Donald Trump, Prophet of American Doom and Restoration? His 2025 Inaugural Address

Donald Trump's 2025 Inauguration

“The future is ours, and our golden age has just begun.”

So said United States President Donald Trump during his second inaugural address, delivered in the United States Capitol on January 20, 2025. Trump warned that Joe Biden’s presidency had crushed America. However, by returning to the old ways, rejecting sexual variations, providing security, and ensuring justice, Trump promised to restore the United States of America. Conservatives blame disasters on change. Restoring the old ways brings renewal. Simple.

Although I doubt very much whether either Trump or any of his advisors realized it, he spoke in the prophetic style of repudiation and restoration – a rhetorical program that has echoed through American political rhetoric since the nation’s founding, and which, historically, reflects the teachings of the ancient Hebrew prophets. I question Trump’s accuracy—the nation is not really declining, and Trump’s policies will restore nothing of value—but the metaphorical pair of doom and restoration nevertheless carries great power. Return to the old ways, and everything will be fine—that was Trump’s message.

This theme resonates through centuries of conservative speeches. “The whole land shall be desolate,” the biblical prophet Jeremiah warned (Jeremiah 4:27). Subsequently, prophets of restoration, like Zechariah, showed that a nation can restore justice only by returning to the old ways: “Turn ye unto me, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you” (Zechariah 1:2). While they brazenly ignore Zechariah’s moral imperatives, conservative speakers from the Puritans to Barry Goldwater often warned of impending collapse. Indeed, although I don’t think Trump and his speechwriters know anything about Jewish or Christian teachings, they clearly absorbed the attitude. (Although, unlike Trump, the prophets demanded mercy for poor people and immigrants, Malachi 3:5.).

Disaster!

So, early in his inaugural address, Trump cited an apocalyptic “crisis of trust.” Speaking to the Capitol crowd, Trump complained, with his billionaire sponsors literally listening from the front rows, but without a trace of irony, about a “radical and corrupt establishment:”

“As we gather today, our government confronts a crisis of trust. For many years, a radical and corrupt establishment has extracted power and wealth from our citizens while the pillars of our society lay broken and seemingly in complete disrepair.” [italics added]

Continuing, Trump complained that his predecessor’s government was unable to manage even the simplest emergencies, while “stumbling” through “catastrophic events.” Trump elaborated on the bizarre conspiracy theories that had propelled his campaign rhetoric:

“We now have a government that cannot manage even a simple crisis at home, while at the same time stumbling into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad. It fails to protect our magnificent, law-abiding American citizens, but provide sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals, many from prisons and mental institutions that have illegally entered our country from all over the world.”

Natural disasters, including hurricane Helene, which devastated the mountainous areas of North Carolina, and terrible fires in Los Angeles, spread terrible misery. Scientists might partially attribute these disasters to climate change. In contrast, Trump attributed them to the government’s moral failure:

“Our country can no longer deliver basic services in times of emergency, as recently shown by the wonderful people of North Carolina — who have been treated so badly and other states who are still suffering from a hurricane that took place many months ago or, more recently, Los Angeles, where we are watching fires still tragically burn from weeks ago without even a token of defense.”

Trump’s hyperbolic language callously ignored the massive efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and California firefighters. But I digress.

Having reviled his predecessor’s alleged failures, Trump promised to restore the United States:

“After all we have been through together, we stand on the verge of the four greatest years in American history. With your help, we will restore America promise and we will rebuild the nation that we love — and we love it so much.” [italics added]

Donald Trump's 2017 Inaugural Address, Part 1: Parallel Phrases

Donald Trump's 2017 Inaugural Address, Part 2, "American Carnage"

Restoration!

Trump, however, assured the nation that he would restore what was lost. He would restore what was lost by reversing Biden’s “betrayal.” Trump would return the United States to the old ways:

“My recent election is a mandate to completely and totally reverse a horrible betrayal and all of these many betrayals that have taken place and to give the people back their faith, their wealth, their democracy, and, indeed, their freedom. From this moment on, America’s decline is over. And we are going to bring law and order back to our cities.” [italics added]

Trump promised, not only to restore the United States, but to return to the 19th century concept of American exceptionalism and to bring about a new golden age – an age of peace – an age of unity – an age of power:

“We will be a nation like no other, full of compassion, courage, and exceptionalism. Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent, and totally unpredictable.”

Donald Trump, official portrait

Among his many proposed reforms, Trump promised to remove government protections for minority races or people who did not conform to conservative sexual behavior. Indeed, rejecting Civil Rights reforms like Affirmative Action, Trump promised to restore the nation’s traditional racial and sexual attitudes:

“This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life. We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.

“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”

Those statements, which much shocked mainstream moderators, make perfect sense if we understand that Trump sought to restore what was lost. The 14th amendment to the Constitution promised everyone “equal protection of the law.” Conservatives have never liked the 14th. The 14th mandated change—and, to Trump, change caused our troubles.

Trump also promised to restore traditional sexual mores. Scientists contend that sex and gender are far from simple. The Cleveland Clinic points out that about 1%-2% of people are not unambiguously male or female, and many people vary from the XX or XY chromosome types. For example, some people might be XYY. Instead of facing such complexities, Trump promised to outlaw them. To return to the old ways. To value tradition, not newfangled ideas. To keep things simple.

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address: A Call to Service

Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God:" Prophecy in American Rhetoric

Move Forward by Going Back!

So, overall, probably without realizing it, Trump spoke in the prophetic rhetorical tradition. Just as ancient prophets sought to restore the old ways, Trump sought to restore tradition. If that required him to misrepresent the Biden administration, to overlook basic biology, or to make absurd promises, so be it. It was the formula, not the facts, that carried his power. We failed, he said, because we changed. To succeed does not mean to move forward: it means to restore what we have lost. To go back. To restore what we forsook. To restore our old values. Such was the prophetic message as often (mis)represented in American rhetoric, and such was Trump’s agenda.

by William D. Harpine  

_____________

Research Note: American speakers from Jonathan Edwards to Daniel Webster to Ronald Reagan spoke in the prophetic style. Now, I do not in any way mean that Judeo-Christian teachings require us to move backwards, nor that the prophets rejected basic moral teachings. Evidently unknown to Trump, the prophets wrote of caring for the marginalized and spreading justice. I refer instead to the way that American speakers talk in the prophetic tradition. Prof. James Darsey has written that radical speakers often quote the Old Testament prophets. My University of Illinois mentor, Prof. Kurt Ritter, published an important and much-cited research article about the jeremiad, the typical American doom-saying rhetoric that warns us of upcoming calamity. Prof. James Gilmore and his colleagues have written brilliantly about jeremiad themes in Trump’s earlier speeches.

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Trump's inauguration: United States Congress, public domain

Image of Donald Trump: official White House portrait, public domain

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address: A Call to Service

John Kennedy's Inauguration

A president’s inaugural address sets the incoming president's themes and values. So it was on January 20, 1961.

“Let both sides,” said President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address, “explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.” In this magnificent speech, Kennedy asked for unity. He called the nation to its values: liberty, compassion, and service.

Commentators dwelled on the magnificent phrasing, but let us not neglect what truly inspired – Kennedy’s theme. Kennedy praised concord, not division. He promulgated a vision, and it was the only kind of vision that could possibly make a nation great. That is, Kennedy began his presidency by calling the nation and the world together. His message still resonates in the cynical days of the 21st Century. 

So, today, I focus not on speaking techniques, although Kennedy’s technique was admirable, but on theme. Every beginning speech student learns to establish a thesis or central idea. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s theme was that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Donald Trump’s 2017 theme was “American carnage.” 

Donald Trump's 2017 Inaugural Address, Part 1: Parallel Phrases

Donald Trump's 2017 Inaugural Address, Part 2, "American Carnage"

Kennedy’s 1961 theme was selfless service. Of his many sonorous phrases, it is his magnificent call to American service that rings across the decades:

“And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

So powerful! Kennedy did not promise that the nation would reward our selfish desires. Instead, he asked us to work together.

My mother’s favorite statement from the speech came next:

“My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

And, in my view, Kennedy’s most powerful message – a message that should ring true today – a theme that we need to hear today more than ever – called for strength, sacrifice, and conscience:

“Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.”

With such words, Kennedy articulated values that have all but vanished from American political discourse. He promised no easy ride. He did not pledge to free us from risk. Instead, he asked all Americans – all citizens of the world – to work together in common cause for justice and peace. He asked us to serve one another. 

Do these values still resonate in 2025? Donald Trump will give his second inaugural address tomorrow, January 20, 2025. As you listen to the speech, and I hope that all my readers will, set aside, for a moment, their thoughts about Trump’s specific arguments or policies, and look instead at his values. What theme does he state? Does he ask to bring the nation and the world together, or to tear us apart? Does he call for conscience, or for rage? Listen without prejudgment, but listen, above all else, for his theme.

Each president’s inaugural address establishes the speaker’s values and hopes. Yes, unexpected challenges can arise. After all, no one expected George W. Bush’s presidency (which started on economic themes) to be devoted to terrorism. The COVID epidemic disrupted Trump’s first presidency. Values, however, still reign supreme. So, what are those values? Do we all share those values? Does the president call us to common values? And what do the president’s values say about us, the nation who put him in power?

“Here on earth, God’s work must truly be our own.” God bless the United States of America.

 

“We Are All Republicans, We Are All Federalists:” Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address Urged the United States to Find Unity

by William D. Harpine

______________

P.S. I attended Kennedy’s inauguration as a nine-year-old child. My family skipped the speech itself: my father cared more about the parade. That parade featured wonderful marching bands and a replica of PT 109. My mother pitied the superbly-drilled majorettes who marched bravely through the bitter cold, dressed only in tights and short dresses. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline rode past in the famous presidential limousine. My family got separated amongst the crowd, but we reunited at the Willard Hotel’s elegant coffee shop and made our way safely home.

P.P.S. Kennedy’s inaugural address was drafted by speechwriter Theodore Sorensen. The speech expresses much wisdom, and I hope that everyone will take time either to listen to it or to read the entire text. Its message is as true today as it was 64 years ago. The website AmericanRhetoric.com lists this speech as the second-best United States speech of modern times, ranking only below Martin Luther King’s magnificent “I Have a Dream.” Kennedy spoke outdoors on the United States Capitol porch, enduring the horrible winter storm dressed only in his suit, with no hat or overcoat. Brrr!

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Jimmy Carter's 1980 State of the Union Offered Moral Guidance

James "Jimmy" Carter

As we celebrate today a National Day of Mourning for the late President Jimmy Carter, let us revisit key wisdom from his final State of the Union Address, delivered in the United States Capitol on January 23, 1980. Carter reminded all of us that the United States of America is, and should be, the world’s center of just government. Yet, he stated, we can meet our problems only by determined effort, not simplistic slogans. Carter, never an eloquent speaker, was often a wise one. In this speech, Carter offered the nation an eternal message.

Since the United States seems to have forgotten Carter’s simple lessons, let us remind ourselves that, as Carter said, the right way is always the best way, while we should never trust the easy way. In politics as in life, there are no shortcuts.

Carter offered those key points as he neared his conclusion:

“We will never abandon our struggle for a just and a decent society here at home. That’s the heart of America -- and it's the source of our ability to inspire other people to defend their own rights abroad.”

In his typically preachy language, Carter implied that having a “just and decent” society never comes easily. Yes, the founders of our great Republic created the world’s first modern representative government. Each generation, however, must continue the fight: never abandon our struggle. Carter continued:

“Our material resources, great as they are, are limited. Our problems are too complex for simple slogans or for quick solutions. We cannot solve them without effort and sacrifice.”

That is as true today as it was then. That point is, unfortunately, even less popular than it was in 1980. Now, as then, people pursue easy but chimerical solutions that lead them blindly on an unchanging course of failure.

Sadly, today, public figures who should know better scream that the solution to climate change is to rake our forests, or insist that we can hide in isolation from other nations’ struggles. In contrast, Carter remarked that, although we cannot do everything, we also must eschew easy answers. We must instead know that only “effort and sacrifice” can resolve our concerns. We must seize our greatness, not by force, but by justice and dedication.

Carter was sometimes criticized as a Preacher-In-Chief. Maybe so. But we needed to hear what he said. We still do.

Good luck to us all. Heaven preserve the United States of America as a land of justice, freedom, and equality.

Happy New Year!

Biden's 2024 State of the Union Warned of Impending Calamity

by William D. Harpine  

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official Presidential Photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

King Charles III's Christmas Speech Called for the "Life-Giving Light"

King Charles III

As political tensions spread across our globe, and authoritarian impulses are taking over too many world governments, let us reflect on Christmas is a time of harmony, service, and mutual love.

On December 25, 2022, King Charles III broadcast a radio message across Great Britain. After mourning his mother’s recent death, he talked about the universal values that Christmas can represent for us. Those values, the values of light, goodness and compassion, are shared by good people everywhere, regardless of religious or political views. Charles explained:

"It is a belief in the extraordinary ability of each person to touch, with goodness and compassion, the lives of others, and to shine a light in the world around them.

"This is the essence of our community and the very foundation of our society."

Charles emphasized that we live in community with one another and that we all have the “extraordinary ability” to reach out “goodness and compassion:”

"It is a belief in the extraordinary ability of each person to touch, with goodness and compassion, the lives of others, and to shine a light in the world around them.

"This is the essence of our community and the very foundation of our society."

Without that sense of light, how can we live together in society?

The Harpine Family Christmas Tree

All too often, we think that religion limits us. We say, "my religion is better than yours,” or, worse, “only people who agree with me can receive the blessings that my religion promises.” Charles stressed that, although Christmas is a sectarian holiday, all of us can, and must, maintain the same basic values. Regardless of our religious views, we can contend that light should always overcome darkness. The king continued:

"While Christmas is, of course, a Christian celebration, the power of light overcoming darkness is celebrated across the boundaries of faith and belief.

"So, whatever faith you have, or whether you have none, it is in this life-giving light, and with the true humility that lies in our service to others, that I believe we can find hope for the future. 

"Let us therefore celebrate it together, and cherish it always."

From unity, we can receive hope. By reflecting on what we share, and not how we differ, we can work together and move forward.

I hope that all my readers enjoy this season, which is holy to Christians around the world, and I extend those wishes to all of you: for, no matter what religious beliefs you might, or might not hold, regardless of whether we agree or do not agree politically or religiously, we all sojourn on this planet together. Let us reach out toward the light, with understanding and empathy, and, as King Charles said, “celebrate it together.”

Peace. 

by William D. Harpine

Earlier Post: Pope Francis' Christmas Message

Earlier Post: Governor Greg Abbott Didn't Know the Christmas Story

Image of King Charles III, White House photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Christmas Tree image, William D. Harpine, copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Election Count Conspiracy Theorists Get the Math Wrong

Yogi Berra supposedly said, “It ain’t over till it’s over.” The only official election count is the final, verified count of every single vote. Everything else is just a projection – an estimate, a sample.

When election results or projections don’t match the final count, well, people start spreading silly conspiracy theories. Sports help us understand that.


A Sports Analogy

So, for the moment, let us think about elections like a sport. Suppose the New Paris Porcupines meet the Old Heathen Hedgehogs on the gridiron. With one minute to go in the fourth quarter, the Porcupines lead by 21 to 8. The Porcupines have 72% of the points, and the lowly Hedgehogs only have 28%. The Porcupines are running away with the game! The Hedgehogs don’t have a chance!

Then, disaster strikes! The Porcupines fumble the Hedgehogs’ onside kick. The Hedgehogs’ worst player scoops up the ball and runs for a touchdown! Add an extra point! The score is 21 to 15! Horrors! The Porcupines’ devoted fans cover their faces in terror!

High School Touchdown

Ready for another onside kick, the Porcupines crowd up to the kicker, only to watch the ball sail over their heads to the 10-yard line. A Hedgehog scoops up the bouncing ball and, before you know it, the whistle blows, and the Hedgehogs win, 22 to 21.

Sports fans call that a come-from-behind triumph. But what if the Porcupines’ fans are politicians? That changes everything:

“We were winning with 72%, and then lost in only one minute! That proves bad scorekeeping! The Hedgehogs cheated! Throw the spiny fuzzballs in jail! Forfeit their season! Lock up the refs! It is impossible to lose when you lead by that much in the last minute! Statistics don’t lie! The refs should have stopped the game. It was all but over until the Hedgehogs cheated! Cheaters!”

Obviously, say the politicians, this must be football fraud. The numbers prove it!

That is nonsense. Sports fans know that teams can have a different score in every quarter. Newsreel touchdowns happen. Something similar is true in elections.

In fact, this is a perfectly fair comparison. Let us look at why.


Estimating the Final Vote

Typical Election Cheating Post

Let’s suppose we are counting votes in Political City, USA. Political City has two precincts. Precinct #1 is a rich suburb, packed with Republicans and their SUVs. Precinct #2, however, is on the poor side of the tracks. Most of the voters are Democrats, many of whom hobble around in poor health and prefer to vote by mail. Political City has about 40,000 voters, but budget cutbacks left them with too few poll workers. Counting all the ballots will drag on and on. And on and on and …

All the same, everyone is excited to know whether Pat Psychopath or Chris Sociopath will win the mayor’s race. Long before the complete vote is tabulated, the local news wants to get a quick sample to find out who won. We can’t wait for days to hear the final count. I mean, seriously, think of the suspense! Nerve-racking!

That’s where statistics might help us. Statisticians take samples to estimate the final count. Does that work? Maybe, maybe not. It mostly depends on how you collect the sample.

Sampling Method #1: We collect all the ballots. But we don’t count them yet. Instead, we dump all the ballots into a huge, dry tub. We blindfold three honest poll workers, and they stir all the ballots with broomsticks for 30 minutes. The ballots are now completely mixed up. The rich Republicans, the poor Democrats, and voters who don’t fit into any category are all randomly mixed.

Now, still blindfolded, the three honest poll workers yank a thousand ballots out of the tub and those ballots are counted first. Do those thousand ballots predict whether Pat or Chris is going to be the next mayor? Well, with a certain margin for error, they probably do. It is remotely possible, of course, that by sheer bad luck the thousand ballots could be almost all Republicans. In that case, the thousand ballots would show that the Republican will win, even though the final count might say the Democrat wins. Still, most of the time – not all the time – but most of the time – a thousand ballots picked at random will closely but not exactly predict the final result. That’s because the thousand ballots were chosen fairly and randomly, and every voter had an equal chance to be included.

Anyway, let’s imagine that Sampling Method #1 correctly estimates that Democrat Chris Sociopath will be the next mayor.

Sampling Method #2: Most of Political City’s Republicans voted in person using electronic machines (which also create a paper ballot trail), and their votes are easy to count. The Democrats, however, mostly voted by mail. They are harder to count. Their ballots need to be opened, and the signatures must be verified. Then the ballots must feed into a scanner, and then the scanner’s information shuffles off into the main computer. There’s nothing wrong with that rigmarole, but it takes time. Now, since everyone is eager to know, the news reports the count two hours after the polls close. That count includes 20,000 votes! Half of the voters! A much bigger sample than we got with Method #1! A huge sample! The count for Method #2 mostly includes Republicans, since they were easier to count, and, when we look at the numbers, we think that Pat Psychopath will the election by a huge, huge margin. Maybe 72% to 28%! So, we all think that Pat will become mayor and ruin Political City.

However, once all the Democrats are counted days later, it turns out that Chris Sociopath won the election by 10 votes. We count and double check, since the election is so close, but it comes out the same every time. Chris won. Congratulations to Chris, and it will be Chris, and not Pat, who gets to make a mess of everything and ruin the town.

The difference between Sampling Method #1 and Sampling Method #2 is not the number of ballots in the sample. That matters, but less than you would think. No, the difference is how the sample was created. With Method #1, the sample is fair and every Republican and every Democrat, not to mention every independent and every confused voter, has an equal chance to be in the sample. However, with Method #2, although the sample is huge, it is not fair. Few mail-in ballots are included. Fewer Democrats have a chance to be included. Therefore, the sample from Method #2 is inaccurate, because Republicans are a bigger part of the sample from Method #2 than they are of the voting population.

So, if we project the election from Method #1, we will probably (not always, but probably) come close to the final result. If, however, we rely on Method #2, where the sample is unfair, the sample might not resemble the final tally.

Worse, all sampling introduces some error, probably 4% or 5% even using the best methods. The closer the election becomes, the more important sample errors become – since the sample will never exactly match the proportion of the entire population – and so it takes longer to produce a valid estimate. If the election is close, we might never have a valid estimate. That’s just how statistics work. The projections and the early reports are never the final total. That is why even the smartest news networks cannot calculate or even estimate accurate election results when the election is super-close.

“It ain’t over till it’s over.”

Remember – and this is critical – the only count – and I mean the only count – that means anything is the final tally that has been tabbed up, verified, double checked, and reported to the authorities. Everything you hear, either from the media or the voting officials, before we have a 100% verified count, is an estimate – an educated guess. That educated guess comes either from Sampling Method #1, which is often but not always right, or Sampling Method #2, which is typically wrong. An incomplete vote count is only a sample—and, worse, an incomplete count uses Sample Method #2. A count of 98% of the votes is still just Sampling Method #2. If the educated guess takes a long time, or if it is occasionally inaccurate, well, that doesn’t prove that anyone cheated. It only proves that samples do not always work, and that unfair samples often fail.


Down with the Conspiracy Theories

So, when Gripey Garrett gripes on social media, “My candidate was winning with 90% of the vote counted, but now she is losing,” all that means is that Gripey Garrett was using Sampling Method #2, and you should never trust Sampling Method #2.

Now, in the real 2024 election, Democrats tend to live in cities, and cities can take longer to count because they have more voters. How long does it take to count all the votes in a village of 500 people? How long does it take to count the votes of a million people? Also, Democrats often mail their ballots or drop them off in collection boxes. Those ballots need to be opened, verified, and fed into scanners. That is why it is not unusual for Democrats to need longer to count. When we see an early surge in Republican counts, followed by a surge in Democrats, well, that’s often just the process of counting. The early voting reports use Sampling Method #2. And you can never trust Sampling Method #2. Basic math.

So, if you want to prove that someone stole an election, you need to find evidence of the actual stealing. The fact that voting percentages change as the ballots are counted only means that you are using Sampling Method #2.

Earlier Post: Don't Expect Same Day Election Results

  
Earlier Post: Were the Polls Wrong in 2020? And, if so, Why?

And, finally, congratulations to the Hedgehogs for their great victory! Hail to the Hedgehogs, good work. They played hard to the end! The first, second, third quarters were not the whole game. The score after three quarters is just Sample #2. The fourth quarter still matters. The last 60 seconds still matter. We aren’t shocked when a team comes from behind to win. Likewise, we should expect voting percentages to change while the counters count. That’s just math.

Every eligible American citizen should vote in every single election. Never miss. Never forget. And always inform yourself before you vote. Never trust Sampling Method #2. Thank you, and God Bless the United States of America.
 

by William D. Harpine

______________________________

P.S. How do athletic teams sometimes overcome late scoring deficits? Other than pure luck, the winning team might have more endurance. Maybe the losing team gets cocky and celebrates too soon. Each quarter is different—the score from quarters 1 through 3 is just Sampling Method #2! A come from behind victory isn’t cheating. It’s just sports. Only the final score counts. 

Lever-Style Voting Machine

P.P.S. Is it possible to cheat in an election? Of course. American elections were often (not always, but often) crooked as recently as my youth. Unsupervised partisan operatives sometimes managed the ballots. That was common practice here in Texas for decades. Elections in many states used paper ballots, and political operatives could erase the ballots, throw them away, or add more ballots if the results didn’t come out the way they wanted. Seriously. Have you never heard of the old (now defunct) Chicago political machine? 

Likewise, mechanical voting machines, widely used for decades, were robotic fraud machines. I watched my vote get mixed up by a mechanical machine in 1980 in Virginia when I tried to vote for Independent John Anderson, and the officials just shoved me out the door. I should have protested, but, in Virginia, in 1980, who would have listened? Modern voting methods are, in contrast, stunningly secure. Is it still possible to cheat? Probably. But you need evidence before you call someone a cheater. Okay? 

P.P.P.S. It's not easy to understand statistics. The math isn't necessarily hard, but the human brain is simply not wired to grasp probabilities. We think in terms of "yes" or "no," not "maybe." All the same, every school should require at least a brief stats course. It could save our nation so much grief...

I Voted Sticker, State of Texas, Nueces County

Touchdown photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of lever-style voting machine by RadioFan, Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Lincoln versus Trump: Thanksgiving Messages by Two Republican Presidents

I hope that all of my dear readers in the United States enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday on November 28. Did you take time at the Thanksgiving table to give a message saying what you are thankful for?

Let’s look at Thanksgiving messages by the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, and the upcoming Republican president, Donald Trump. Lincoln, writing in the midst of the American Civil War, issued a proclamation of thanks, unity, and forgiveness. Trump, in contrast, offered thanks that his political enemies met their downfall in the November 2024 election. A positive message, a hostile message, but both giving thanks. As we compare those two messages, we can reflect, we can learn about our own souls. Do we give thanks for ongoing good, or for crushing our enemies? Do we seek reconciliation, or triumph? And which of the two men was right? Although Lincoln’s Thanksgiving proclamation uplifted me, while Trump’s odious thoughts left me sickened, I hesitate to say that one of them was factually right and the other wrong. Let’s look at why.

Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Abraham Lincoln issued a Thanksgiving proclamation on October 3, 1863. Americans, both north and south, littered the American Civil War’s battlefields. Lincoln would be giving his famous Gettysburg address only a few weeks later. The American Civil War took almost as many American lives as the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War added together. Lincoln offered his proclamation while unspeakable horror wracked the nation. In the midst of that disaster, Lincoln opened his proclamation by giving thanks for the harvest and the heavens. How positive can you get? 

“The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and even soften the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.”

It should surprise no student of history that Lincoln attributed these good things, not to his own leadership, but exclusively to God.

Although he acknowledged the war, Lincoln continued to praise the progress of agriculture and industry:

“Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore.”

Again, Lincoln denied that he, himself, had anything to do with the abundance. No, he attributed all the good things to God alone.

Indeed, even as Lincoln said that God punished the United States of America for the wickedness of slavery, God rewarded the nation out of his own goodness:

“No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”

Not directly attributing the war to any human failing, Lincoln reified the moral judgment: God was “dealing with us in anger” in retribution for evil. (One assumes that “our sins” referred to chattel slavery). For that reason, Lincoln asked all Americans to give thanks to God. In the midst of disaster, he said that it was time to give thanks. Accepting the war and suffering to be just, Lincoln considered God to be “beneficent:”

“I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”

Only then did Lincoln call, not for revenge, but for healing. He implored for …

“… the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation, and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.”

What Did the Gettysburg Address Really Say?

Lincoln’s response to horror and disaster was to give thanks to God, to emphasize the positive, and to call for restoration. Does it come as any surprise that so many Americans, including me, consider Lincoln to be not only our most eloquent, but also our greatest president? Let us now compare Lincoln’s uplifting proclamation with Donald Trump’s Thanksgiving post.

Trump’s Truth Social Post Gave Thanks for Vanquishing His Political Opponents

We fallen human beings often wish ill upon our enemies. Sadly, not all of us think and feel like Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, in conflict, in wartime, people often thank God for vanquishing their enemies. That is nothing new. In his Truth Social Post for Thanksgiving, Trump gave thanks – without mentioning God – for putting aside the “Radical Left Lunatics:”

Trump’s post reads, in its entirety:

Donald Trump, official portrait

“Happy Thanksgiving to all, including to the Radical Left Lunatics who have worked so hard to destroy our Country, but who have miserably failed, and will always fail, because their ideas and policies are so hopelessly bad that the great people of our Nation just gave a landslide victory to those who want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Don’t worry, our Country will soon be respected, productive, fair, and strong, and you will be, more than ever before, proud to be an American!” 

Trump gave only sarcastic thanks to the “Radical Left Lunatics.” While Lincoln obliquely condemned slavery, which was an unquestionable evil, Trump branded liberal policies as “hopelessly bad.” He falsely claimed to have obtained a “landslide victory.” As of today, December 1, 2024, with almost all of the votes counted, Trump received 49.9% of the popular vote, while Harris took 48.3%. Trump certainly won, but advantage of a mere 1.6% hardly counts as a landslide.

Trump said his opponents had “miserably failed, and will always fail.” Under his administration, however, “our Country will soon be respected, productive, fair, and strong.” The failure of others was merely an opportunity for Trump to achieve success. 

Trump gave thanks to himself and his own policies for the triumphs that had not yet occurred, but which, he said, surely would, because he and his cohorts, the winners, “want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Trump did not give a message of unity. No, instead, Trump’s dark Thanksgiving message gave no credit to God and allowed no humanity to his opponents. He depicted a dark struggle between “lunatics” who wanted to destroy America, as compared with himself, who wanted to restore America.

Now, truly, apocalyptic rhetoric is often followed by a biblical Jeremiad: that is to say, in biblical terms that he himself probably did not understand, Trump pushed forward a vision of disaster and collapse, followed by restoration. Instead of making that victory out to be divine, instead of emulating Lincoln, who gave God all of the credit, Trump took the glory for himself.

Trump Against the "Radical Leftists"

 

Conclusion

Lincoln’s upcoming 1864 election gave the nation a stark choice: vote for Lincoln to end slavery but continue the bloodshed, or defeat him in the interest of an unjust peace in which a divided nation would continue to enslave unpaid and abused workers. The United States also faced a stark choice in the 2024 election. Trump’s Thanksgiving message accentuated that choice while emphasizing our nation’s ongoing divisions. Still, in contrast, during the American Civil War, a calamity of internal chaos that exceeded any domestic horror of later centuries, Lincoln looked to the positive and asked God to heal the nation; yet, in a time of relative peace and prosperity, Trump attacked his enemies. .

And who was right? Did the nation truly heed Lincoln’s plea for healing? Less than two short years after Lincoln’s proclamation, a pro-slavery assassin ended the president’s life. Sadly, sharecropping, Jim Crow laws, and the Ku Klux Klan quickly replaced slavery, leaving millions of formerly enslaved workers only a little bit better off than they had been. A division between the former free states and the former slave states still left its shadow on the 2024 election results. Just look at any election map. So, who was right? Do we give thanks for our imperfectly healed wounds? Or do we continue the cruel battle that began when Confederate soldiers shelled Fort Sumter in 1861? I shudder to think.

The Family Thanksgving Speech: What Are You Thankful For?

by William D. Harpine  

Copyright © by William D. Harpine

Portrait of Abraham Lincoln by Alexander Gardner, 1863, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Donald Trump, official White House photo

What Did the Gettysburg Address Really Say?

Abraham Lincoln, 1863

The United States of America’s most famous speech, Abraham Lincoln’s November 19, 1863, Gettysburg Address praised the thousands of young men who gave their lives to repel Robert E. Lee’s invasion of the North and, according to some, turn the tide of the American Civil War.

Lincoln gave no vacuous speech uttering empty praises for the war’s dead. No, he called for policy. He called for action. He asked the nation to continue the war.

Standing on a platform at the cemetery’s muddy excavation site, Lincoln spoke with surpassing eloquence. American schoolchildren learn his famous phrases:

“Four score and seven years ago.”

“Conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

But let us not miss the point. In this most magnificent of all epideictic speeches, Lincoln called passionately for a controversial and bloody policy: to continue the Civil War until the Union was restored and justice could reclaim the American ethos. The American Civil War’s appalling bloodshed and brutality shocked the nation, as hardly a household anywhere in the North or South had escaped the grief of losing a husband, brother, son, or cousin. Lincoln was not, in 1863, a popular man. 

Today, such vague, almost spiritual, value-laden rhetoric seems strangely unfamiliar. Indeed, in our cynical, technocratic 21st century, we expect to decide policies by nitpicking analysis, statistics, proof, and expert testimony. Lincoln offered none of that. Instead, he discussed values. His central value was simple. Brave men had consecrated Gettysburg’s hillsides with their blood – as they fought for the Union and against the cruel institution of chattel slavery. It was their values, the value of freedom, the value of justice, of equality, of wise and just government, that justified continuing the war.

By this point in his presidency, Lincoln had overcome some of his initial reticence and was hinting more and more boldly about the evils of slavery. Keep in mind that, although cynical southern apologists frequently saw slavery as a positive good, no one with a conscience could possibly believe them. The idea that human beings could be captured, kidnapped, and beaten, to force them to work for nothing, appalls everyone who knows right from wrong. Reasoned argument was not the point. The time for reasoning was over. It was time for justice: that is why Lincoln’s key point, which was so often overlooked when we read this speech, comes down to these arguments:

First, Lincoln, the great sovereign of words, said that actions count more than words:

“The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.” [italics added]

Second, he said that the dead, no longer able to fight, implicitly asked us to continue their noble struggle. That is a policy. That is action:

“It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain…”

Third, and, finally, out of the horrors of war, the nation had an opportunity – a God-given chance – to reform itself, to regain union according to justice:

“That this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Government “of the people, by the people, for the people” was no empty phrase. Wise, just government never appears by accident. According to Lincoln, only after the United States pursued its bitter conflict and paid the horrible price for the wickedness of slavery, at which he hinted in this momentous speech – then, and only then could we have government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

From values, we get policies. From suffering, we learn terrible lessons. From justice, we hope to reconcile.

Sadly, according to what I read in the news, that lesson has still not been fully learned. There can be, however, no greater lesson for a president to teach. And this, my dear readers, is why Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president. 

by William D. Harpine

Prince Harry Talked about Sacrifice and Freedom at the 2018 Invictus Games

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

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

____________________________________

This remarkable picture is the only known photograph of Lincoln at Gettysburg. It appears to have been exposed some time before his speech. Lincoln's head is in the marked red box. 

Interestingly, Lincoln's friend Edward Everett was the day's featured speaker, and Lincoln was invited as an afterthought. 

Portrait of Abraham Lincoln by Alexander Gardner, 1863, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Lincoln at Gettysburg, unknown photographer, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons