Steve Bannon's Values Voters Speech: Did He Talk about Values?

Steve Bannon

Former Donald Trump advisor Steve Bannon spoke yesterday at the Values Voters Summit. Values were not Bannon's issue; victory was the issue. That is, in a speech at a values summit, Bannon mostly talked about strategy, not about values. I found this to be a bit disappointing.

Bannon's speech used a consistent tactic of the religious right: mix religious or moral issues with standard conservative issues that lack religious content. That creates an impression that conservative policies arise from a religious basis. In Bannon’s speech, the religious values almost disappeared among the conservative political and economic issues. Globalization versus nationalism? Electing nationalist leaders? Free market economy? Opposing social changes? Election strategies? The Bible, and Christian doctrine, tend to be quite silent on those issues. Yet, simply by speaking at the Values Voters Summit, Bannon gave the impression that these views, which are secular and controversial, needed to be accepted, not because they are right, but because they are associated with various values. What were those values? Who knows? Bannon never said. 

What surprised me is that Bannon said little about values, and instead talked about fighting for political issues that bore no obvious relevance to values. In Bannon's speech, values voters became victims of an establishment that didn’t care about them. He assumed that he and his audience shared values, although no one said what those values were, and he instead pictured a massive battle, a fight that he accused the other side of starting. He connected values voters with the alt-right, which is the new word that nationalists and white supremacists now use, since old words like “Ku Klux Klan” and “Nazi” have developed bad associations. The alt-right is very much not the traditional right-wing: at the outset, Bannon said: “It’s not my war. This is our war. The alt didn’t start it. The establishment started it.” He said that Mitch McConnell and others "personified" the Republican establishment.

There was more personification in this speech. Distinguishing between the alt-right and the Republican political establishment, Bannon said that "the politics of personal destruction as personified by the permanent political class is the only way they can win.” Bannon said that the establishment worldwide was nervous: “They understand that you’re the best transmission of the best values of the Judeo-Christian left.” What are the Judeo-Christian values? Bannon never said.

Readers will recall that, during the 2016 election campaign, a sound recording emerged of candidate Donald Trump talking about groping and assaulting women sexually. Mr. Trump dismissed this as "locker room talk." Values voters were, apparently, not horrified enough to vote against Mr. Trump. Bannon recalled that he told future President Trump that “They’re looking to take their country back and you’re the vehicle and instrument that’s going to do it. They don’t care about locker room talk because we’re going to bring to that debate the women that William Jefferson Clinton attacked and his wife covered for him.” Values were not the issue; victory was the issue. Bannon said this clearly: “I’m all about winning. You know why? Because we have to win.” Later, he said, "these folks are coming for you." It was a battle, and he wanted his applauding crowd to be afraid.

Also, Bannon’s war was more against the Republican establishment than against the Democrats. This was not because the Values Voters might turn into Democrats; it is because the culture war utterly rejects the Democrats, and is now also rejecting the mainstream Republicans. This is the strategy of polarization, which I'll talk about later.

Values were not the issue; victory was the issue.

White House photo

See my follow-up post about Bannon's values.  

President Trump's Iran Speech, October 13, 2017

Pres. Trump delivers Iran speech from White House

In the second of two important speeches that he delivered yesterday, President Donald Trump announced his new Iran policy from the White House. Fulfilling a major campaign promise, he rejected the multinational deal that President Obama signed to restrict Iran's development of nuclear weapons. He justified his decision by complaining about Iran's past bad behavior, some of which dated back to the Jimmy Carter administration. Mr. Trump had (like many Republicans) repeatedly complained that the agreement was weak. Was it really weak? Or was this just a political talking point? I'm no foreign policy expert, and I don't really know. So, let's look at Mr. Trump's persuasive methods.

In this speech, Trump used three important rhetorical methods: he transcended the immediate issue; he showed how the new policy was tough while he pictured former President Barack Obama to have been weak, and he twisted a few facts. The latter is to be deplored but expected; after all, this is politics.

First, the Iran deal's European partners hold firmly that Iran is upholding its end of the deal and has stopped its nuclear weapons production. Federica Mogherini, the European Union's chief foreign policy officer, complained that this was an international agreement and that no one president can terminate it. Since President Trump could not plausibly claim that Iran had not kept up the bargain (although he valiantly tried), he spent little time on alleged violations and instead brought up various non-nuclear issues: the Iranian hostage crisis, Iranian support of Hezbollah, and Iranian efforts to destabilize the Middle East. In other words, since his narrow case was weak, he moved to a larger case that he could make more strongly.

Second, he repeatedly accused Mr. Obama of making a weak deal. This played into the typical conservative view that liberals are weak leaders. Cognitive scientist George Lakoff has explained that conservatives prefer a strong, tough leader--what he calls a "strong father" metaphor--while liberals prefer a nurturing leader. A nurturing leader is not necessarily weak, but creates a different impression. Thus, Mr. Trump said things that emphasize strength, like this:

As I have said many times, the Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. The same mindset that produced this deal is responsible for years of terrible trade deals that have sacrificed so many millions of jobs in our country to the benefit of other countries. We need negotiators who will much more strongly represent America’s interest.

Map of Iran, Dept of State

Finally, although he did not exactly tell lies, Mr. Trump reinterpreted international events. He claimed that, before the deal was made, Iran was close to collapse. This was unproven. He implied that Iran could resume nuclear weapons production "in just a few years, as key restrictions disappear, Iran can sprint towards a rapid nuclear weapons breakout." This exaggerated the facts, as the deal permanently forbids Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump repeated a common conservative talking point that the United States gave "the regime . . . a massive cash settlement of $1.7 billion  . . .  a large portion of which was physically loaded onto an airplane and flown into Iran. Just imagine the sight of those huge piles of money being hauled off by the Iranians waiting at the airport for the cash. I wonder where all that money went." This misinterpreted the facts, as the money was well-publicized to be Iran's money all along, and it was paid in cash because Iran and the United States do not share banking arrangements. Thus, although the payment may or may not have been wise, Mr. Trump made it sound much more sinister than it was.
misleading

Still, being a bit cagey, Mr. Trump promised to impose certain sanctions on Iran, but did not  specifically try to restore the previous sanctions. This gave him room to maneuver and negotiate, probably a wise idea. That is, he made his actions sound tougher--stronger--than they really were.

Politicians overstate things every day. Still, by overstating the facts, Mr. Trump could ultimately lose some credibility with undecided or middle-of-the-road members of the public.

So, although the speech was measured and professional, its ability to persuade members of the public could be limited. Still, if Mr. Trump's true message was to convey strength, he was successful.

Donald Trump's 2017 Value Voters Summit Speech: Political Policies, Religious Proof?

Donald Trump, WH photo

Continuing to discuss President Trump's 2017 Value Voters Summit Speech, let us look at the interesting way that Trump used religious arguments to endorse conservative policies that lacked any obvious religious importance. That tactic can be very persuasive, for to a religious person, religious authority can be the highest proof.

Now, it makes perfect sense the conservatives will support conservative policies. It also makes perfect sense that conservatives will support the old-time religion. Although the United States has always been religiously diverse, many conservatives believe that Protestant Christianity is deeply embedded in our national psyche, government, and Constitution. It is a simple step to assume that religion requires one to adopt traditional, conservative policies, even if no religious foundation underlies those policies.

Mr. Trump first began his speech by reviewing the United States' religious heritage. He then laid out conservative policies. The speech's clever construction and organization give the listener an impression that the conservative economic and political policies had a religious foundation.

First, let us look at how Mr. Trump connected the United States' traditions with religion. He mentioned that "our Creator" was mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence:

Declaration of Independence

The American Founders invoked our Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence -- four times.  (Applause.)  How times have changed.  But you know what, now they're changing back again.  Just remember that.  (Applause.)
 

That passage told us two important things: that the nation was founded on religious principles, and that those principles have been lost. Mr. Trump promised to change back to the old ways. (Note, of course, that the United States Constitution mentions God nowhere, which Mr. Trump did not mention in his speech.)

Mr. Trump also told his audience that Benjamin Franklin insisted that the Constitutional Convention begin with prayer. He also cited that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.

Having established the nation's religious foundation, Trump promised two different things. The first was that he would protect religion against the government: "I pledged that, in a Trump administration, our nation’s religious heritage would be cherished, protected, and defended like you have never seen before." He pointed out that he had appointed a conservative Supreme Court justice (who would presumably resist legalized abortion?) and that he was working to protect the unborn. He promised to deal with the Johnson Amendment, which restricts tax-exempt organizations from political discourse. He wanted "to protect the conscience rights of groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor," that did not want to cover birth control in their health insurance policies.

All of those arguments were religious, in that they all tied back to religious doctrines that many people believe. Mr. Trump then turned to policies that lacked any obvious religious significance. He promised that, step-by-step, he would continue to reverse the Affordable Care Act. Biblical foundation for that decision seems to be lacking. He promised strong action against the Islamic State. He promised to lower taxes, calling this a "Christmas gift" for the American people. Calling it a Christmas gift may have made it seem a little religious, although nowhere does the Bible oppose the paying of taxes. (Indeed, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" Matt. 22:20-22). Reversing Obamacare, lowering taxes, and stopping the Islamic State are all standard right-wing policies, but do not arise from religion per se.

Of course, politicians have long made impossible promises. Mr. Trump told his audience that it was wrong for the department stores to say "Happy New Year" instead of "Merry Christmas." He said that this problem has already been solved: "Well, guess what? We're saying “Merry Christmas” again. (Applause.)"  Really? We have not yet had a Christmas while Donald Trump was president. Just as the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, it also protects department stores' right to say whatever they want, so Mr. Trump has no power to change what they say. Or does he? We will have to wait and see what the department stores do in coming months, won't we?

See my earlier post about this speech, where I talked about Mr. Trump's use of the rhetorical device called "juxtaposition."

Donald Trump's 2017 Value Voters Summit Speech: Juxtaposition Replaces Proof

Pres. Trump at 2017 Value Voters Summit

In the first of two important speeches that he gave yesterday, President Donald Trump talked to the Values Voters Summit in Washington DC. This group gathers members of the Christian Right; their goal is. He has become one of the conference’s favorites; last year, Mr. Trump gave his campaign a big boost when he talked to the conference about his presidential campaign and promised to protect them against secular forces. White conservative Christian voters were instrumental in Mr. Trump’s campaign victory, giving him more than 80% of their votes. Mr. Trump’s triumphant return to the Values Voters Summit linked conservative religious and non-religious issues into a seamless whole. The key to Trump’s speech was the rhetorical method called juxtaposition. A speaker can make two different things seem related just by putting them side by side.

Mr. Trump’s speech began with a link between religion and patriotism: as Mr. Trump took the stage, the audience began to chant: “USA!  USA!  USA!” Many people, of course, equate patriotism, a word that means “love of country,” with conservative political positions. Other people believe that liberals and moderates can also love their country. Mr. Trump continued to link America and faith in his introduction: “America is a nation of believers, and together we are strengthened and sustained by the power of prayer.  (Applause.) “That was perfectly fine, and many earlier presidents would have said something similar. He expressed sympathy for the victims of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, which he called “an act of pure evil.” The shooting obviously was an act of evil but Mr. Trump’s phrasing would appeal to a religious audience. He also praised the courage of the people during the Las Vegas shooting: “Americans defied evil and hatred with courage and love.” He talked about the prayers lifted for the Las Vegas victims.

As Mr. Trump began to review the United States of America’s values, he mingled traditional Christian values with his own political views: “Everyone here today is brought together by the same shared and timeless values.” But which of these values were religious, and which were purely political? Some of Trump’s points praised traditional religious values, but he cleverly mixed them with political matters. Look at this passage:

We love our families.  We love our neighbors.  We love our country.  Everyone here today is brought together by the same shared and timeless values.  We cherish the sacred dignity of every human life.  (Applause.)  

Loving your families, your neighbors, and respecting human life are obviously religious values. But is love of country a religious value? That is an interesting and complex question, but the Bible nowhere clearly affirms love of country to be a major value. Yet, by mixing these values into a single paragraph, Trump gave the impression that they were all conservative religious values.

Or consider this passage:

We believe in strong families and safe communities.  We honor the dignity of work.  (Applause.)  We defend our Constitution.  We protect religious liberty.  (Applause.)  We treasure our freedom.  We are proud of our history.  We support the rule of law and the incredible men and women of law enforcement.  (Applause.)  We celebrate our heroes, and we salute every American who wears the uniform.  (Applause.) 
We respect our great American flag.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you. 

The apostle Paul does briefly affirm the dignity of work and obedience to legal authorities, so we can count those as biblical values. But saluting Americans in military service? I agree that they are to be commended, but I do not see a biblical foundation for that. Similarly, although respecting the flag is good, it is not a biblical value. Supporting law enforcement officers seems like a good thing, although Mr. Trump raised controversy when he seemed to advocate police brutality a while back. Was he hinting at that issue again? Or not? That was not very clear, was it?

Ironically, after praising the American governmental system, he then criticized it on value grounds:

For too long, politicians have tried to centralize the authority among the hands of a small few in our nation’s capital.  Bureaucrats think they can run your lives, overrule your values, meddle in your faith, and tell you how to live, what to say, and how to pray.  But we know that parents, not bureaucrats, know best how to raise their children and create a thriving society.  (Applause.)  

In that passage, Trump affirmed a libertarian philosophy of government that has no biblical foundation at all, although the phrase “meddle in your faith” makes government action sound anti-religious. This is largely, again, juxtaposition. By combining religious and non-religious matters, Trump made them sound like the same substance. (A person can, of course, support law enforcement and love the flag and also be religious – my point is that those policies are not specifically religious, and religion is not their foundation.) One cannot help but to think about parents who abuse or even murder their children. Could the government know better than the parents in those cases? What about parents who cite religious reasons when they deny medical care to their children? Do they know better than the government? Juxtaposition and platitudes enabled Mr. Trump to side-slip such difficult issues. Instead of proving his points, he tried to establish his conservative political positions simply by linking them to religion.

In my next post, I will talk about how this speech linked faith issues to non-religious conservative governmental policies.