Did Donald Trump Change the Subject and Set the Agenda at the RNCC Fundraiser?

Donald Trump, WH photo

Much commentary about President Donald Trump's speech at the Republican National Congressional Committee fundraiser the other day. CNN headlined a story by Chris Cillizza featuring "The 35 Most Startling Lines from Donald Trump's Speech at a Big Republican Fundraiser." That kind of negative coverage, in a story that emphasized unreasonable or exaggerated statements that Mr. Trump made during the speech, might well stimulate Mr. Trump to talk again about the mainstream media as "fake news."

You win a debate by picking your strongest points and harping on them. You lose a debate by getting excessively defensive. Mr. Trump used this speech to set the agenda.

On the one hand, Cillizza's headline is right. Mr. Trump did make some startling statements, and he surely overstated a number of points. He promised that he would never apologize: "We don't apologize," he said in the speech. Why not? If you're wrong, admit it like an adult!

He said that he hated his own catch phrase "Drain the Swamp," but said that he used it because "Every time I said it, I'd get the biggest applause." He said something he did not like because people cheered? How bizarre! It is entirely proper for journalists to point that kind of thing out to their readers and listeners.

But does Cillizza's criticism not miss the point?  He overlooks how Mr. Trump set the agenda. It wasn't how Mr. Trump talked about things, it was what he talked about. Let us imagine that politics in the United States takes the form of a gigantic debate, with thousands of debaters nationwide arguing in many different places, and that people think of this debate as having only two sides: liberal and conservative. Who is winning the debate? We will not know for sure until the next election cycle, will we? Did Mr. Trump use a good debate strategy? That depends!

OK, sure, in an ideal world, debaters would stick to the facts, prove their points, and give reasons against their opponents' points. In any case, that is what I was taught when I was in high school and college (thank you, Barbara Sue Carter, Patrick Micken, Donald McConkey, and my other debate teachers!). Would it not be nice if people used accurate facts in their debates?

The other point about winning a debate, however, is that the winner of the debate is the side that sets the agenda. The side that decides which issues will be discussed and which ones will not becomes the side that decides which points are important. That is usually the side that wins the debate. If you are always on the defensive – if you are always refuting your opponents' points – you are losing the debate. Set the ground, win the battle!

In this speech, Donald Trump was setting the agenda. That was the real point, and critics like Cillizza missed it.

What is on his opponents' agenda? No secret there: Russia, the Mueller investigation, and an impending government shutdown. Awful stuff. That is what his opponents want to talk about. If the agenda stays on those issues, Mr. Trump will be in trouble.

But Mr. Trump had a different agenda: he focused on successes. Consider this introductory point:

"Our Republican majority is one of the most successful in the history of the United States Congress.  Now, we must work to keep our majority so we can keep up the fight for American workers, American security, and the American values enshrined in our glorious Constitution and in our great American flag.  (Applause.)"

Overstated? Of course. Congress has not passed legislation anywhere near as comprehensive as, for example, the New Deal or the Great Society. Still, Mr. Trump's statement covered just about everything except Mom and chocolate chip cookies. People love a winner, and here are some specific examples of winning that Mr. Trump talked about: 

• Job creation 

"We’ve created more than 3 million new jobs since the election.  And if we would have said that number prior to the election, nobody would have believed it possible.  Jobless claims are at — think of it — jobless claims are at a nearly 50-year low.  Fifty years.  (Applause.)  That’s an amazing statistic."

Did that claim overstate the economy a bit? Well, yes. But the economy is in pretty good shape right now, and people usually credit the president for that, so he shifted the agenda away from, for example, Russia, and toward job creation. He avoided the criticisms, and focused on the positive: not defending himself, but instead asserting a positive agenda.

• Wage growth

"Wages are rising at the fastest pace in more than a decade, and I’ve been talking on the campaign trail for so long that wages have been stagnant for 18, 20, and even 21 years."


Again, that overstates things, since wage growth is still very weak, but it was a positive message and there is some truth to it.

• And on the attack about taxes!

IRS 1040

Also, Mr. Trump went on the attack against his Democratic opponents:


"Every single Democrat in Congress opposed our middle class tax cuts.  And if Democrats were to gain control of the House, the first thing they would do is raise your taxes.  They would raise your taxes.  They would take away what we’ve done and raise your taxes.  And actually, I’ve seen some of the numbers — very substantially raise your taxes."

That, again, is a little questionable, since most of the tax cuts are going to the very wealthy, but it is still a positive message, and he showed the Democrats to be against it. Since it is hard to put tax increases in a positive light, Mr. Trump's strategy here is clever. 

• Attacking some more!

According to Mr. Trump's speech, Democrats did other bad things: 

"A vote for House Democrats is truly a vote for open borders — people pouring into our country, pouring in.  We have no idea who they are.  They’re coming in — open borders.  You look at sanctuary cities, where criminals are protected."

In general, Mr. Trump's opponents consistently underestimate him. but this was a very persuasive speech, and it touched on points that greatly interest his voters and core supporters. He did not waste time defending himself against criticisms of foreign involvement, personal corruption, or inefficient administration. Even if he made good arguments on those points, those are his opponents' points, and it could do him little good to focus on them.

Instead, Mr. Trump focused on accomplishments, attacking against his opponents and raising the key issues of taxes and immigration. The speech was an attempt to reset the agenda. Although the mainstream press, such as CNN, largely missed the point, I am sure that his supporters did not.

This speech did commit what we used to call a "straw man" fallacy. I'll talk more about that later.

Did Trump Reset the Agenda When He Accused Haitians of Eating Pets?

Donald Trump

During his September 10, 2024 debate with Kamala Harris, brimming with indignation at the latest nonsensical conspiracy theory, Donald Trump complained about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio:

“They're eating the cats. They're eating - they're eating the pets of the people that live there.”

This debate was otherwise a failure for Trump, according to the polls, even in the minds of many Republicans. That is because Harris appeared to be stronger, better prepared, and more articulate. She seized the political agenda. Nevertheless, Trump re-seized the political agenda by lying about cats (and dogs). It was a delayed effect. So, in that twisted way, Trump turned the worst part of an embarrassing debate loss into a remarkable political advantage.

Of all the ridiculous things that Trump said during the debate, his comment about cats and dogs was the silliest – the most absurd – the most easily discredited. But for days after, the press could hardly talk about anything else. Thus, by lying through his teeth, Trump retook control of the agenda. People quickly forgot about what a terrible impression he had made while debating, and they forgot how much better Harris did than he did. None of that mattered any more. That is what “seizing the agenda” means. No, it all came down to the pets. Was anyone actually eating the pets? No, of course not. How silly. That wasn’t the point.

As one of her debating techniques, Harris cleverly provoked Trump into spewing out his conspiracy theories. Never one to overlook an opportunity, Trump immediately launched into a diatribe that may well be the lowest point in recent American politics. He argued that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio had been stealing and eating people’s pets. (The fact that his diatribe succeeded makes one tremble in horror):

“And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora [Colorado] or Springfield [Ohio]. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame.”

This was, of course, like Trump’s other conspiracy theories, not true. The rumor, which apparently originated in right-wing social media posts, arose entirely from a real case in which a woman who is not an immigrant, who lives in an entirely different part of the state, and is said to have frequent run-ins with the authorities, was found cooking a cat. Now, I like cats, and I am against people eating them. However, the Haitian immigrants in Springfield were not eating cats.

Earlier Post: Did Kamala Harris Set the Agenda When She Debated Donald Trump?

Springfield’s mayor, Rob Rue, and local police quickly denied that they had any believable reports that Haitian immigrants were stealing people’s pets, much less eating them. Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, urged for calm. He explained that the Haitian migrants had been in Springfield for years, that they were good residents and hard workers, and that they had helped to revitalize a struggling town. He emphasized that they were legal immigrants:

“What we know is that the Haitians who are in Springfield are legal. They came to Springfield to work. Ohio is on the move, and Springfield has really made a great resurgence with a lot of companies coming in. These Haitians came in to work for these companies. What the companies tell us is that they are very good workers. They’re very happy to have them there. And, frankly, that’s helped the economy.”

Unfortunately, DeWine’s fact-based talk collapsed in the face of anti-immigrant anger. DeWine reported that Springfield has received 33 or more bomb threats, many (but not all!) from overseas. It has become necessary to scour the schools for bombs every morning before classes begin. A cultural event was canceled to prevent anti-immigrant violence.

Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, the son of immigrants, held a town hall in Springfield, where he told a packed audience full of Trump hats that he wasn’t going to talk about cats (apparently realizing that the falsehood was too silly for words), but that he was troubled that so many immigrants had come to the city. Sidestepping the issue further, he said that the big problem was “illegal immigration,” neatly sidestepping the fact that the Haitian immigrants had arrived legally:

“What is the right legal immigration policy in this country? I’m guessing it’s illegal immigration. If you are first act of entering this country breaks the law, you should not be able to enter this country.”

Quickly seeing a way to gain readers and viewers, the press gave abundant attention to Ramaswamy’s slippery comments. Sensing a golden opportunity, Trump himself plans to visit Springfield, much to the mayor’s anxiety, presumably to spread more anti-immigrant ideas.

Even worse, vice presidential nominee J. D. Vance got on television and admitted that he had been lying about the Haitian refugees. Indeed, Vance repeated false claims about the refugees even after his staff determined that the claims were false.

He said:

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” [italics added]

So, let’s summarize:

During the debate, Trump made an utterly false and unreasonable complaint about Haitian immigrants who are, first, legally present, second, not eating cats, and, third, making an economic contribution to what had been a dying community.

 
Trump and his supporters quickly generalized the issue. Did it really matter whether the immigrants were legal or not? No, it turns out that they were immigrants, and this was enough to anger many conservatives. For years, I have heard Republicans declare that they support legal immigration, but not illegal immigration. That similarly noble position has, apparently, puffed into the ether.

 
Trump, Vance, and other Republicans are spreading a story that they know to be false. Doing so, they displaced the public agenda for several days, obliterating complaints about Trump’s poor debate performance.

What does it mean that Trump and his supporters have reset the agenda? It now becomes harder to talk about Springfield’s real issues, or the real issues of immigration. Trump and his supporters have filled the discourse with outrageous, easily disproven lies. Sheer malice. Having reset the agenda to immigration, not Trump’s debate performance, they now skitter and scamp to a variety of inconsistent positions. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they switch from one complaint to the other. No, it’s not really the cats that are the real issue, the complaint is that the hospitals are packed. No, it is not really about cats and dogs either; instead, it is that some of the Haitians are bad drivers. No, Trump is not really concerned about cats or dogs. The issue, they say, is that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have opened the border and invited families to come to the U.S. and work.

Trump started the issue by flat-out lying about the immigrants. Caught out, Trump and his supporters simply squirm from one point, to the next, to the next, never settling on one argument, and thus never leaving themselves open to basic dialectic. Arguing with them is like wrestling with a huge ball of half-chilled Jell-O.

On a more complex level, however: by resetting the agenda, Trump has refocused the campaign. We were no longer talking about his confused, awkward debate performance. We, instead, started talking about the issue that made Trump famous: opposition to immigrants. Or, put it this way: Trump lost the debate on September 10, but, within a few days, he and his supporters gleefully rewrote the scoresheet and claimed victory.

Much of the press was hostile to Trump’s arguments. That is not the point at all. No, the point is that for about a week, the press and the pundits talked about Haitian immigrants and cats, to the exclusion of almost anything else in the political realm. Inflation, the economy, the coronavirus – and everything else – almost vanished from public discourse. The (mythical) cats ruled. Trump’s terrible debating was forgotten, and we forgot about his terrible debate because everyone was busy hassling over the most absurd thing he had said during the debate.

Such is American politics.

The cat-eating immigrants were not the only false conspiracy that Trump brought up during the debate. Wishing to be complete, Trump also ranted that FBI crime statistics were fudged, accused former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of being complicit in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol building, accused Harris of “weaponizing” the government against him, and falsely claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Those are old-hat conspiracy theories. No one much cares about them anymore. No, it was the cats that captured people’s attention. Now, the cat conspiracy theory was the silliest of the bunch, since no speck of evidence supported it, but it was new. It got people’s attention. People like cats. People like cats more than they like people. Trump and his supporters latched onto the accusation and refused to let it go.

So, people who think that Trump lost the debate because he lost on the issues are missing the point. For example, analyzing the debate right after, Republican pollster Frank Luntz wrongly speculated that Trump’s ranting about the cats and dogs while failing to discuss real issues would cost him dearly:

“The conversations about people eating dogs and cats, calling the leader of Hungary one of the greatest world leaders, repeatedly missing the opportunity to focus on inflation and affordability and the complete inability to present his point of view without completely tearing into her, into Joe Biden, into whomever was in his sights.”

I wish that I believed that Luntz was right. However, Trump recognizes, like no politician before him, that huge segments of the population could not care less about what is, and is not, true. It is not clear that Trump’s tirade about people stealing and eating pets helped him. What is clear is that he regained control of the agenda. We are talking about the issues that he wants us to talk about.

Heaven help us.

by William D. Harpine

______________________

Earlier Posts:

Biden Versus Trump, the June 27, 2024 Presidential Debate

Did Donald Trump Change the Subject and Set the Agenda at the RNCC Fundraiser?

Copyright ©  2024 by William D. Harpine

Official White House photo, public domain

Did Kamala Harris Set the Agenda When She Debated Donald Trump?

Kamala Harris

The side that sets the agenda usually wins the debate. Debating fellow presidential candidate Donald Trump on September 10, 2024, Vice-President Kamala Harris set the agenda by taking four simple steps.

First, just as the event started, she walked over to Trump’s podium to shake his hand and wish him a good debate. Trump is, of course, notoriously phobic of handshaking. By reaching forward, Harris approached Trump in his own space and established some control over the setting. By politely greeting him (“Kamala Harris. Let’s have a good debate”), Harris exhibited a collegial character. That simple greeting started the agenda. The handshake symbolized that she would take charge of the evening’s discussion. 

Second, she took a positive tone when she answered the moderators’ predictable but tricky first question. David Muir, one of the hosts, asked Harris:

“When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?”

That question invited a negative response. The question invited Harris to critique the economic record that Trump created during his presidential term and, by way of contrast, defend the current administration’s economic accomplishments. No matter how she phrased it, a direct response would place her and Trump both on the defense. Avoiding that, Harris took a different tack. Pretty much ignoring the question, Harris chose to establish her credibility by stating a vague but presumably inspiring economic policy: 

“So, I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America.”

Continuing, Harris talked about the:

“Ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people.”

She acknowledged a few current economic problems, commenting on housing costs. She advocated a start-up plan for small businesses, which she called “part of the backbone of America’s economy.”

Only then – after establishing her own perspective – and not a moment earlier – Harris criticized Trump’s economic ideas:

“My opponent, on the other hand, his plan is to do what he has done before, which is to provide a tax cut for billionaires and big corporations, which will result in $5 trillion to America’s deficit.”

Concluding her opening, Harris then (unfortunately) offered a confused interpretation of Trump’s tariff plan.

Third, during her rebuttal speech a few minutes later, Harris did – eventually – favorably compare the current economy with Trump’s. That was organizationally clever. Having earlier ignored the moderator’s question, Harris now answered it, but only in rebuttal. That way, no one could accuse her of ignoring the question, even though she had done exactly that. It was a matter of emphasis. Her first statement offered a positive philosophy, and only later did she contrast the current economy against Trump’s legacy:

“Let’s talk about what Donald Trump left us. Donald Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression. Donald Trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century. Donald Trump left us the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.”

Note Harris’ tripartite use of Trump’s name: “Donald Trump left us… Donald Trump left us… Donald Trump left us….” That put the onus for economic troubles squarely on Trump. Audiences respond well to anything stated in a pattern of three! Even so, she sidestepped the moderator’s attempt to get her to talk about President Joe Biden’s economic policies. After all, Biden was not debating that night. By comparing one president’s accomplishments or failures with the other, she would have invited a back-and-forth hassle about statistics and perceptions. She might have proved her points, but she would have lost the agenda. Entirely avoiding such a discussion, she wisely avoided going on the defense.  

Since Trump is known for his divisive style, Harris concluded her rebuttal by calling for unity:

“I believe very strongly that the American people want a president who understands the importance of bringing us together knowing we have so much more in common than what separates us. And I pledge to you to be a president for all Americans.”

Thus, by taking control of the debate’s ground, Harris focused the audience’s attention on her own perspective: not Trump’s perspective, and not the moderators’ perspective.

Earlier Post: William McKinley versus Donald Trump: Does Mr. Trump Really Need to Be So Nasty?

Fourth, as the press gleefully noted, Harris dug at some of Trump’s pet peeves. For example, she needlessly criticized Trump’s famous mass rallies:

“I’m going to invite you to attend one of Donald Trump’s rallies because it’s a really interesting thing to watch. You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.”

Defensively, Trump responded by boasting:

“People don’t leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics. That’s because people want to take their country back. Our country is being lost. We’re a failing nation.”

After defending his rallies (a defensive move!), Trump bitterly narrated the discredited Internet rumor that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio are kidnapping and cooking people’s pets:

“The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating -- they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

And, thus, Harris scooted Trump into ignoring the moderator’s question in favor of his personal grievances. She gave Trump a chance to say ridiculous things, distracting him from the moderators’ questions, and he unwisely took full advantage. The real point, however, is that she distracted Trump from the issues – which, in turn, helped her to control the agenda.

Overall, Harris’ stated vague, poorly articulated policy positions. For that matter, so did Trump. That’s not my point. It’s been a long, long time since American voters have heard a solidly argued presidential debate. What matters most, for the moment, is that Harris seized the agenda, asking the voters to view politics as a positive opportunity. Her agenda distinguished between her values and Trump’s. That is not enough to win the election, but it’s a good start.

Now, Trump is famous for controlling the public agenda. In this debate, he failed. He failed miserably. He utterly embarrassed himself. But, as I’ll explain in an upcoming post, he soon retook the agenda by marching onward with his most outrageous and factually challenged arguments. Indeed, it took him only a few days to spin the presidential campaign back into a swirling cloud of ether. Check this blog again in a day or two for details.

by William D. Harpine

__________________

Earlier Post: Did Donald Trump Change the Subject and Set the Agenda at the RNCC Fundraiser?

Earlier Post: Kamala Harris: "Investing in the Potential and the Greatness”

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

Neither Side Made a Good Case during the Trump vs. Pelosi and Schumer Shutdown Debate

Border Wall, Department of Homeland Security

Last Tuesday night, President Donald Trump gave a much-disparaged televised speech about immigration, the government shutdown, and his proposed border wall. Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer gave the also-maligned televised Democratic rebuttal. “Rebuttal” and “response” are debate terms. I was a high school and college debater and later a college debate coach and judge. Academic debate judges not only pick a winner, but also score the debaters. Judging as I would judge a high school or college debate contest, Trump squeaked out as the clear winner (because he set the agenda, and Pelosi and Schumer never reset it), but I would give all three of them rock-bottom scores.

Traditional debate theory says that, to win a debate, the side that wants change (Trump and his wall, in this case) must (1) prove that there is a need, (2) show what causes the need, (3) explain why the proposed solution will work, and (4) show that any disadvantages are minor. Trump failed to prove that the lack of a wall caused the need, while Pelosi and Schumer neglected to propose an adequate solution of their own.

Why Trump failed in this debate

Trump did a half-way decent job of showing that there is something wrong. He cited several cases of crimes that unauthorized immigrants committed: “Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally enter a country, and thousands more lies will be lost if we don’t act right now.” He also said that “Our southern border is a pipeline of vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. . . . More Americans will die from drugs this year they were killed in the entire Vietnam War.” His figures may not have been exactly right, but they were close enough to show that illegal border crossings cause a serious problem.

What he failed to show, however, is that these people and drugs got into the United States by crossing unsecured portions of the border. Challenging Trump, fact checkers noted that most illegal drugs are smuggled through customs portals. The president’s claims were not necessarily inaccurate, but they were not a valid reason to accept his solution, which was to build a wall. If drugs are being smuggled past customs agents, the government should upgrade the United States Customs, rather than build a wall.

Likewise, although some unauthorized immigrants do commit violent crimes (maybe not as many crimes as citizens, but crimes all the same) Mr. Trump did not establish that they were walking across unsecured border regions. Did they enter the country legally, and then overstay their visas? If so, a wall will not stop them.

Why Pelosi and Schumer failed in this debate

Right after Trump's speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer gave their rebuttal. They got many of their facts more or less right. They complained that much of what Trump has said during the shutdown “has been full of misinformation and even malice.” Well, yes. What else would you expect?

Pelosi noted that the House of Representatives had passed “bipartisan bills.” In modern political talk, finding that an idea has even a little bit of support from Democrats and Republicans alike makes people think that it’s automatically wonderful. But what was in these bills? And why were they good? Pelosi and Schumer never said.

Pelosi and Schumer, while agreeing that there was a need to have more border security (conceding Trump’s main point!), said that the wall was a waste of money and that the shutdown harmed government workers who were not being paid.

Pelosi briefly mentioned a few solutions: “we can build the infrastructure and roads at our points of entry; we can install new technology to scan cars and trucks for drugs coming in our nation; we can hire the personnel we need to facilitate trade and immigration at the border; and we can find more innovation to detect unauthorized crossings.”

These were not arguments; they were talking points. What new technology? Would the new technology do any good? Anybody can imagine that the wall will slow border crossings. Will the technology be as impressive? Many people see the wall as a strong, powerful solution. Did Pelosi prove that her alternate solutions would do any good? No, she did not. She didn’t even try.

Schumer’s proposed solutions were even more cryptic: “We can secure our border without an expensive, ineffective wall. And we can welcome legal immigrants and refugees without compromising safety and security. The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a 30-foot wall.”

We can secure the border without a wall? How? What security methods did Schumer want? He didn’t say. He probably didn’t know. How can we welcome refugees safely? I am sure it could be done, but how? Schumer didn’t say.

Finally, as I have said many times in this blog, the side that controls the agenda usually wins the debate. Trump controlled the agenda. Pelosi and Schumer conceded the need for more border security. They objected to Trump’s solution, which was a wall, but as they presented them, their solutions seemed singularly unconvincing. Trump did indeed use fear appeals, but, by conceding the need for change, Pelosi and Schumer acknowledged that his fear appeals had at least some validity. Oops! They let Trump drive the agenda. Trump won this exchange. No question. Will he get his wall? Who knows?

Trump’s presentation was below his usual standard, while Pelosi and Schumer sounded, well, a bit pathetic. The biggest problem, however, is that all three of the speakers regurgitated talking points that their advisors and partisan media fed to them; none of them dug into the issues deeply enough to make a convincing argument.

William Barr Deceptively Reset the Agenda on the Collusion Narrative

Attorney General Barr, DoJ photo

In my previous post, I noted that Attorney General William Barr cherry-picked selections from the Mueller Report about Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign to emphasize information that was favorable to President Trump. Barr truthfully noted that Mueller did not prove a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and that Mueller did not indict Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr omitted, however, that Mueller found many unsavory links between Russia and the Trump campaign that fell short of conspiracy and that Mueller referred the question of obstruction to Congress.

Barr knew perfectly well that he would shortly release a somewhat complete version of the report. Barr knew that the report would demonstrate beyond question that he had been deceptive and that there was much more wrongdoing than what his initial memo indicated. Nevertheless, Barr repeated many of the same questionable conclusions in a speech he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee after the report was released. Barr is no fool and surely knew that he was being deceptive. Barr knew that the public would soon learn that he had been dishonest. This didn’t discourage him. In fact, what Barr did was to set the agenda about Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. I have said previously, many times, that the side that sets the agenda wins the debate. The side that debates on its own ground usually triumphs.

Let’s look at how conservatives played out Barr’s agenda.

First, Trump’s long-standing drumbeat was: “no collusion!” In a narrow sense, Trump was right Mueller didn’t prove collusion. All he proved was that Russia and the Trump campaign interacted many times in ways that were favorable to both parties. Those were evil things to do and we all know that Trump and his campaign should not have done them. All the same, since a criminal conspiracy was not proven, Trump could claim to be exonerated:

Trump "No Collusion" tweet

Similarly, writing in the once-great National Review, conservative historian Victor Davis Hanson wrote: “Democrats have grown infuriated by Attorney General William Barr’s indifference to their hysteria over the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.” An article in The Nation argues that “Mueller’s report provides the opposite of what Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister or collusion plot with Russia, it presents what amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.” 

Now, as I wrote in my last post, all of that is true in a very narrow, very literal sense. Contrary to many Democrats’ expectations, a full-scale criminal conspiracy was not established. Much of what was in the Mueller report made President Trump and his aides look very, very, very bad, but that now matters less than it would have. Barr set the agenda when his initial memo laid out only the extent to which Trump had been exonerated, omitting the many dubious activities that he and his campaign engaged in. Although Barr’s memo was literally true, it was deceptive to the extreme. Its dishonesty lay in lack of context. Emboldened to continue to ignore context, conservative media can now re-emphasize the “no collusion” narrative.

Seeing the Mueller report's harmful nature, Barr saw that his only option was to strike first. He set the agenda. The Democrats are now reduced to refuting Barr, which distracts them from attacking Trump. But you don’t win a debate just by defeating your opponent: you need to have a positive argument in your favor, which Barr help to preempt.

Comments:

One, Democrats had for years spewed out a lot of overheated rhetoric calling Trump a traitor who was a Russian asset engaged in a conspiracy against the United States. If these accusations were true, Mueller was unable to prove them. The Democrats would have been smarter to under-promise and over-deliver. They did the opposite. What was found against Trump was awful, but it was not as bad as what the Democrats had predicted. In other words, the Democrats did an overstated job of agenda-setting.

Two, to win a debate, it is important to stand on your own ground. It is important to emphasize your own issues more than your opponents’ issues. Yes, a debater needs to refute what the opponent says, but simple refutation is, as any debate coach will tell you, a weak strategy. Barr reset the debate on his own ground. On the facts, the Democrats are still far ahead on the Russia investigation. As persuaders, however, they are, thanks to Barr’s clever deception, playing catch-up.

Three, we all know that Barr was willing to sacrifice his reputation to defend President Trump. Why? Was this a matter of principle for him? Is he simply a loyalist? Did he find himself trapped in some sort of political intrigue? I’m sure that historians will eventually sort out those questions, but for now, we can only guess.