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

Statue of Lincoln, Lincoln Memorial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Second Amendment's Creative Ambiguity

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

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

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

"Liberty and justice for all!"

_________________

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

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

Image: National Park Service

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

Patrick Henry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. John's Church, ca. 1901

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

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

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

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

Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?

___________________

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

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

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

Joe Biden at 2023 State of the Union

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Biden quickly dropped his hammer:

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

A bunch of Democrats then cheered.

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

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

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

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

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

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


What about heckling?

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

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

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

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

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

Did Republicans really want to cut Medicare and Social Security?

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

Let’s start with basic math.

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

Do Republicans seek Social Security and Medicare cuts?

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Graham and the Word Mystery of Entitlement Reform

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

Why did the Republicans collapse?

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

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

Do Republicans still want to cut Social Security and Medicare?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Conclusion

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

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

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

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

________________

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

Images: White House webpage, US Department of the Treasury 

Adolf Hitler's Speech in the Berlin Sportpalast: God and Power

“Providence,” said Adol Hitler, Germany’s Christian Nationalist leader, “only gave to us what we deserved in the end.” 

On January 30, 1940, the anniversary of his appointment as Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler gave a powerful defense of far-right conservative values. Those values resonate to a surprising degree in much conservative rhetoric today. Speaking in the enormous Berlin Sportpalast, Hitler ridiculed democratic ideals, while boasting that Heaven would stay on Germany’s side only if Germany remained resolute. Yet, as he spoke, World War II was already five months old, and Germany was destined to lie in ruins before Hitler’s leadership ended.

If there is a lesson in this, it is that people who follow strong, authoritarian leaders can expect to be filled with pride as they march to ruin. History has told that tale for centuries. Hitler’s spellbinding speech called his nation to glory and blamed their past failings on the enmity of others. Of course, Hitler was always the master of huge rallies. This rally speech showed every sign of careful, thoughtful preparation. Hitler laid out a value set that many people today still crave. Yet, as this speech proves, not everyone who calls on Providence is doing godly work. Likewise, when Donald Trump praised the vicious dictator Vladimir Putin for being a “strong leader,” was he saying anything much different?

Why Do Republicans Praise Vladimir Putin in Their Speeches?

Let us start with a brief bit of historical context. After losing World War I, Germany signed the oppressive Treaty of Versailles, which imposed enormous national debt and crushed the German economy. The Weimar Republic proved to be too ineffectual to cope with either the post-war calamity or the Great Depression that crushed the world-wide economy. After a free election, Hitler established a coalition government in 1933, promptly abolished all political parties except his own, and got to work. Unlike other world leaders who made a mess of the Great Depression, Hitler appointed excellent economists to government positions and got Germany back to work. Germany’s September 1939 attack on Poland set Europe ablaze with war, but also brought Hitler to the height of his popularity. This set the stage for his triumphant speech.


First, Hitler Ridiculed Democracy

In this speech, Hitler argued that democracy was weak and ineffectual. The Weimar Republic was, in the 1920s, famously unable to control inflation. The government finally imposed anti-inflation policies, which smashed the German economy just as the Great Depression swept across the world. Facing economic calamity, the German people were ready to turn to radical leaders. With that background of recent history, Hitler lost no time ridiculing democracy: 

“Today there is much talk about democratic ideals in the outside world. But not in Germany! For here in Germany we had more than enough time—fifteen years—to acquaint ourselves with these democratic ideals. And we ourselves had to pick up the legacy left behind by this democracy.”

In that brief passage, Hitler mocked “democratic ideals” that the rest of the world admired: “But not in Germany!” Germany had experimented with democracy Hitler said: “we had more than enough time—fifteen years—to acquaint ourselves with these democratic ideals.”

It is no accident that Hitler rejected, not just democratic institutions, but the very concept—the ideals—of democracy. He drew a stark contrast between the strong national socialist government, on the one hand, and the weak democratic nations on the other. Making no apologies for authoritarianism, Hitler implied that strength, not democracy, was essential for a proud, successful Germany.

Hitler's attack on democracy led him directly to the oppressive terms of the Treaty of Versailles. He complained that all 440 articles of that treaty “represented a burden, an obligation, an indictment, and an extortion of Germany. The League of Nations guaranteed this Versailles.” Indeed, Hitler said, the League of Nations “was not an association of free and equal nations.” Instead, Hitler insisted. As he ridiculed the League of Nations’ supposed democratic ideals, its true purpose was merely to force Germany to fulfill the Treaty’s oppressive terms. This, in turn, let Hitler drive a spike into democracy's heart:

“This was the age of democratic Germany! Now that foreign statesmen repeatedly act as though they could not possibly trust present-day Germany, one should remark that this cannot possibly be applied to the Germany back then. This former Germany was their own creation, their own work. They should have been able to place trust in it.”

Underlining what he called the weakness of democratic institutions, Hitler then narrated a lengthy list of the economic calamities that befell Germany after World War I. Those included inflation, unemployment, and general discouragement. That led him to call on spiritual power.


Second, Hitler Called on Providence

Hitler was a big advocate of the Lost Cause theory of warfare. In his view, foreign powers forced World War I on Germany, but Heaven blessed Germany with military victories only as long as the people remained strong:

“The year 1915 improved the situation of the Reich further still; 1916, 1917; year after year; battle after battle. At times, everything seemed on the verge of collapse when, as though by miracle, the Reich was rescued. Germany then afforded us with truly astounding proofs of its internal strength. Obviously, Providence had blessed it.”

Next, however, Hitler said that the German people “became ungrateful” and began to listen to false promises:

“In its ungratefulness, the German Volk turned against its own Reich, its own leadership. And it was then that Providence turned away from the German Volk.”

In other words, Hitler said that the German people literally deserved their World War I defeat because they became weak, because they turned down Heaven’s gift of strength. He continued:

“Since then, I have come to regard this catastrophe as something not wholly undeserved. I have never complained that Providence had somehow wronged us.

“On the contrary, I always supported this thesis: Providence only gave to us what we deserved in the end. The German nation was ungrateful. Therefore it was deprived of its recompense! This will not happen a second time in our history.” 

Hitler did not worship a god of kindness, wisdom, or mercy. He worshipped a god of strength. He called on Germany to worship a god of power. In Hitler's vision, this version of Providence had led the German people to fight during the Second World War: 

“At times, our enemies were already jubilantly hailing our destruction. Yet the Movement held its own with a heart filled with strength and joy. Time and time again, trusting in the necessity of our struggle, it leapt up once more to face the enemy and to carry the victory in the end.”

Hitler's message was clear. He had no use for the weakness of democratic values. He held the western democracies up to ridicule as hypocrites who oppressed the German people even as they proclaimed noble ideals. He told his massive audience that Heaven would be on their side only if they remained resolute. He raised the issue beyond personality—above personality—to the greatness of his nation: 

“I wish to draw attention not to my own person and my surroundings, but rather to the past and to the future. I wish to stand up in honor before the past and the future, and with me the German Volk shall honorably hold its own.”

Conclusion

Perhaps more than any other leader, Hitler understood the power of speech. So, yes, this powerful speech laid out a clash of values. Strength, not democracy. Unity in the face of opposition. Hitler worshipped a warrior God. Although not in so many words, he implicitly called Germany’s churches to support Germany's cause. It was not his cause, he said, but that of the German people who needed to regain the character that they had lost at the end of World War I.

We all know that none of that worked out. In a little more than five years, Germany’s great cities became smoking piles of rubble. Five million Germans lay dead. The Holocaust, which was one of the most horrifying events in human history, brought the German nation to disgrace. After Germany surrendered in 1945, however, the nation adopted a genuine representative democracy that soon made Germany into one of the richest and most respected nations in the world. 

Today, as right-wing movements gain power around the world, let us remember that they promise nothing new. Right-wing dictators of 2022 still call on churches to support their agendas. Certainly, Vladimir Putin often describes himself as a Christian leader. As they worship a god of strength, not one of mercy; as they attack democratic institutions; as they blame others for their mistakes; as they call power, not justice, the ultimate virtue, they are walking the same path as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin: a path that leads only to disaster. Hitler’s compelling speech appealed to pride and strength, but he swept wisdom aside.


Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

President Trump at the Values Voters Summit: The Donald, Defender of the Faith?

Joe Biden Said to Get Out the Vote!

Yesterday, President Joe Biden spoke to Democratic Party state leaders by teleconference. His simple point was to get out the vote:

“Most of all, keep the faith. Remind the folks that the power is in their hands. This is not a referendum; this is a choice. And the more people we get out to vote, we win. We win.”

Biden taught two basic lessons: first that the side that gets out the vote will win, and second, that the only poll that counts is the voting on Election Day. Polls are just opinions. The election, and only the election, decides the nation’s fate: “this is not a referendum, this is a choice.” Everything else in the campaign is smokescreen. Getting out the vote is all that matters.

I wish this were not so. My fifth-grade teacher, Mrs. Dixon, told us to study the issues, get news from more than once source, and make informed decision. Alas! That is rarely how it works.

Instead, researchers have known ever since the 1948 Elmira, New York study that people vote by party affiliation. Opinions about issues are not the main factor; for, as it happens, people fit their beliefs to their party. They don’t choose a party because they agree with the issues. Political scientist Dan Nimmo pointed out that, to the extent issues do matter, it’s the single-issue voters. These are, this time around, the fanatics who will vote according to the abortion issue, and nothing else.

Nor are many people persuadable. For example, Democrats waste too much energy trying to convince Republicans that immigration is good. That’s a waste. Nothing will convince Republicans of that. Although the economy is at near-record low unemployment and solid economic growth, nothing will convince Republicans that the economy is doing fairly well. Even Republicans who recognize their party’s downhill slide will still vote for Republicans. Nothing will convince Democrats that they are threatened by immigrant invasions. In fact, remember that Donald Trump’s appalling speech at the Helsinki summit cost him little if any support.

Did Trump's Speech at the Helsinki Summit Lose His Supporters? Probably Not

Nor do early polls mean much. Just as was the case in Elmira in 1948, voters pretend that they are judging the issues and coming to a decision. That rarely happens in real life. On Election Day, people vote for their party. Period. In Elmira, if researchers learned a voter’s party preference, socioeconomic status, and ethnic group, they could predict how that person would vote with 90%+ accuracy.

So, the election campaign’s only real purpose is to get your own voters motivated while discouraging the other side’s voters.

Biden’s point is, really, the only campaign point that affects the election in a big way: “The more people we get out to vote, we win.” Yes, everything else is smokescreen. An election campaign’s purpose is to affect voter turnout. A political party that forgets that basic principle will face big trouble.

Today is Election Day. If you don’t vote, you don’t count. No one cares about your parades, demonstrations, protests, or riots. They only care about your vote.


Why Do Politicians Exaggerate? Nancy Pelosi's Fire-Breathing Tax Speech

Do Presidential Debates Matter? Maybe Yes, Maybe No . . .

Was Biden Divisive When He Defended Constitutional Government?

Joe Biden, official photo

The people whom “the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars,” while, in contrast, the people “they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth,” wrote H. L. Mencken and George Jean Nathan.

This statement was made by journalists long ago, but it has never been more obvious than it is today. Lies are being sold as truth while the actual truth is buried beneath the lies.

On November 2, 2022, President Joe Biden spoke about the future of American democracy. He directly targeted Republican falsehoods and conspiracy theories, the January 6 riots at the United States Capitol, and ongoing efforts to intimidate election officials. This totally normal speech, which could equally have been given at an American Legion speech contest, instantly became controversial. The speech is all about stories. Biden presented a narrative of Republican conspiracy theories. Republicans, in turn gave their own counter-narrative. 

Biden’s rhetorical approach was extraordinarily clever. In particular, he used stories to make his point. In fact, he wove three different stories from three different events into a single compelling narrative. Instead of proving his points with the usual boring facts and statistics, Biden told stories. Stories are good. Stories work. Speakers need to tell more stories. Yet, for every story, there can arise a counter-story.

Story #1: The Pelosi Attack

Biden's speech began with a story about the horrible attack on Paul Pelosi, when a right-wing conspiracy theorist broke into the Pelosi family home and smashed his skull with a hammer. Biden told a convincing story that had the advantage of being true. His opponents establish a counter narrative. The substance of the Republican counter-narrative is that Biden is divisive by calling out his opponents’ lies. Unfortunately, Mencken and Nathan once again turn out to be right—the people whom “…the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars….”

The attacker presumably had mental health issues. Republicans responded, for the most part, not with sympathy, but with a series of crazed conspiracy theories.

So, what about those counter-narratives? Unfortunately, days before Biden gave his excellent speech, prominent Republicans had already established a counter-narrative: a narrative that the Pelosi attack was staged as an attempt to make Republican conspiracy theorists look bad.

The Paul Pelosi Attack: Top Republican Conspiracy Theorists Shocked by a Violent Republican Conspiracy Theorist

Is There Such a Thing as a Stupid Question? The Attack against Paul Pelosi Led Conspiracy Theorists to Make Bogus Arguments 


Biden gave a simple narration of the attack:

“Just a few days ago, a little before 2:30 a.m. in the morning, a man smashed the back windows and broke into the home of the speaker of the House of Representatives, the third-highest-ranking official in America. He carried in his backpack zip ties, duct tape, rope and a hammer.

“As he told the police, he had come looking for Nancy Pelosi to take her hostage, to interrogate her, to threaten to break her kneecaps. But she wasn’t there. Her husband, my friend Paul Pelosi, was home alone. The assailant tried to take Paul hostage. He woke him up, and he wanted to tie him up. The assailant ended up using a hammer to smash Paul’s skull. Thankfully, by the grace of God, Paul survived.”

So, Biden told his own a story that had the advantage of being supported by evidence and reality, but his story cannot easily overcome the horrifying, utterly false conspiracy theories.

Story #2: The Capitol Riots

Next, however, and this was his speech's heart, Biden directly tied the attack against Paul Pelosi to the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol.

“All this happened after the assault, and it just — it’s hard to even say. It’s hard to even say. After the assailant entered the home asking: “Where’s Nancy? Where’s Nancy?” Those are the very same words used by the mob when they stormed the United States Capitol on January the 6th, when they broke windows, kicked in the doors, brutally attacked law enforcement, roamed the corridors hunting for officials and erected gallows to hang the former vice president, Mike Pence.

“It was an enraged mob that had been whipped up into a frenzy by a president repeating over and over again the big lie, that the election of 2020 had been stolen. It’s a lie that has fueled the dangerous rise in political violence and voter intimidation over the past two years.”

That comment led Biden to his third story, when he narrated threats against honest election officials:

Story #3: Threats against Election Officials

Biden's last story told of election officials who were threatened by people who didn't want them to to their jobs:   

“Election workers, like Shaye Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, were harassed and threatened just because they had the courage to do their job and stand up for the truth, to stand up for our democracy. This institution, this intimidation, this violence against Democrats, Republicans and nonpartisan officials just doing their jobs, are the consequence of lies told for power and profit, lies of conspiracy and malice, lies repeated over and over to generate a cycle of anger, hate, vitriol and even violence.”

The argument through all three stories was that a culture of hateful lies caused all three evil events. 

The Narrative Style  

Biden 's narratives have the virtue of being true. Sometimes, alas, that is not enough. 

The Republican conspiracy theorists continue to deflect attention from the connection between those two horrible events. This led Republican Senator Mike Braun to write that, “President Joe Biden took to the podium to give one of the most divisive and ugliest speeches I've seen given by a sitting president.” did he disagree with any of Biden’s stories? No, in fact, he ignored them, he instead complained about “fuel prices, crime, and our economy: changing the subject, resetting the agenda. Braun complained that, instead of talking about the economy or crime, “Biden shouted angrily at half the country from Washington’s Union Station.” There, we see two different agendas, two perspectives.

In a twisted sense, Braun had a point. Yes, Biden spoke out strongly against liars, and that was divisive.

Liberty Bell, Photo by William Harpine

Indeed, fully 61% of Republican voters falsely believe that Joe Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 presidential election. Their belief is based entirely on lies and conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, Braun was right, in a sick sense. Biden was, indeed, divisive. He made a division between truth and falsehood. He made a division between good and evil. He gave the Republican Party a chance to rejoin the values of the American system of government. So far, I see every sign that they intend to decline. Biden's speech challenged the typical Republican voter's most cherished belief: that Trump won the election, making Biden an impostor.

From that viewpoint, Biden's stories were genuinely divisive: his stories laid out the truth, and he divided himself against people who tell lies (not that Biden always tells the truth, but...). Unfortunately, tens of millions of Americans continue to live in a sea of lies. These lies translate into votes. 

Here's another way to look at it. With his speech, which reminded Americans about the rule of law and the dangers of political violence, Biden gave MAGA voters and their leaders a chance to rejoin America. It appears that they have refused.

Stories are good and Biden gave a wonderful speech, but not everyone tells the same story.

Biden on the Soul of America: Was He Unifying or Divisive? Or Both?

_______________

Technical note: For an academic look at narrative argument, see the work of the late Walter Fisher. 

In his book The Rhetoric of Motives, the great rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke wrote eloquently that all unity and identification implies a division. 

Is There Such a Thing as a Stupid Question? The Attack against Paul Pelosi Led Conspiracy Theorists to Make Bogus Arguments

A few days after the horrendous attack on Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s husband, conspiracy theories continue to flourish. 

Suspicion underlies all conspiracy theories. The newest version of the conspiracy theories use two basic tactics. First, the conspiracy theorists 7ask endless questions. Second, when proven wrong, they view this as proof that they were right. Both tactics are utterly bogus. 

The attack occurred when a deranged right-wing conspiracy theorist broke into Pelosi's home with a hammer. Tricking him, Pelosi surreptitiously called 911. When the police arrived, the intruder grabbed the hammer and smashed Pelosi's skull. 

The initial conspiracy theories, which I discussed in my previous post, disintegrated after the government filed charging documents against the attacker. Those conspiracy theories had falsely implied that the attacker was Pelosi's lover. Instead, it turns out that the alleged attacker, David DePape, was a right-wing conspiracy theorist, not a hippie and not Pelosi’s paramour, that he intended political violence, and that he beat Pelosi with a hammer that changed hands during the incident. Those simple facts totally defeated the conspiracy theories that had flooded the Internet. 

Never fear! Conspiracy theorists are nothing if not flexible.


Conspiracy theorists ask questions, but they rarely have answers

The conspiracy theorist's tried-and-true tactic is to ask endless questions about supposedly suspicious events. Unfortunately, questions are not proof. Questions never prove anything. Not ever. An honest question is an attempt to get information. Conspiracy theorists, however, ask questions to create a dark image while not undertaking the burden to prove anything.

That may explain why, as his initial conspiracy theory fell apart, right-wing filmmaker and conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza simply started asking more questions. He focused on the seemingly innocuous issue of finding security footage of the attack:

“Did the Pelosis not have security personnel or at least an alarm system? No surveillance cameras? Those are pretty standard in nice homes. Moreover, it's a dangerous city and she's the House Speaker. So are they really stupid, or are we not getting the full story?” 

All questions! No actual claims! Nevertheless, look how clever his questions are. Yes, I'm sure we are all wondering about security system failures. Still, asking the question in that tone makes it sound as if the official story has a gigantic hole in it. Yes, like many large cities, San Francisco has crime. At the same time, I have felt perfectly safe walking around various neighborhoods in San Francisco late at night. D’Souza is no doubt playing on conservative tropes that San Francisco is a terribly dangerous place: one conspiracy theory trying to prove another.

Did D'Souza prove anything? No, all he did was ask questions. 

As it happens, D'Souza was not the only conspiracy theorist to ask a series of questions. Similarly, also dealing with the collapse of the original conspiracy theory, pundit Michael Savage of “A Savage Nation” asked more questions about the security arrangements:

“why won't the police release the Bodycam footage? How does a stranger get into a ft. knox local mansion without triggering an alarm? who at this level of gov’t does not have 24/7 security? why was the glass broken out ward not inward?” [all tweets are uncorrected, copied from the original]

It's not that these are bad questions. I am sure that it is time to reevaluate security arrangements for members of Congress. Still, we all know that this was not Savage’s point. His real point—cleverly implied by his questions--is that there is something wrong with the official account of the attack because it is implausible that a break-in could have occurred.

My real point, of course, is that questions never prove anything. Questions, unfortunately, are all these conspiracy theorists have to offer us. Like children who torment their parents with endless questions, conspiracy theorists never relent. 


When conspiracy theorists are wrong, they think this proves they are right

Questions are not the only tactic. When they turn out to be wrong, conspiracy theorists say this proves that they were right all along. Here's how the reasoning goes. Conspiracy theorists think that all the authorities are liars. They trust nothing in official statements. In this case, they are especially upset that anyone would accuse a right-wing conspiracy theorist of committing violence. After all, that makes all conspiracy theorists look bad. That’s why they tried to make DePape out to be Pelosi’s lover. Once their account was proven wrong, however, this merely proves that they were right all along. 

No, that doesn’t make sense. Still, that is how conspiracy theorists talk. Let's look at some examples of how their logic works.

Indeed, “Enigmatic America,” a social media user of no particular prominence, illustrates this rhetorical trope perfectly:

“Police said different at the scene, Pelosi said the guy was his friend, the guy took Pelosi hammer, hit him with it in front of cops according to police. I am sure the statement on video by police is missing now, somewhat on Twitter kept it. Media lies& if u differ, Conspiracy.”

There is a twist in that logic. The initial conspiracy theory, which may have been partly based on incomplete and inaccurate news reports, but which grew mostly from random speculation, turned out to be wrong. Would that slow a conspiracy theorist down? Of course not. When the initial conspiracy theory disintegrated, this proved, to Enigmatic America, that the original story (much of which conspiracy theorists had invented), was incorrect. Therefore, he concludes, the media outlets must be lying.

D’Souza used a similar tactic:

“Pelosi knew the guy. Well no, he didn't. There were 3 people there. No, two. Both guys had hammers. No, only one hammer. Both of them were in their underwear. No, just Pelosi. Is it a surprise we don't believe the narrative when the facts must be heavily edited to conform to it?”

It appears that there was only one hammer, but the two men each held it at different times. Apparently DePape held the hammer, then Pelosi dropped it, and then DePape grabbed it and hit his victim. The conspiracy theorists drew the false conclusion that there were two hammers. When it turns out there was only one hammer, they said the authorities had changed their story. Actually, of course, all that happened is that the conspiracy theorists jumped to a conclusion when they had no evidence. Similarly, when the FBI report said that someone opened the door to admit the police, they thought this this proved that three people were in the home. But that does not follow from the evidence, does it? 

How can being wrong prove that you are right? It can't, of course, but that twisted logic is how conspiracy theorists work. 

In other words, D’Souza’s original accusations turned out to be wrong. He could, of course, admit that he was wrong. Instead, he blamed his error on the authorities. He implies that he was wrong the first time because the authorities deceived him. I'm sure that's always possible (police do sometimes tell lies, as we all know), but, in this case, the conspiracy theorist has been jumping to unproven conclusions left and right and then resented being corrected.

The underlying theme: suspicion!

Once we assume that the authorities are dishonest, we also assume that everything they say is untrue.

This is, however, entirely circular. The conspiracy theorist’s only real goal is to prove that the authorities are evil. The conspiracy theorist proves this by refusing to trust them. At some point, you need real evidence. If one is to be intellectually honest, one must always be prepared to revise opinions in the face of refutation. Since they simply shift ground instead of admitting error, the conspiracy theorists utterly abandon all pretense of integrity.

Now, of course, real conspiracies occur all the time. Criminals, revolutionaries, and other nasty people do conspire with one another. The Watergate conspiracy was real. Real conspiracies are proven by evidence.  In contrast, conspiracy theories, which tend to be untrue, do not produce evidence. That is why conspiracy theorists reach into their imaginations to ask endless questions, to squirm and change their stories constantly, to hold the authorities to a high standard while holding themselves to no standard at all. 

None of this pattern of thinking is new. Over the centuries, conspiracy theorists have spread across the political spectrum.  At the moment, however, what bothers me the most is that an entire political movement--the political party of Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, and Eisenhower--has disconnected itself from reality. That cannot be good. 

_____________

Yesterday's post about conspiracy theories concerning this horrific attack: 

Harpine's Thoughts about Public Speaking: The Paul Pelosi Attack: Top Republican Conspiracy Theorists Shocked by a Violent Republican Conspiracy Theorist