Richard Nixon's Checkers Speech: The First Step in American Political Cynicism

Richard Nixon, Congressional Portrait

No doubt, the recent electoral success of a convicted felon leaves some people distressed. But take heart. Donald Trump is not the first crooked, worthless, slimy, amoral candidate to achieve political prominence, nor will he be the last. Today, let us look at Richard Nixon’s infamous 1952 Checkers speech. Nixon was then Republican candidate for the vice-presidency of the United States.

In this speech, Nixon rerouted accusations of political corruption by muddying the issue and changing the topic. Facing political disaster, Nixon did what modern politicians now routinely do: he acquired airtime. His on-the-air speech obscured the scandal and digressed from the issues. Not only did he talk the nation into excusing his dubious behavior, but Nixon convinced voters to admire his actions and, ultimately, to elect him to the vice presidency. Let’s look at the scandal, examine Nixon’s mostly irrelevant defense, and, finally, reflect on how neither Nixon nor the nation learned a lesson

The Scandal

During the 1952 campaign, Nixon accepted an $18,000 political contribution to be used as a campaign slush fund. Today, of course, such a pathetically small contribution would make no one blink. In 1952, campaign contributions were rarely regulated, reported, or publicly audited. Nixon’s political opponents jumped to accuse him of graft and influence-peddling. In 1952, $18,000 would amount to about $214,000 today. That would still seem trivial by today’s standards. 

As we all know, no one worries about those kinds of things today. But I digress.
 

Nixon’s Speech

Faced with political doom, Nixon took action. It was time to give a speech. The Republican Party purchased television time. In his televised speech, Nixon skillfully mentioned some accusations, muddied others, and talked about his daughter’s dog. 

Now, it always matters how we phrase the question, and Nixon raised the question adeptly: 

“The question is, was it morally wrong? I say that it was morally wrong -- if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon, for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled. 

“And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.”

That was clever. First, Nixon asserted that he would talk about morality. The audience might think that a wicked man would not discuss morality. Second, Nixon focused first on the lesser charge: the suspicion that he had skimmed money. The more important problem was whether the contributors would receive political favors. But he put that issue last.

Instead, he said: 

“Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.” [italics added]

Of course, it wasn’t just a matter of what Nixon thought. Using public money for the campaign was illegal, even back then. But I digress again.  

Nixon denied, with little explanation, that the contributors received special consideration. By now, of course, it should be clear that Nixon intended to focus on whether he lifted money for personal expenses. This is a common rhetorical trick: he argued that he was innocent of the lesser transgression. This helped Nixon lead his audience to assume that he did not commit the greater offense.

Nixon pointlessly explained how Senate offices are financed:

 “Let me tell you in just a word how a Senate office operates. First of all, the Senator gets $15,000 a year in salary. He gets enough money to pay for one trip a year, a round trip, that is, for himself, and his family between his home and Washington, D.C. and then he gets an allowance to handle the people that work in his office to handle his mail.

 “And the allowance for my State of California, is enough to hire 13 people. And let me say, incidentally, that this allowance is not paid to the Senator.”  

Although those specifics made a nice civics lesson, they told the audience nothing about the slush fund. He was digressing!  

Nixon then all but boasted that he was not rich, that his wife is not on the federal payroll, and that his duties prevented him from practicing law. Fine. What about corruption? Well, Nixon’s audience heard nothing more about that. They did, however, learn about an audit. 

An audit? That should settle the question, should it not? Alas, Nixon never actually presented the accountants’ audit. Instead, he quoted his lawyers. And his lawyers said that Nixon had neither violated the law nor received income from the slush fund. Now, common sense would tell you that the auditors’ statement counts more than the lawyers’ opinion. The lawyers were, after all, paid to represent the Republican Party’s interests. What did the auditors actually say, in their own words? The audience never heard!  

Anyway, after rambling about his personal finances and pointing out that his wife did not wear a fur coat, but a “good Republican cloth coat,” Nixon admitted that he had received one illegal gift from a contributor – a cute dog! 

“It was a little cocker spaniel dog, in a crate that he had sent all the way from Texas, black and white, spotted, and our little girl Tricia, the six-year-old, named it Checkers.

 “And you know, the kids, like all kids, loved the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.”

 Great. Now, Nixon is making his opponents out to be dog-haters. Yikes! And he diverted attention from the slush fund. 

Anyway, the speech worked. After hearing an outpouring of support for Nixon and his dog-loving daughter, Republican presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower decided to stick with Nixon. Nixon went on to serve eight years as vice president. 

Did you notice what Nixon asserted but never proved? He asserted but never proved that his donors received no special favors. Nor did he even promise that he would not grant favors in the future. He gave weak proof that he did not embezzle. But who cares? I mean, his daughter loved the dog.

Did Anyone Learn Anything?

Did anyone learn a lesson? Well, Nixon did learn one lesson: that he could be corrupt and get away with it. If caught red-handed, all he needed to do was find a television studio and give a sappy speech. It worked, didn’t it? 

The American public also had a chance to learn. They learned two things: that their politicians were corrupt, and that they didn’t care. 

And, so, it goes on. The United States went on to elect at least two presidents with suspected organized crime ties (Kennedy and Reagan). We twice elected Donald Trump, who boasted in an infamous sound recording that he sexually abused women.

Anyway, Nixon became president many years later. He moved on to the Watergate scandal, the essence of which was that his campaign staff maintained a huge secret fund that operated outside of the Party’s control. The secret fund financed what his staff called “dirty tricks.” He got away with most of the dirty tricks, until two Washington Post reporters discovered that he had used some of the money to bribe witnesses concerning the break-in at the Watergate office building. Bribery turned out to be illegal. (Technically, it was called obstruction of justice.) Nixon didn’t get away that time. He was impeached and then resigned to escape removal from office. 

George Washington Plunkitt Explained about “Honest Graft”

Jim Thompson, the Anti-Corruption Governor of Illinois: A Rhetorical Obituary

In the short run, the outcome of Watergate was good. A dishonest man was removed from public office. Good. But the Checkers speech had removed the barriers that might have stopped corrupt politicians from pouring their filthy sewage across America’s political landscape. The Checkers speech knocked out the public’s scruples about unscrupulous leaders. We went from Honest Abe to Checkers. Step-by-step, as time went by, the public’s cynicism grew and, today, no level of veniality deters American voters.

By digressing, by proving irrelevant points while slipping around the genuine issues, and by talking about a dog, Nixon bamboozled a nation.

Gentle reader, do not think that this is a uniquely Republican problem. Upcoming, I intend to write about an even filthier speech by an even more horrible man, a man whose foul wickedness puts Nixon and Trump to shame, who happened to be a Democratic politician. Stay tuned!

by William D. Harpine

_________________

Source note: The definitive text of this history-making speech is found on Americanrhetoric.com, a website set up by my late graduate school classmate Martin J. Medhurst. 

Research Note: My analysis is much inspired by Barnet Baskerville, "The Illusion of Proof," Western Speech, 25 (1961): 236-242. Libraries can probably find the article in databases.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official congressoinal photo, publid domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Don't Expect Same Day Election Results. Sheesh.

Let’s zap out one ridiculous election conspiracy theory. All over social media, conservative posters insist that they need to know the election results – the actual count – on election night. If they do not see results on election night, they say, it is because the Democrats are using the time to manufacture votes.

This is indescribably ludicrous. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory spreads because news reports and real life are not the same. 

Final, official vote counts have never been available on election night. Not ever.

Florida, which has one of the most polished election systems (they cleaned up after the 2000 hanging chad debacle), needs about three days to count, verify, and tabulate every vote. Inefficient states like Pennsylvania need much longer. That doesn't make them wrong, just slow. We could get 190 million or more votes by tonight. Some of the votes will be placed on electronic voting machines – which still get checked, verified, and tabulated – while mail-in votes take much, much longer because the envelopes need to be checked and opened, and then the ballots must be scanned. It takes time. 

What confuses people is that – often but not always – news networks broadcast statistical projections. Using huge computers, monstrous databases, and sophisticated statistical processes, they can look at incomplete election results and extrapolate who will probably win any given election once all the votes are counted. Those projections are just educated guesses. The networks are usually right, but they are still, basically, guessing. 

Networks do not produce an official count. Network projections are not final results. 

Worse, if an election is very close (and the 2024 presidential election could be stunningly close), and the early results come within the statistics’ margin of error, then the networks wait before they project the results. The closer the election, the longer they delay. That’s just how statistics work. What if the projections beat the statistical margin of error? Guess what! There is still a (small) margin of error! 

So, no one guarantees that projections are right. Statistics are estimates. The networks are very good at estimating, but they are still just estimating.

A tricky factor is that the networks once based their statistical projections on exit polls. However, many voters today vote by mail, and exit polls no longer mean much. Ignore them.  

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

So, when you watch the election results, be sure to distinguish between the official election results – which we will not know right away – and the networks’ statistical projection of what they think the results will be once they are all tabulated.

Appearance versus reality. TV networks do not decide the elections. Only state government officials have that right. They will take their time. Sometimes they will face problems. Everything they do has to be checked, witnessed, and double-checked. That takes more time. So, let them do their jobs. Calm down, and do not expect this very close election to be decided right away. Pay no attention to unhinged conspiracy theorists, political operatives, talk radio hosts, podcasters, or Russian bots. Hang tight, take a deep breath, and wait for the facts. Thank you. 

by William D. Harpine

____________

P.S. Yes, we all love conspiracy theories. Shame on us.

Earlier Post: 

Nutty Epstein Conspiracy Theories: Did Hillary Kill Him? Trump? Putin? Jack the Ripper? King Kong? Before We Believe a Conspiracy Theory, We Need Evidence.

P.P.S.: Follow-up. With 99% of the votes counted by the morning of November 6, the day after the election, networks project Trump to win. Still no official count, of course. However, the conspiracy theories will die--only because Republicans no longer need them. 

Copyright 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: State of Texas!

Goals Are Not Plans: The Sad Case of Donald Trump

Some voters want their candidates to have actual plans. Others don’t seem to care.

During his infamous October 27, 2024 Madison Square Garden rally, presidential candidate Donald Trump promised to excel at foreign affairs. However, he stated no plans, only goals:

“I will end the war in Ukraine, which would’ve never happened if I were president. I will stop the chaos in the Middle East and I will prevent World War III from happening.”

OK, great. We all want that.

But those are only goals. Where are the policies? How would Trump have prevented the Ukraine-Russia war? I’d love to know. How will he get peace? Will he force Russia to withdraw? Negotiate a settlement? If so, how? Will he just cut Ukraine off and let Russia massacre the survivors? If so, why?

How will he be the first leader in thousands of years to end the Middle East conflicts?

How will he stop the wars and end the chaos? What policies, what plans, could achieve those goals? Who knows? Trump has never said, not in this speech, not anywhere.

Where are the details? Yes, the details matter.

Audiences, when you hear a campaign promise, always ask, “how?” Never, ever put blind faith in any candidate. Never assume they have actual plans. Until proven otherwise, assume that they are spouting hot air. Always ask, at least to yourself, “how will you do that?”

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap 

We all want peace. Goals, however, are not plans. Leadership lies in the details. Public speeches always come down to the audience! Audiences, it is your fault, and yours alone, if you fail to insist on details. Critical thinking can be hard, but sometimes it is as simple as asking: how? 

Vote wisely, America.

by William D. Harpine  

____________

P.S. Thanks to rev.com, a transcript service, for preparing a text of Trump’s speech.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Kamala Harris Said Trump Admired Hitler. Do Voters Care?

Kamala Harris

Wise speakers adapt to their audience: their listeners’ values, goals, fears, and ambitions. Effective public speaking begins with the audience. Always. Public speaking teachers have taught that for, literally, millennia. Why don’t politicians figure it out? Why doesn’t Kamala Harris figure it out?

Unfortunately, we see Kamala Harris repeating Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign mistakes. As we should recall, Clinton spent much of her campaign pointing out Trump’s association with and appeal to evil people. For example, she ran advertisements linking Trump’s agenda to the Ku Klux Klan’s agenda. That was pointless. Donald Trump’s supporters had long since made peace with the man’s deep moral flaws. After all, they had heard the Billy Bush tape, where Trump boasted about committing sexual assault: “I moved on her like a bi--h.” They knew that Trump’s crowd had chanted, “Hail, Trump” while flashing Nazi salutes. 

Clinton’s advertising campaign proved that Trump was evil. His supporters already knew that. Did they care?

Along the same lines as Hillary Clinton, at an October 24, 2024 campaign event in Clarkston, Georgia, Kamala Harris made a valid point that embodied a rhetorical mistake. She complained about Trump’s alleged admiration for Adolf Hitler. She said:

“In fact, just this week, America heard from John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, who was Trump’s White House chief of staff, who said that, as president, Trump praised Hitler — take a moment to think about what that means — that Trump said, quote, ‘Hitler did some good things’ —

“AUDIENCE: Booo —

“THE VICE PRESIDENT: — and that Trump wished he had generals like Hitler’s, who would be loyal to Trump and not to America’s Constitution.”

Although I do not have a particularly high opinion of John Kelly, I do trust him to tell the truth on matters like this. But what political difference do his claims make? Not much. That is because conservative voters have quit agonizing about Trump’s moral flaws.

John Kelly's Speech about Frederica Wilson: How to Lose Credibility, and Fast


The social sciences help us understand why. Linguist George Lakoff explains that liberal voters gravitate toward candidates who express a “nurturing mother” metaphor, while conservative voters are looking for a “strong father.” Candidates like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, or (although male) Joe Biden offered their supporters a nurturing mother metaphor: they offered a nation of justice, support, and goodness. Those qualities do not dominate conservative thinking.

Instead, Donald Trump offers power. He does not talk about bringing justice to immigrants: he talks about expelling them. He does not talk about fixing the immigration system; he talks about closing the border. He does not talk about reforming government; he talks about ripping it up. He calls the United States government “the Deep State.” That does not mean that all conservative voters prefer evil and disorder. That would not be true. What is true is that conservative voters want their leaders to protect them from real and imaginary dangers. That is why voters in North Dakota, more than a thousand miles from the Mexican border, treat immigration as issue number one.

So, Kamala Harris made Trump’s seeming admiration for Hitler into a central campaign point. Core Democratic voters, obviously, are offended. Conservatives, in contrast, ask, “so what?”

Do you want proof? According to recent polls, General Kelly’s revelations seem to have made little difference in this closely contested election. Some of Trump’s supporters, no doubt, think that a new Hitler would be great. The bulk of Trump’s supporters have found ways to rationalize Trump’s anti-American views, and there we are.

Trump’s voters simply rationalize his wickedness. That is why Kamala Harris cannot budge them by reminding them that Trump spreads evil ideas. They already know that. They have known that for years. “I’m not voting for a preacher,” they say, over and over, like a mantra. They complain that Kelly is a traitor, or that Democrats are big meanies. They can then swallow hard and accept that Trump admires Hitler.

What Trump’s supporters could never accept, however, would be that Trump is weak. (Do you remember when his crowd booed as Trump recommended vaccination?) If Harris wants to budge shaky Trump supporters, she needs to talk about his whining and equivocating. She needs to point out Trump’s weaknesses: his terrible presidential record on the economy, his griping about the election, his fear of electric boat batteries, and so forth. Those things show Trump to be weak. Trump’s supporters might care about those things.


Does Donald Trump Lead His Supporters, or Do His Supporters Lead Him? Oops, He Asked Them to Take a Vaccine.


People who value social justice already support Harris. People who fear Hitler’s reincarnation already support Harris. If she wants to pick up undecided voters, or to sway any of Trump’s less committed, supporters, Harris needs to focus on what they care about. What they care about is strength. And weak leaders terrify them. It is pointless for her to tell undecided voters that Trump is evil. She needs to show them that Trump is weak.

If a speaker wants to persuade people, it’s time to identify what the audience cares about. Nothing else matters.

The First Trump-Biden Debate: Do Coronavirus Masks Show Weakness?

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

by William D. Harpine

____________

PS: Is Trump another Hitler? Of course not. Hitler wrote his own book.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

Kamala Got Heckled and Snapped Back. Does That Make Her the Antichrist?

Kamala Harris

Vice-President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States, faced hecklers at a political rally in Wisconsin on October 16, 2024. Harris said that President Donald Trump had nominated three conservative justices to the Supreme Court for the purpose of overturning Roe v Wade. She remarked that they then voted to do precisely that, returning abortion legislation to the states. A lusty, pro-choice boo emerged from the crowd.

Still, no controversy goes unpunished. A small group of hecklers quickly shouted, rather indistinctly on the unedited video, “liar, liar,” “Christ is King,” and “Jesus is Lord.” (Indeed, on the raw video, “liar, liar” was the only heckle that I heard clearly. I never actually made out “Christ is King,” so I’m just taking pundits’ word that this was also one of the heckles.)

Anyway, Harris quipped back:

“Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally. I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street.”

By “smaller one,” she was referring to Donald Trump’s rally, digging at her opponent’s obsession with crowd sizes.

The partisan press could not ignore this juicy incident. Some mainstream media outlets played the video, sometimes sneakily cutting or deemphasizing “Jesus is Lord.” In contrast, conservatives showed video clips that appeared to my ears to (1) cut the “liar, liar” heckle and (2) amplify “Jesus is Lord.” Since “liar, liar” was the first of several heckles, it was a trivial matter for conservatives to clip it out while leaving “Jesus is Lord” intact. 

They then highlighted the clipped video with headlines and captions to the effect of: 

“Christian students in Wisconsin speak out after Kamala Harris told them they were at the ‘wrong rally.’”

Interviewed later, one of the hecklers later commented that, “Jesus was mocked.” That was quite a heady accusation. 

Even more emphatic, literally linking Harris with the biblical figure of Anti-Christ, the EconoTimes headlined:

“Is Kamala Harris Anti-Christ? VP CLAPS BACK at Rally Heckler Who Shouted 'Jesus is Lord' — 'I Think You’re at the WRONG Rally!'”

The EconoTimes’ article prominently quoted “Jesus is Lord,” while ingeniously omitting the “liar, liar” heckle that immediately preceded it. 

Yet more pointedly, conservative pundit Lou Dobbs’ staff also quoted “Jesus is Lord” without mentioning “liar, liar.” Their accompanying headline, which accused Harris of being "evil," poked at her even more forcefully:

“EVIL: Kamala Harris and Her Supporters Mock Christian Attendee Shouting ‘Jesus is Lord’ During Abortion Speech — Kamala Coldly Responds, ‘You’re at the Wrong Rally’”

This is how conspiracy theories start.

First, as a simple fact, the conservative complaints arise from real evidence. Out of context, one heckler among others did, indeed, shout “Jesus is Lord.” Harris did, indeed, tell the hecklers that they were at the wrong rally. Thus, the attacks on Harris did have some fuel.

Second, however, “Jesus is Lord” quickly followed the secular heckle, “liar, liar.” Thus, “Jesus is Lord” was only one of several heckles. To be frank, judging only from the video (which seems to be all the conservative pundits judge from), I’m not convinced that I heard and understood all of the heckles. The heckles barely stood out from the background noise. How many of the rapid-fire heckles did Harris discern on the spot? Did she even hear, “Jesus is Lord?” I have no idea.

Third, the hecklers had made their political views entirely clear, and I do not think that Harris was unjustified to remark that the Trump rally would make them feel more welcome.

Fourth, the hecklers did their damage. Now, yes, the hecklers were, indeed, obnoxious, and yes, the conservative pundits did, in fact, jump to a poorly supported conclusion. The fact remains that the hecklers set Harris up, and the setup worked. “Liar, liar” was enough to trigger Harris’ response, with “Jesus is Lord” thrown in a moment later, more quietly to my ears. If “Jesus is Lord” was less audible, did Harris simply overlook it? Conservative pundits could take the entire exchange out of context and run with it. The hecklers played a dirty trick, and it worked. Frankly, if I were speaking, the trick would probably fool me, too.

As a personal aside, the Christian Right continues to befuddle me. The Holy Bible does not advise me to starve the poor, ignore the sick, and expel the immigrants. Indeed, on my plain reading, the Bible commands the opposite. Nor does the Bible say a thing about abortion. Other moral codes of ancient times did forbid or restrict abortion (e.g., the Hippocratic oath), and therefore I find the Bible’s silence on the issue to be salient. It is for those reasons that I cannot reconcile my own Christian beliefs with the Republican Party’s teachings.

Earlier Post: Mike Pence Heckled by the Christian Right Because He Didn't Bow to Trump

All the same, millions of single-issue voters choose their political candidates entirely because of their abortion policies. Proudly fervent, they ignore all other moral or political issues. They have grown so keen that abortion alone directs their judgment that a particular candidate is, or is not, a Christian. Thus, in context, “Jesus is Lord” became a partisan political statement. With that political context established, Harris’ counter-heckle seemed on point. Nevertheless, the hecklers accomplished their goal. Still, I would think that, if the entire exchange showed Harris to be anti-Christian, why did conservatives need to crop and enhance it?

Interestingly, the next Sunday, Kamala Harris attended church, and Donald Trump did not. Does that matter to the Christian Right? Evidently not.

I’ve written several times about the fine art of heckling. Sometimes heckling pays off well for the hecklers. Other times, speakers counter-heckle with great effect. More often, heckling just embarrasses everyone. Let’s call this incident a tossup.

___________

Earlier Posts:

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

If You Want to Heckle, Do It Right!

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

by William D. Harpine  

___________

Research Note: Much persuasion research arises from a psychological concept called Attribution Theory. Attribution Theory examines the psychological processes listeners use to perceive and interpret other people’s behavior. For example, suppose that Pat bumps into someone. Do we attribute that to Pat’s bad manners? Or do we attribute it to Pat’s clumsiness? Or to a gust of wind that shoved Pat around? The Fundamental Attribution Error occurs when we falsely believe that someone’s behavior is intentional and motivated, when it is, in fact, not.

Psychologist Sam McLeod explains the Fundamental Attribution Error:

“People have a cognitive bias to assume that a person’s actions depend on what ‘kind’ of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces that influence the person.”

In this case, conservative pundits attributed Harris’ quip to her supposedly anti-Christian attitudes. Does the evidence support that attribution? Or does the attribution result from their pre-existing bias against Harris? When conservatives edited the video to cut one heckle and highlight another, were they emphasizing their point, or did they commit mere chicanery? Feel free to post your response in a comment below, or on my X.com feed. 

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

McKinley's Unifying Speech to a Campaign Delegation

McKinley Campaign Poster

A lesson from the past: yes, a politician can win elections without preaching hate. During his 1896 Front Porch Campaign against William J. Bryan, future President William McKinley told a crowd:

“I do not teach the doctrine of hate. I prefer the doctrine of hope.”

McKinley mostly stayed at home during his campaign, while hundreds of delegations organized themselves and traveled to Canton, Ohio by train to hear him speak. He addressed them outdoors, often standing on the front porch of his modest two-story frame house. Indeed, for months on end, he spoke to several delegations every day.

Receiving one of those groups, a delegation from Cambridge, Ohio on October 24, 1896, McKinley projected a warm style and greeted his audience with a personal message. He began by establishing a personal connection:

“I believe in the many visits I have made to the tin-mill men of Cambridge, you will acquit me to-day of ever having undertaken to deceive, or mislead you.”

McKinley then launched into his signature issue, which was the protective tariff. Like Donald Trump after him (and many politicians before and since), McKinley felt that American industry needed to be protected from overseas, low-wage competition:

“I have always proclaimed the doctrine of a protective tariff. I do not abate one bit of faith in that great principle.”

He then briefly gave his (vague) reasons:

“I believe in self-preservation, for this Government of ours; in a tariff that protects our product; that maintains the American scale of wages, that gives steady and constant employment to labor, and that provides enough money for the Government without the necessity of its going constantly in debt.”

Now, McKinley spoke before the modern research about international trade, which shows the drawbacks of the protective tariff. Modern economists generally believe that the tariff drives up prices and invites retaliation from other nations. Still, the protective tariff has been one of the most constant issues, pro and con, in the history of American politics. McKinley’s plea, arguing that the tariff was pro-American and protective, carried even more appeal then, than it does today.

From an economic standpoint, McKinley’s campaign was based on fundamental absurdities. It was his attitude, not the issues, that gained him his overwhelming electoral victory. Dignified, not angry; hopeful, not pessimistic; personable, not divisive, he projected a solid presidential image.

Emphasizing his theme of hope in unity, McKinley then asserted that all Americans were equal:

“I said to you then that the workingmen had an opportunity to show that there was no such thing as class or caste in the United States, and that any man from the mine or from the mill, might aspire to the highest place in the gift of this people as freely as anybody else.”

And, concluding his brief speech, he rejected political division on principle:

“I do not teach the doctrine of hate. I prefer the doctrine of hope. Never give up hope as long as you have the ballot.”

McKinley’s positive tone was that image’s focal point. Instead of giving a set speech to every audience, McKinley tailored his presentation to the small group that had come to see him. Yes, McKinley repeated the same themes, in similar but not identical words, in one speech after the other. However, instead of giving a single canned campaign speech to one audience after the other, McKinley gave his campaign a personal touch without ever straying from his central message. Thus, every speech was potentially newsworthy. Shorthand reporters transcribed his speeches as he gave them. Wire services transmitted the texts to newspapers across the nation. Thus, McKinley conducted one of the first mass-media campaigns.

McKinley’s attack against his opponent was general and tasteful. He never mentioned Bryan by name. He never accused Bryan of preaching hate. Instead, he elected to let the audience draw their own conclusion. He emphasized that the ballot, not hate, gave them the solution to their needs.

Earlier Post: The Trump Trade War? Back to Henry Clay! 

Not only did he reject hate, but McKinley also denied classism and national divisions. One has to think that McKinley’s unifying approach must have made it easier for him to govern the nation after his election. During his campaign, he went out of his way to avoid making enemies. He tried to gather all of the American public into a sense of unity. Not only did his hundreds of brief campaign speeches, of which this was only one, win him the White House, but they also established him as a leader.

A personal touch. Positive arguments. A conclusion of hope and unity. Why can’t politicians today speak like that? And if a politician took a solid, dignified approach – would the American public of today even listen?

by William D. Harpine  

________________

Research Note: if you click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above, you will find links to my publications about McKinley’s speeches. (Note that my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Campaign, is now in paperback!) 

My former professor, Charles Urban Larson, has written insightfully about the unifying style of persuasion. 

A transcript of McKinley's speech to the Cambridge, Ohio delegation is on page 6 of the Canton Repository, October 25, 1896. That excellent newspaper was, as it continued to be long after, a significant Republican-oriented publication. Large research libraries should be able to find the article in an Internet database under its title, “Doctrine of Hate Not Taught.”

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Trump and Vance Spread Lies about the Haitian Immigrants. But Here Is My Family's Story.

Immigrants at Ellis Island

If you live in the United States, unless you are 100% Native American, you are an immigrant or the descendent of immigrants.

All the Republican talk (and when I say “talk,” I mean “lies”) about the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio got me to think about my maternal grandparents. I am thinking about them because their lives were so like those of the Haitian immigrants, and the challenges they faced were so similar. 

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

My grandfather Michael and grandmother Anna left Ukraine in the early 20th Century to escape a terrible potato famine. The Ukrainian economy having long been oppressed by Russian, Austrian, and Polish overlords, the people began to starve when the potato crops failed. The Ukrainian diet consisted of little bits of cheese, wheat pastries stuffed with potatoes, lots of other potatoes, and meat once a year for Easter.  They had small gardens. The Easter meal featured a slice of bologna-like meat. It was not unlike the diet that hundreds of millions of European poor people ate at that time. Opportunities to advance, to gain an education, or even to find productive employment, simply did not exist. A person’s ambition, ability, and dedication were irrelevant.

Desperate, and unable to feed their children, Ukrainians sent many of them to America, the land of

Statue of Liberty

opportunity, where the Statue of Liberty would greet them with the promise of freedom and justice: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

So it was with Michael and Anna. Sixteen years old, Anna stepped off the boat, with minimal paperwork, with few marketable skills, and knowing no English. She made her case to the authorities and walked into the United States. Knowing no Ukrainian, the clerk at Ellis Island misspelled Michael’s last name (doing the best he could) and off to the piers Michael went.

Local charities helped them. They learned that western Pennsylvania’s steel mills were hiring. Michael and Anna each moved there, with nothing to their names. Michael and Anna married. A skilled carpenter, Michael took a mill job. His country fiddling talent made him popular but didn’t really help economically. Anna sold eggs. They never really mastered English (their family and friends could understand their patois just fine). They worshiped at the Ukrainian church. They never had much money until their older children grew up and built them a two-story country home with a huge kitchen, on a lot with generous garden space. Michael made much of the house’s cabinetry.

Michael and Anna raised twelve children. The older children, who were shuffled to the back of the classroom and received little special help, learned English in school and taught it to their brothers and sisters. My mother, one of the younger children, never really learned Ukrainian (she could understand it but not speak it). She was still placed in the back of the classroom, simply as an act of ethnic bigotry. She joined the choir and the debate team. Graduating at the top of her high school class, she was denied the valedictory scholarship, which instead went to a boy. She moved to Washington (like many children of immigrants, seeking work where she could find it) and became an office worker in the Pentagon. Like everyone in my family, she read voraciously.

Others of Michael and Ann’s children included engineers, a nurse, loving homemakers, and two American Army war heroes. My Uncle Peter died in the Ardennes, nineteen years old, fighting against Nazis. Michael and Anna’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren, now scattered across the land, include people dedicated to the law, medicine, and many other professions. Yes, at least one of us became a university professor and author.

Michael and Anna’s story is not unique. It is nothing special. It is repeated, literally millions of times, across this great land. It is the same story that the Haitians in Springfield are writing today.

If you want to make America great, that is how it is done. And, trust me, Trump (himself the grandson of immigrants and husband of an immigrant) has no clue. That same cluelessness, of course, explains why Vance specifically and shamelessly admitted that he was lying about the Haitian immigrants:

“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]

His eager voters do not seem to care that Vance was lying. That is because facts and reality do not create their resentment. No, to understand the hostility toward immigrants, we look only to the dark forces of fear and suspicion.

The moral of this story? Yes, receiving immigrants, people who speak an unfamiliar language, sing their own songs, and worship in their own way, does affect the receiving communities. It always does. It is, nevertheless, the American way. Employed immigrants also strengthen our economy and make the US a stronger nation. As a recent article in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy notes, tax-paying immigrants can have an indirect helpful effect on the nation’s fiscal health.

Emigration is even harder than immigration. People leave their native lands, almost always because they are fleeing a nightmare. Immigrants often face suspicion, hostility, injustice, and anger. My mother, her brothers, sisters, and parents certainly did. Yet, they contributed their own small part to making America great.

And, in contrast, as Trump and Vance give their loathsome speeches, they are not just lying about the Haitian immigrants. They are lying about America.

As I have often said, speakers can make their point by telling a story. This is my family's story.

by William D. Harpine

____________

Earlier Posts About Immigration Speeches:

Romans 13, Jeff Sessions, and the Cultural Heritage of Conservative Immigration Policy

How Did Donald Trump's Story about Police Heroes Help Him Make a Point about Immigration?

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image of Ellis Island: Library of Congress, public domain

Image of Statue of Liberty: National Park Service, public domain