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva asked his audience in his speech at the Brazil-Chile Business Forum in Brasilia, on April 22, 2025. Lula gave Brazil and Chile a vision of progress, reform, education, and economic growth. Education, however, is the key that, as Lula explained, could unlock South American prosperity. Lula sought middle ground by seeking common values. Investing in education when the world says to cut budgets? Yes, that requires courage. To persuade his audience, Lula joined progressive policies with conservative goals.

While Brazilian President Lula wants to improve science education, business leaders across the western world, including Brazil and the United States, are turning away from science, scientific research, and factual knowledge. 

That is why Lula reached out to a business community that traditionally resents progressive programs. To find a middle ground, Lula sought common values. He sought to convince the Business Forum that Brazil and Chile needed to invest in education. His speech combined progressive policies with conservative goals. Let’s take a look:

“We must have heavy investments in education; we must have heavy investments for training new scientists in this country, of new researchers; we must have heavy investments to prepare thousands and thousands of new engineers in this country. And we must prepare highly-qualified labor force so that we can be competitive. And at the same time, that we can become a consumer market.”

Furthermore, Lula neither backed down or compromised. He asked for “heavy investments.” Why back down? Lulas implied. That is why he asked Brazil and Chile for the courage to take risks and move forward. He called for “thousands and thousands of new engineers.” He wanted to be competitive. He wanted a “consumer market.”

With that last comment, Lula identified the point that conservatives worldwide love to skip: business requires customers. Lula’s liberal supporters want better consumer markets. His conservative enemies seek their own wealth. But a humming economy provides both! Yet, the two groups stand opposed. to overcome that division, Lula sought common ground with the business community.

Did he convince them? Probably not yet. Will Brazil’s sharply divided economy – an economy in which the very rich thrive and the very poor despair, while the middle class grows slowly, be able to respond to a message of hope? Can Brazil and Chile accept Lula’s reasonable but complex and risky ideas?

All the same, South America’s political conflict mirrors our own in the United States. In the United States, our once-great middle class deteriorates while too many people split into a false populism. Will we move into the future? Or dwell in a smoldering past? Time will tell.

Lula himself grew up poor and has little formal education. Yet he sees hope, not in revolution or counter-revolution, but in higher education. Brazil’s economy remains fragile and fragile economies often cause political turmoil. In this speech, Lula asked much of Brazil’s people and its leaders. He asked for courage.

Sadly, however, in the modern world, moral courage runs low. 

by William D. Harpine  

___________

Note: I quote the official Brazilian government translation by Mary Caetana Aune.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of President Lula, cropped from an official photo by Agência Brasil, 2008,

via Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons license

Ronald Reagan Spoke about Freedom, Friendship, and Hope at Moscow State University

Reagan in Moscow

Let us remember a bygone era. Let us remember when the United States of America shone its beacon of freedom, justice, and openness across the world. Let us remember a Republican president who spoke, not of cruel vengeance, but of freedom; not of the past, but of the future; not of violence, but of peace. Let us remember a nation whose conservative and liberal citizens alike once praised those values. Let us remember a time, not so long ago, when conservatives proudly spoke of justice and harmony.

On May 31, 1988, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate rhetorical president, discussed these ideas while speaking at Moscow State University. Reagan spoke of what is eternal. He stated our values; he reminded us of our values, and he guided us to share our values. And values are a speaker's greatest gift.

Reaching out in friendship to the United States of America's long-time Cold War adversary, Reagan encouraged peace and mutual respect. He spoke not for himself, but for his nation: he reported that the entire American people gave him his theme. He spoke for us all. That is why, as he began the speech, Reagan said:

"Before I left Washington, I received many heartfelt letters and telegrams asking me to carry here a simple message, perhaps, but also some of the most important business of this summit."

Reagan's message, a message from his entire people, was that the two nations should become friends. Reagan gave a message of friendship and harmony:

"It is a message of peace and good will and hope for a growing friendship and closeness between our two peoples."

As he continued, Reagan discussed freedom, the free market economy, and the growth of democracy. Indeed, democracy supported all the values that Reagan talked about. Reagan spoke the word "democracy" with pride, not suspicion:

"The growth of democracy has become one of the most powerful political movements of our age."

With even more force, he continued:

"Democracy is the standard by which governments are measured."

Most dramatically, as he concluded his speech, Reagan expressed hope: even though he admitted that we can never know the future. Yes, the human condition prevents us from knowing how our deeds will work out. In no way, however, should we let fear of the future interrupt our hope, our values, or our dreams. Reagan brilliantly explained:

"We do not know what the conclusion will be of this journey, but we're hopeful that the promise of reform will be fulfilled. In this Moscow spring, this May 1988, we may be allowed that hope: that freedom, like the fresh green sapling planted over Tolstoy's grave, will blossom forth at last in the rich fertile soil of your people and culture. We may be allowed to hope that the marvelous sound of a new openness will keep rising through, ringing through, leading to a new world of reconciliation, friendship, and peace."

Sadly, however, the cruel march of history and human frailty crushed Reagan's hopes. It blooming spring of freedom now ended, Russia today is ruled by a cruel, greedy, and violent dictator. In 2024, the American people reelected a self-centered man who had already given us one failed presidency and is now giving us a worse one: an America in which masked agents jump out of unmarked cars and grab people off the street with no legal process. We now have an America in which the government's propaganda prescriptions attack the academic freedom under which my own university career flourished. We live in an America where our leaders consider court orders to be merely advisory. We live under a government that attacks freedom of the press. Freedom for all is rapidly becoming freedom for the privileged few.

Ronald Reagan Spoke on the Fourth of July: Celebrating Freedom, Shared Values, and Diversity

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

In these dark times, we must especially harken back to the Republican Party's glory days. We must remember the day when conservatives did not merely cite the nation's Founders, but, more importantly, pledged to follow their values. As Reagan said in this speech, let us praise the times when "the first breath of freedom stirs the air." The greatest speeches promulgate the greatest values.

On a personal note, I did not vote for Ronald Reagan, and I think that his well-intentioned economic policies, which arose from the now-discredited theory of supply-side economics, have long stifled our nation's growth and prosperity. I nevertheless remind my many Republican friends that they should honor Reagan for his values, his humanity, and his patriotism. His tax cuts were temporary economic expediencies. In contrast, as conservative theorist Richard Weaver would remind us, values are ultimate and eternal. What the world needs is, to repeat Reagan's brilliant phrase, "reconciliation, friendship, and peace." If we lose those values, the tax cuts mean nothing. Nothing!

by William D, Harpine

_________________

Research Note: Anyone interested in the rhetoric of values should study the magnificent books by conservative scholar Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences and The Ethics of Rhetoric.

Special thanks and fond memories given to my late classmate (and editor) Martin J. Medhurst. He and Stephen Lucas prepared the invaluable website AmericanRhetoric.com. 

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons 

Donald Trump's Iranian Bombing Speech: Whom Should We Believe?

“There has never been a military,” boasted United States President Donald Trump, “that could do what took place just a little while ago.” Trump made this statement on June 21 after a group of United States Air Force aircraft and United States Navy vessels bombed Iran to destroy its nuclear enrichment program. Trump defended his action in a televised speech. He promised to attack Iran again if that nation failed to comply with his demands. Force majeure.

Few major speeches have relied as much on the speaker’s credibility as this one. Trump presented almost no evidence to prove that Iran either had or was developing nuclear weapons. If we trust Trump, we might believe him. Do we trust Trump, or the experts? Do we trust Trump to have gathered accurate information? Do we think that competent people surround him?

To be specific, Trump’s key statements offered no evidence whatsoever to support his claims:

“A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive, precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime. Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan. Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise.

“Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”

In this case, any evidence about Iran’s nuclear program is mired in the mysteries of international espionage. This situation differs from, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor speech, when Japan had openly attacked an American naval base. Trump’s speech also diverges from the argument that, “we should trust the president because he has all of the intelligence information.” This was not a unanimous decision. Individuals with knowledge of the situation spoke against the attack. No, the audience response to this speech depends entirely on whether they consider the speaker to be personally credible.

What was missing from Trump’s brief speech? Evidence! He cited no intelligence reports. He quoted no nuclear warfare experts. He gave no facts and figures. Saying “Everybody heard those names” does not count as proof. Since the speech included no facts or evidence to prove that Iran was about to produce nuclear weapons, Trump implicitly asked the nation – and the world – to accept his views purely on trust.

But what about the experts that Trump did not cite? What did they think? In contrast to Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, the president’s chief national security officer, had earlier stated that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons. The joint assessments of the nation’s national security apparatus presumably led her to that conclusion.

Disbelieving Gabbard’s views, Trump told reporters that, “I don’t care what she said.” More to the point, Gabbard was excluded from the final meetings where Trump and his other top advisers agreed to launch the attack. Perhaps bowing to pressure, Gabbard later backtracked. Quite odd. 

As a former college debater, I spent most of my academic career teaching classes in debate and public speaking. I was trained to debate with evidence and reasoning. Yet, Trump’s speech notably contained no evidence. Not bad evidence - no evidence. Can such a speech persuade people? Of course it can! Public speaking teachers from the ancient Greeks and up to the present have noted that the speaker’s credibility is the greatest persuasive factor. An important research article by my late professor and mentor Kenneth Andersen and his colleague, Theodore Clevenger, Jr., showed that credibility is a function of how the audience perceives the speaker’s expertise, goodwill, and dynamism.

With that in mind, despite my mistrust of Gabbard’s personal motives, I, for one, am somewhat more inclined to trust the intelligence establishment than political leaders. It would be valuable to hear directly from, for example, the CIA’s professional Iran specialists.

Let’s look at some examples. From the Vietnam escalation (the Gulf of Tonkin clash), to the Iraq war (did Iraq actually have chemical weapons? None were found), and on to the present, the United States' leaders have too often let political expediency overcome facts. Trump’s terrible record among fact checkers reinforces my mistrust. (As of this morning, PolitFact has rated hundreds of Trump’s statements, with a summary of 3% True, 7% Untrue, 11% Half True, 19% Mostly False, 39% False, and a stunning 18% Pants on Fire.) Thus, more than half of the statements that PolitiFact checked were untrue. That is bad even for a politician.) Of course, conservatives who think that fact checkers are left-wing Marxist stooges will care little about a fact-checkers' statistics. 

So, let us continue with Andersen and Clevenger’s theory. PolitFact leads me to doubt Trump’s expertise and good will. His enthusiastic speaking style, however, surely helps his uncritical target audience find him credible. Although Trump presented no evidence, perhaps his skillful identification with conservative voters leads them to trust him. Average Americans (like me) have no direct access to the nation’s intelligence findings; therefore, we find ourselves wallowing in a game of trust or mistrust. Truth or Dare. No, I do not trust the Iranian government. But can we trust the American president?

We Americans, and the world at large, find ourselves evaluating this momentous occasion according to our personal, subjective evaluations of President Trump’s credibility: our own judgment of his expertise, goodwill, and dynamism. Trump left us unaided by any of the evidence that he, unfortunately, failed to cite.

Maybe Trump figured that he did not need to prove his points. Plenty of Americans trust him implicitly Furthermore, basic wartime psychology will lead many Americans to support the decision to bomb Iran. Still, I wish that Trump had stated his proof. Perhaps he had no proof to state. Maybe the bombing raid and subsequent speech were merely a political ploy to distract the public from recent controversies about immigration or Trump’s infamous military parade. Maybe Trump has prevented World War III. Maybe he has triggered World War III. Who knows? The inexorable march of history will eventually judge who was right.

by William D. Harpine   

__________

Research Note: I didn’t only teach public speaking. Priding myself on being a communication generalist, I also spent several years teaching college classes about group discussion and group decision-making. The most basic principles of effective group decision-making are to solicit opinions from all viewpoints, to welcome dissent, and to give special attention to people with whom we disagree. If we suppress dissent, we often suppress truths. One-sided discussions are bad discussions. That is well proven. Now, pundits often ream social scientists for offering uncertain, inconsistent, or poorly proven conclusions. In contrast, the evidence about how to conduct effective group decision-making has been thoroughly established. In Trump's case, certainly, members of the professional intelligence community needed to be involved.

Readers who want to learn more about the decision-making processes that lead to the often-unwise decisions to start wars might look at these two classic books:

Why Nations Go to War, by John G. Stoessinger

Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, by Irving Janis

Or, for that matter, any college textbook about group discussion or group psychology.

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

Barack Obama's Father's Day Advice

Barack Obama

In his lengthy 2008 Father’s Day speech, President Barack Obama offered much wise advice, some of it pointed, to the nation’s fathers. As a wise speaker, however, Obama remembered to look at the big picture. A wise speaker on a ceremonial occasion always looks beyond the immediate event. So, what struck me the most is the way Obama reminded his audience – his true audience was the entire nation – his message was that our main duty as fathers is to provide a better world for our children:

“And what I’ve realized is that life doesn’t count for much unless you’re willing to do your small part to leave our children — all of our children — a better world. Even if it’s difficult. Even if the work seems great. Even if we don’t get very far in our lifetime.”

Can we think about that on Father’s Day? What things can we do, maybe small things, to make life better for the next generation? Certainly, my mother’s father thought hard about that – as an immigrant who never learned much English, he sweated away in a steel mill so that his children and grandchildren could become engineers, soldiers, lawyers, and college professors. He helped make America great. My own father thought about the future as he volunteered to provide legal services for elderly people who had been cheated out of their Social Security benefits. Let us all try to make the world a little bit better place.

Happy Father’s Day. Congratulations and thanks to dads all over the land. 

by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine  

 

Abraham Lincoln Raised the Flag: A Speech of Principle. A Speech for the Ages

Lincoln at Independence Hall

Liberty and justice for all. Those stirring words conclude the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Today, on Flag Day, June 14, 2025, some Americans celebrated by watching President Donald Trump’s massive military parade in Washington, DC, while others participated in thousands of No King demonstrations that protested Trump’s executive orders and aggressive anti-immigrant policies. Still, Abraham Lincoln, speaking off the cuff, gave the greatest of all speeches about the American Flag. He called the nation to unite on our founding principle: the principle of liberty. He spoke at Independence Hall in Philadelphia as the new flag, with a new star for just-admitted Kansas, made its formal first appearance. 

Let us, then, look into history, not to current events. to understand our conflicts and our hopes. In his speech about the American Flag, Lincoln urged the nation toward unity in the face of impending disaster. Can we learn his wise lesson? Or are we doomed to repeat bitter history? For, while facing an oncoming struggle, Lincoln resorted, not to the nuts and bolts of picayune policy discourse, but instead to the higher principle of liberty. In Lincoln’s speech, a higher principle bound the United States. That principle created the nation, and, Lincoln hoped, that principle would hold the nation together.

Liberty Bell, Independence Hall

Conflict, indeed, is nothing new. When Lincoln, who had just been elected president but not yet inaugurated, helped raise the United States Flag on February 22, 1861, he urged unity in the face of division. 

As the United States faces conflict and hostility today between opposing factions, we stand in a hard tradition. For, less than two months after the speech, the South Carolina militia attacked Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, and the Civil War began. Before the war ended, more Americans would die than in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm added together.

In his speech, Lincoln stood, not on factions, but on historical principle:

“I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”

Indeed, reflecting on the United States’ long endurance as a united republic, Lincoln looked, not to the clutches of circumstance, but to a great moral principle: the principle of liberty:

“I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time.”

Liberty. Lincoln did not speak for the liberty of the fortunate, but for the liberty of all. Lincoln talked about how American liberty promised freedom and justice for everyone, for eternity. Noble words. Have we forgotten them?

“It was that which gave promise,” Lincoln asserted, that, in the passage of time, lift a great “weight,” not just from Americans, but also “from the shoulders of all.”

Lincoln again stressed the great principle of liberty. He emphasized that the Declaration of Independence, United States of America’s founding document, rested on principle, and that principle gave Lincoln hope:

“This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful.”

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”

One Searing Phrase: Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech

Yes, history does show that the consequences turned out to be awful – beyond awful. All the same, Lincoln made that principle – the principle of liberty – his guiding light above all political decisions:

“But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.”

Consider the questions that Lincoln did not ask. Points of economic and political disagreement? How to improve the economy? Lincoln didn’t ask those questions. He asked no questions about political patrons, nor did he say an evil word against his opponents. His simple question was whether we could unite on the great principle of liberty. In fact, his greater question was whether all people throughout time could enjoy liberty. 

Do similar issues face us today? In Lincoln’s time, the southern states considered liberty to be a God-given right of White men, while Black men and women could be held in forced labor and cruel chattel bondage. Today, we are debating about the freedom and liberty of those who wish to immigrate to the land of the free, making their homes here. In 1861, southern leaders felt that freedom for slaves was just as absurd as a plan to make the moon stop rotating around the earth. In 2025, the very concept of freedom for immigrants strikes horror into the hearts of Trump and his supporters. So, have we really changed? Have we changed enough?

Lincoln was not our greatest president because he won a war or because he preserved the union. No, he was our greatest president because he reminded us, with wisdom and eloquence that no other leader could match, that the United States is a nation of principle. Let us never forget. Our guiding principle is neither liberalism nor conservativism, neither tradition or progress. No! That great principle, liberty, created our nation, and only liberty can preserve us.

 Liberty for everyone, liberty for all time. American liberty as a shining example to spread across the earth. A great principle. A great, idealistic, and stunningly ambitious theme. A theme so idealistic that we can hardly grasp it.

Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president. Let us never forget, however, that Abraham Lincoln was, by far, also our most contentious and divisive president. His election prompted a great civil war which, by the time it ended, had cost almost every family in the land a husband, brother, son, or dear one. Only by massive bloodshed was the horrifying injustice of slavery ended. Only after terrible bloodshed could the former slaves enjoy even any hope that they, too, might receive liberty and its blessings.  

In this great speech, Lincoln taught the only lesson we will ever need for Flag Day: Liberty and justice for all. 

by William D. Harpine

__________

Research Note: The great conservative rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver wrote brilliantly about Lincoln’s commitment to principle and enduring truths. In that sense, Weaver insists, Lincoln was a true conservative. Lincoln was a true conservative because, instead of dwelling on immediate circumstances, Lincoln always looked to the higher values. In this speech, Lincoln drew his values from the tradition of the Declaration of Independence. Weaver’s most important book, The Ethics of Rhetoric, should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the powers of speech.

Copyright © by William D. Harpine

Image: Photo by Frederick De Bourg Richards, public domain, Library of Congress, via Wikimedia

Commons

Photo of Liberty Bell by William Harpine, copyright @ by William D. Harpine

Simple Steps to a Healthy Art: A Cardiologist Shows How to Begin and End a Speech

Physician holding a heart

“It doesn’t have to be this way.”

So remarked cardiologist Robert Kelly in his TED Talk at the REDxTralee 2024 conference. While encouraging the audience to strive for a healthier lifestyle, Kelly illustrated how a speaker can involve the audience while driving home the speech’s main point.

Kelly began by engaging the audience to demonstrate their own vulnerability. He concluded his talk by giving the audience a simple action to begin their healthier lives. Problem, followed by solution, followed by the first healthy step.


Kelly's Introduction

Kelly involved his audience right away, giving them a practical experience to help them understand the danger of heart disease.

“Now, only if you are able, could I get you again to stand up, please? Brilliant.

“So, there are now about a hundred people looking at me somewhat worried. But for me, your hearts are pumping and you’re all alive. So, I’m going to ask 30 of you to sit down. Now, I have two assistants who are going to randomly pick out the 30, so don’t all sit down yet.”

That simple act of audience participation made the statistics come alive. We can hear public health officials warn us that “30% of Americans will die of heart disease.” But that is just a number! Kelly gave them the experience – he asked 30 people, chosen at random, to sit down. That kind of introduction makes an audience think. Makes an audience see the statistics as more than mere numbers on a spreadsheet.

Having started with a warning, that one-third of the audience might die of heart disease, Kelly gave them a path toward hope:

“And in fact, the great news is, if you follow the steps, it won’t be this way. And so, at this point, you can all sit down. And I’m going to share with you exactly why.”

Wanting the audience to feel positive, however, Kelly then told them that they did not have to suffer the fate of the 30 unfortunate heart patients, that there was hope, that there was a way out. He discussed stress reduction, healthy eating, relationship-building, and exercise.

Only then did Kelly introduce his solution:

“So, I’m here today as a cardiologist and as a health habits coach. And I want to encourage all of you to enjoy a long and a happy life by doing one small step for your heart health every day, starting right now today.”

“Today” was a nice touch, because right now is always the best time to do things, is it not?   

Then, during the bulk of his speech, Kelly advised his audience not to smoke, to reduce stress, to get some exercise, and to eat a more plant-based diet. The genius of his introduction is that he offered the crowd the chance to consider how lifestyle changes could help them. He gave the audience a chance to think past the platitudes. He brought heart health into their own personal experience.

Dr. Margaret Chan Organized Her Public Health Speech for Success

Joe Biden Organized His Holocaust Remembrance Day Speech to Place Values in Context

Kelly’s Conclusion

Unlike many perfectly capable speakers, Kelly did not end by listing points for the audience to memorize. Instead, he asked them to take one simple thing at a time. So, after describing the principles of heart-healthy living, Kelly asked them to take the first step – not all of the steps, just the first – which was to be grateful for what they already had:

“I want you to think of two things that you are most grateful for today. And it’s really important that you feel that gratitude of what that gratefulness is all about. And then you have to celebrate now. Show your high fives, or your thumbs up, or a big smile. I see lots of smiles. And maybe a few ‘yippees’ in the room. Very quiet room. Woo!”

By leading the audience to take one gentle first step, Kelly helped them work through the feeling that a massive lifestyle change imposes too great a burden. Instead, he asked them to take the first step. (Of course, once we take that first step, well, the second step, and the third, and the rest can fall into place, one by one.) Just one first step: 

“So this is one powerful small step that can dramatically improve your heart health. And that might save your life and the loads of people that you have around the room today.”

Final Thoughts

People pay the most attention at the beginning and end of the speech. We all know that. Kelly had begun his speech by offering the audience a personal experience. He ended by asking them to take one simple step. The audience responded. They even cheered a bit. What else could a speaker want?

In general, people learn according to what grabs their attention and relates to their own experience. They act when the action is simple, easy to understand, and easy to do. It helps if they can act right now! Kelly gave everyone a personal experience and one easy step to begin their future healthy lives. Great job! 

by William D. Harpine

______________

P.S. This speech stirred me, since I just got out of the heart hospital myself! It does all seem overwhelming. Terrifying. My idea that “it can’t happen to me” came crashing down. Years of hearing cardiologists telling me that all my test results were excellent vanished into a mist. Years of eating a sort-of-healthy diet turned out to be too little. But one step a day! Be grateful for my blessings and take one step at a time to live a healthier life. I am, after all, grateful beyond expression for my wife and family. Grateful that modern medicine lets me hope for many more years with them. What, dear readers, are you grateful for? 

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image by asawin (PxHere user), Creative Commons license