“Liberation Day in America”: Trump's Tariff Speech

 

“So, this is the beginning of Liberation Day in America.” 

So said President Donald Trump when he announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles in an Oval Office address on March 27, 2025. “Liberation” is what rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver calls a “god term.” To Weaver, a “god term” is not a religious concept, but rather a metaphor that conveys cultural values that are too intense to question. The word “liberation” carries such power, and is so deeply seated in the United States’ cultural ideology, that few people would doubt it. Other “god terms” from various historical eras might include “progress,” “justice,” or “freedom.”

Viewed as nuts-and-bolts economics, Trump’s policies are dubious at best. Nevertheless, his conversation-stopping sales slogan – “Liberation Day in America” – turned his policy into a matter of pride, hope, and freedom. “Liberation Day” doesn’t make us think about economic charts or government statistics. Instead, it makes us think about ending slavery, emptying concentration camps, and gaining independence. “Liberation Day in America” elevates the discourse to patriotism’s greatest heights. That is the value-laden power of god terms.

That is, Trump pushed ideals, not theory. Trump’s pro-tariff argument assumes, quite falsely, that tariffs place a charge on exporters who exploit the United States. He explained this false premise by saying:

“We’re going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth, taking a lot of things that they've been taking over the years. They've taken so much out of our country, friend and foe. And frankly, friend has been oftentimes much worse than foe.”

He offered no proof that other countries have harmed us. Just because he says someone has harmed us does not make it so. Instead, “charge countries” falsely but persuasively switches the economic burden to the nations that Trump thinks are harming us. 

Trump’s argument overlooks a simple point, which is that importers, not exporters, pay tariffs - any tariffs! Importers pay tariffs as products arrive in American ports and then pass the cost to their customers. Tariffs are collected when imports are received, not when they are sent. This lays the expense directly on the United States, not the exporters. As the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research points out, “Studies show that tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration were almost entirely borne by U.S. consumers.” [italics added]

In Trump’s speech, however, liberation is the point. Studies are not the point. Having said that imports threatened the United States, Trump concluded that we must liberate ourselves from foreign competition. Trump promised that competitors would build factories in the United States and thus stimulate the United States’ economy. As history shows, that isn’t how it works.

Trump's Tariffs versus Henry Clay's "American System"

By using a god term, however, Trump shoved detailed economic questions aside. We’re talking about “Liberation Day in America.” We are not talking about statistics. No, we are talking about values: freedom and independence. Liberation. Liberty. The Statue of Liberty. A 25-cent coin carries the word “Liberty.” In Trump’s speech, we are liberating ourselves from foreign competition. “Liberation Day” creates a powerful image that makes America sound great. It is the kind of phrase that can inspire listeners to pride.

For, after all, Trump’s motto is “Make America Great Again.” Greatness is a value, and god terms like “Liberation” are about values. “Liberation Day” does not inform people about economic charts or statistics. How boring that would be! “Liberation” is a god term. We do not want other nations to exploit us, and Trump promised a great day of liberation. “Liberation Day” does not inform us, for Trump’s purpose was not to inform, but to make us feel free. 

McKinley's 1896 Speeches Made the Tariff Sound Patriotic - Just Like Trump!

Franklin Roosevelt's Speech against Tariffs

That image, the idea that Trump will free the United States of America, offers relief and salvation. Our culture values liberty above all else. That’s why the word “Liberty” adorns our coins, our statues, and our textbooks. A supposed hero who will, he promises, liberate us from our friends and enemies alike used a god term to remind us of our values and lead us to economic redemption. Are Trump’s tariff policies stunningly unwise? Sadly, yes, but that is not really his point. Is his rhetoric spectacularly compelling? Obviously yes. Underestimate value-driven speeches at your peril. “Liberation Day” might sound grandiose; it might defy logic, but its essence is powerful indeed.  

by William D. Harpine

________________

Research Note: Conservative rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver talks about god terms in his insightful book, The Ethics of Rhetoric. Kenneth Burke’s ground-breaking book A Grammar of Motives offers a somewhat different explanation of “god-terms.”  

Copyright 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image from White House YouTube Channel

Franklin Roosevelt's Speech Against Tariffs

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The protective tariff has dominated economic rhetoric almost since our nation’s dawning. From Henry Clay to William McKinley to Donald Trump, politicians promise (dubiously) that tariffs will be an “American System” or put “America First.” Those are powerful words. Tariffs are always popular, but they are usually a terrible idea.

Although tariffs might help the few, they will, overall, cause more harm than good. Writing for the conservative Cato Institute, Erica York remarks that: “It is dubious to claim that tariffs can be imposed with no economic trade-offs, and economists generally consider them to be poor tools for achieving various policy objectives.”

Tariffs Are Nothing New under the Sun: Trump's Tariffs versus Henry Clay's "American System" 

Franklin Roosevelt explained this important principle, almost alone among the United States' leaders. Speaking during the depths of the Great Depression at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on September 23, 1932, during his first presidential campaign, Roosevelt linked tariffs to the ancient battle between the rich and powerful versus the ordinary citizen:

“The issue of government has always been whether individual men and women will have to serve some system of government of economics, or whether a system of government and economics exists to serve individual men and women.”

Thus, Roosevelt did not discuss the economy by throwing out complex facts and figures and percentages, or by citing mathematical formulas. Instead, he put the tariff controversy in its human context. He showed how the protective tariff was a government regulation that harmed the overall economy, disrupted international relations, and degraded the nation’s welfare.

As Roosevelt spoke, the massive Smoot-Hawley Tariff had been crushing the world economy and, according to almost all economists, worsening the Great Depression. Economics Professor Kris James Mitchener comments that the Smoot-Hawley Act triggered “the mother of all trade wars.”

Thus, Roosevelt showed considerable insight when he noted how the anti-regulation businessperson:

“…is the first to go to Washington and ask the government for a prohibitory tariff on his product.”

As he spoke, building on that contradiction, Roosevelt developed the theme that the rich and powerful seek their own benefit at the nation’s expense. 


Roosevelt Opposed the Tariffs

Roosevelt placed the tariff into its historical background from the 1800s:

"The tariff was originally imposed for the purpose of 'fostering our infant industry', a phrase I think the older among you will remember as a political issue not so long ago."

 
Yet, after reviewing the history of the American economy (quite an enterprise for a short speech!), Roosevelt squarely ridiculed the contradiction of modern businesspeople who want to keep the government away from business and yet demand that the government protect them with tariffs. In contrast, Roosevelt insisted, as almost all economists do, that tariffs defend particular industries at a cost to the overall economy. Tariffs cause trade wars, he explained, and the trade wars restrict the markets to which American industries can sell their products. Oddly, instead of encouraging American business, tariffs force businesses to locate their factories overseas. While a few benefit, the many suffer a downturn. Roosevelt explained as he continued:

“Our system of constantly rising tariffs has at last reacted against us to the point of closing our Canadian frontier on the north, our European markets on the east, many of our Latin American markets to the south, and a goodly proportion of our Pacific markets on the west, through the retaliatory tariffs of those countries. It has forced many of our great industrial institutions who exported their surplus production to such countries, to establish plants in such countries within the tariff walls.”

(Doesn’t that sound just like Donald Trump’s trade war? But I digress.)


A Message of Hope

Yet, like all great leaders, Roosevelt ended his speech, not with fear, but with a message of hope. As a terrible economic depression wracked the world, Roosevelt urged the American people to fulfill their old values – which he called “the old social contract” – to avoid “a rising tide of misery engendered by a common failure” – and to work together as a common people, for economic recovery:

“… failure is not an American habit; and in the strength of great hope, we must all shoulder our common load.”

Of course, the economic troubles that the United States of America faces today, although real, have not reached the massive disaster of the Great Depression--yet. Still, we must ask whether we as a nation have failed to learn from history’s most terrible mistakes. Can we find leaders today who can explain why and how narrow economic policies harm the overall public? Can we find leaders who can help people understand difficult economic forces? Sadly, those questions remain open.

Unfortunately, politicians instead continue to promote harmful economic policies in the face of overwhelming resistance from economic theory and history. 


Tariffs Harm the Economy

So, yes, economic historians have long concluded that protective tariffs worsened the Great Depression. Indeed, studying the Great Depression, economists Mario J. Crucini and James Kahn suggest in the Journal of Monetary Economics that “the global escalation of the tariff war precipitated the collapse of world trade, along with declines of several percent in international output and investment.”

Reed Smoot

Similarly, Douglas A. Irwin writes in the Annual Review of Economics that, “Perhaps the most important ramification of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff was its role in triggering retaliation against US exports.” By economic principles, Roosevelt's controversial speech was squarely in the right. 

Yet, the public loves tariffs despite the historical evidence that tariffs and tariff wars harm the economy. So, is it any surprise that President Donald Trump embarked on a massive tariff war, not during a depression, but during a time of relative prosperity? His Press Secretary described this as an “America First Trade Policy” and an “America First economic agenda.” Did she not merely echo Henry Clay's speech on the pro-tariff American system? Or William McKinley's argument that tariffs and the American flag were patriotism's soul? 

McKinley's 1896 Speeches Made the Tariff Sound Patriotic - Just Like Trump!

Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” Speech, a Lesson in Positive Justice

Conclusion

The protective tariff is one of the United States’ oldest economic controversies, and thus one of the oldest subjects that political speakers discuss. Indeed, if we want to understand today’s political controversy, the old speeches, like Roosevelt's masterful speech to the Commonwealth Club, can be a great learning tool. Avoiding excessively technical discussions, Roosevelt used history’s lessons to help American voters understand how the protective tariff was hurting them while helping only the very few. People do not always understand technical arguments. Statistical charts make our eyes glaze over. People can, however, understand basic values. People can understand the eternal battle between the great and the small, between the haves and the have-nots, and between an overall view versus a narrow view. His grasp of human context helped Roosevelt gain a massive victory in the 1932 election. 

by William D. Harpine

____________________

Research Note: AmericanRhetoric.com is a terrific website, established by my graduate school classmate Martin J. Medhurst, that contains texts (and often videos) of American speeches. 

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Images of Roosevelt and Smoot, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Trump's March 4, 2025 Speech to Congress: Why Are His Lies So Persuasive?

“Believe it or not, government databases list 4.7 million Social Security members from people aged 100 to 109 years old. It lists 3.6 million people from ages 110 to 119. I don’t know any of them. I know some people that are rather elderly, but not quite that elderly…. But a lot of money is paid out to people, because it just keeps getting paid and paid.” 

So President Donald Trump said during his speech to Congress yesterday, March 4, 2025, but he spoke falsely. Unfortunately, falsehoods, distortions, twisted arguments, and outright lies filled Trump’s speech. Politicians tell lies: who would have thought? The real question is, what makes these lies persuasive?

There is a rhetorical reason that massive chains of falsehoods persuade people. The RAND Corporation calls this technique the “Firehose of Falsehoods.” The answer lies in the numbers. A basic propaganda technique is to unload, not one lie, but a vast number of outrageous lies. It’s not a single lie, it’s a firehose. Tell one lie, and the audience might catch you. Spray out enough lies and, well, that is a different story A barrage of arrogant lies can persuade people when a single mild fib does not. To echo the old slogan, quantity has a quality of its own.

Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

There’s also a psychological reason that massive chains of falsehood persuade people. The psychological theory called the Elaboration Likelihood Model states that people who lack the time, attention, or ability to check facts will tend to believe things that they have heard repeatedly.

So, look at a few of Trump’s outrageous statements.


What about Social Security?

Whenever someone says, “believe it or not,” as Trump did, my Spidey sense tingles away. Trump expounded further:

“And it really hurts Social Security and hurts our country, 1.3 million people from ages 150 to 159 and over 130,000 people, according to the Social Security databases, are age over 160 years old.”

Now, Wired magazine notes that the problem in the Social Security spreadsheet results, not from real data, but from a programming glitch. The chart was created by an obsolete programming language called COBOL that failed to read death dates for older Social Security recipients. Furthermore, Lee Dudek, the new Acting Commissioner of Social Security, notes that “These individuals are not necessarily receiving benefits.” 

Analyzing the problem in yet more detail, FactCheck.org notes that, although some ineligible people do receive Social Security benefits, the number is nowhere near as great as what Trump claimed. Social Security’s data shows that fewer than 90,000 actual Social Security recipients are 100 years old or older. That sounds about right. So, Trump was just carelessly wrong. Since his claims had been publicly refuted weeks earlier, he has no excuse. 

But Trump told other lies. 


A Mandate? I Think Not

Asserting his power, Trump claimed that:

“The presidential election of November 5th was a mandate like has not been seen in many decades.”

ABC News’ fact checkers note, however, that: “Trump's margins of victory — both in raw votes and in percentages — were small by historical standards.” In fact, in the final election results, Trump received 49.9% of the popular vote, against 48.3% for his opponent, Kamala Harris. Trump won, yes, but a popular vote advantage of only 1.6% hardly counts as a mandate.


Ended a Non-Existent Mandate? I Think Not

Well, the lies poured on. Trump claimed that he saved the auto industry by ending an “electric vehicle mandate:”

“We ended the last administration’s insane electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto workers and companies from economic destruction.”

Oddly, as ABC’s fact checkers note, the Biden administration did not impose an electric vehicle mandate. The administration had signed off on stricter automobile emission standards, which Trump did, in fact, revoke. But an electric vehicle mandate? Didn’t exist.


An Autism Epidemic?

Is there an autism epidemic? Vaccine skeptics and vegetarians cite a supposed autism epidemic to support their views of clean living. Trump’s unqualified Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Trump himself, have repeatedly harped on that.

So, it was no surprise in yesterday’s speech when Trump said:

“Not long ago — and you can’t even believe these numbers — one in 10,000 children had autism. One in 10,000, and now it’s one in 36. There’s something wrong. One in 36. Think of that.”

However, a research team led by Sebastian Lundström published this in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2022 said:

“Much – or even most– prevalence increase seems to reflect changes in diagnostic practice and ascertainment.”

Similarly, Tony Charman finds in the prestigious journal The Lancet Psychiatry, 2025, that:

“The authors argue this finding does not indicate rising prevalence per se but changes in the GBD methodology, specifically the exclusion of studies relying on passive case finding (registries or administrative estimates), which underestimate prevalence. The authors found no evidence of an increase in prevalence across a 15-year time window.”

In other words, the supposed increase in autism seems in large part to reflect changing diagnostic criteria, plus more interest by mental health professionals when they work with clients.


Lies and More Lies?

Tell one lie, and you probably persuade no one. Tell a hundred lies? Well, that’s different.  Suppose that Trump tells ten lies in a row. One after the other. Let us suppose that most of the lies are either invented out of thin air, or sucked from the dim recesses of Fox News or Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s dubious website. Lies are easy to produce, since they can arise from nothing, but they are often troublesome to refute. Any debater knows that it is hard to prove a negative.

Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Art of Squirming

ABC News’ fact checkers reviewed 12 of Trump’s claims, finding only one to be true, while marking the others with labels like “false,” “misleading, or “lacks context.” FactCheck.org, the premier fact-checking website, studied 12 of Trump’s claims, including some that were different from those that ABC examined, finding all 12 to be dubious. For example, they noted that Trump falsely claimed that Panama had turned control of the Panama Canal over to China. Trump lied about alleged savings from the Department of Government Efficiency and fentanyl shipments from Canada—among other falsehoods.

Now, think about it. After all, how many readers are going to study 12 (or more) seemingly nit-picking fact checks? Or look at several fact checkers? Or examine scientific and historical literature for themselves to verify every throwaway claim that Trump blustered out? Even the fact checkers got exhausted, which is why different fact checking websites covered different claims. It takes time; it takes effort. Isn’t it easier just to dismiss the fact checks as “liberal propaganda” or, maybe, “all politicians tell lies, who cares?”

And that is how the Firehose of Falsehoods overwhelms our critical processes.

Unfortunately, a barrage of lies overwhelms people’s critical capacities. I spent hours just looking up the fact checks that I cited above, and I hardly scratched the surface of Trump’s onslaught. If I didn’t want to write this blog post, would I spend that much time on it? Not likely.

For it was not just one lie. It was a firehose. Suppose someone lies to you and you check them. Fine. But what if someone pumps out dozens of lies? Some of them will slip through. Keep in mind, of course, that many of Trump’s falsehoods have long circulated on Fox News, talk radio, and social media. The Firehose of Falsehoods floods our search for truth. Quantity has a quality of its own.

I have posted previously about the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, developed by psychologists Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. Their theory claims how people process and respond to persuasive messages. They show that when people use the Central Route to process a persuasive message, they gather information and think critically. However, the Central Route takes time. It takes effort. It often requires skills that not everyone has.

The alternative is the Peripheral Route. When people lack the time, ambition, or skill to use the Central Route, they might look at the source’s attractiveness or perceived expertise, or simply the frequency with which messages are received, or other trivial criteria. That is where Trump’s cascade of lies works. People who use the Central Route will quickly reject Trump’s ludicrous claims. People who use the Peripheral Route might be impressed by Trump’s self-confidence, charismatic speaking style, and, most of all, the relentless firehose of misinformation. At that point, sadly, quantity takes on a quality of its own, and, audiences can get overwhelmed.


Conclusion

Trump’s rhetoric could never persuade wise, careful listeners, but wise, careful listeners are not his audience. To be fair, no one has the time or ability to study and verify every single persuasive message. Trump obviously knows that. By presenting a deluge of obvious, easily discredited lies, Trump carried his listeners on a roller coaster ride of bluster, suspicion, paranoia, and absurdity. As a master of those dark arts, Trump follows the path of the Big Lie. As Goebbels demonstrated in the previous century, if you want to tell lies, go big.

by William D. Harpine  

____________

Research Note: 

Here is the original article about the Firehose of Falsehood. Any current persuasion textbook will discuss the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Richard Perloff's book is worth a look. I have blogged about the Elaboration Likelihood Model several times. This post about Paul Ryan seems apropos to the moment:

Paul Ryan Gave a Speech about Civility, but Are We Listening?

Image: Official White House photo

Copyright @2025 by William D. Harpine

We Were Warned, but Did We Listen? Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Oval Office Meeting, February 28, 2025

We were warned. In 2016, Hillary Clinton warned us that Trump was a “Putin puppet.” We didn’t listen. In 2024, Kamala Harris told Donald Trump that Vladimir Putin was “a dictator who would eat you for lunch.” Yet, did anyone listen? Are Americans more worried about the price of eggs? Immigrant caravans? A bit of inflation? Those concerns dribble into triviality when American foreign policy falls on us like a collapsing dome. Minor issues mean nothing when an American president not only appeases a hostile dictator, but bows before him. Yesterday, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance lambasted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as he sought help defending his nation against Russian aggression. 

Betraying Ukraine, a friend, to appease a foe, Russia, appalls common sense. Could it have been stopped? Yes, for we were warned. Trump never kept his pro-Russia views secret. Too few people listened to the truth. Too few people are listening now. Speaking is only half of communication: listening is the other half, and it’s often much harder. Can we listen? 

Zelenskyy Warned Trump

During their White House meeting yesterday, February 28, 2025, Trump and Vance loudly berated Zelenskyy during negotiations over United States aid in the Ukraine-Russian war. The meeting was civil for a while, but Trump lost his temper when Zelenskyy reminded Trump that Russian leader Vladimir Putin threatened the United States just as he threatened Ukraine:

“Zelenskyy: ‘First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless –’

“Trump: ‘You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.’”

Zelenskyy’s warning was far from the first!

Trump Himself Had Warned Us

When Vladimir Putin sent an army against Ukraine in 2022, Trump praised him to the skies:

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’”

Trump continued:

“He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”

We Were Already Warned In 2016

The Oval Office exchange should have surprised no one. During Hillary Clinton’s third 2016 presidential debate against Trump, she warned the American people to beware, that Trump’s groveling subservience to Putin endangered American security. For example, noting that 17 American intelligence agencies had confirmed that Putin was interfering in the election, including illegal cyberhacking, for Trump’s benefit, Clinton warned us:

“I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this, and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in this election. That he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past. Those are the questions we need answered.”

Evading the issue, Trump responded that Putin was smarter than Clinton:

“Trump: Putin from everything I see has no respect for this person.”

Responding, Clinton called Trump a puppet: 

“Clinton: Well, that’s because he would rather have a puppet as president of the United States.

“Trump: No puppet. You’re the puppet.

“Clinton: It is pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyber attacks against the United States of America. That you encouraged espionage against our people. That you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do. And that you continue to get help from him because he has a very clear favorite in this race.”

We were warned, but Clinton’s warnings were not heeded.


We Were Warned in 2024

We were warned again just before the 2024 election. During her only debate against Donald Trump, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris warned the voters of Donald Trump’s antipathy for America’s allies and his willingness to surrender Ukraine to the Russians:

“If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now. And understand what that would mean. Because Putin's agenda is not just about Ukraine.”

Rightly placing the controversy in its geopolitical context, Harris immediately continued:

“Understand why the European allies and our NATO allies are so thankful that you are no longer president and that we understand the importance of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known, which is NATO. And what we have done to preserve the ability of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians to fight for their Independence. Otherwise, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe.”

I cannot imagine how she could possibly have expressed herself more clearly, more forcefully, or more accurately. More than a debater, she spoke like a stateswoman.

Kamala Harris Said Trump Admired Hitler. Do Voters Care?

Alas, a spike in the price of bread and eggs horrified the voters in 2024, and they thought everything would be better under Trump. Sadly, bread and eggs remain costly under Trump, while the Cold War alliances that long averted global holocaust are collapsing into a flaming ruin.

The voters were warned. They didn’t listen.

Conclusion: We Were Warned

Clinton warned us. Her warnings sounded rather intellectual and maybe she used too many big words. Still she was clear. Harris warned us. She was precise and forceful. People just didn’t believe her. Or maybe they didn’t trust a woman to keep the nation safe. Foolish, foolish, foolish.

A few days ago, Republican Senator John Curtis decried a UN vote that took Russia’s side: “I was deeply troubled by the vote at the UN today, which puts us on the same side as Russia and North Korea. These are not our friends. This posture is a dramatic shift from American ideals of freedom and democracy.” Sadly, however, most top Republicans still go along with Trump and his bizarre foreign policy. 

The truth is, that, a generation earlier, Ronald Reagan warned us (to great ridicule) that Russia was an “evil empire.” But we forgot all the lessons. For decades, the policies of containment and deterrence led to a continuing but uneasy peace between the two great powers. Indeed, the Soviet Empire collapsed under the force of Reagan’s diplomacy.

Biden Countered Russian Disinformation about Ukraine. Are People Listening?

"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!" How Ronald Reagan's One Sentence Changed Berlin

"Peace for Our Time?" Neville Chamberlain's Speech about Appeasement

Such world-shaking events now fade into forgotten history. Russia has surreptitiously supported Trump and the Republican Party, often using underhanded electronic means. Robert Mueller’s famous report confirmed this beyond dispute. Attacking the United States from within, corrupting our political system to near collapse, Russia now seems ready to fulfill Nikita Khrushchev’s long-ago chilling threat: “We will bury you.”

(Stunningly, Trump’s newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has just now ordered the Pentagon to shut down its project against Russian cyberhacking. We were warned!)

We were warned. We are still being warned. Remember that utterances are only half of public speaking – the other half is listening. Wise men and women spoke; too few voters listened. Yet, even as the darkness closes on us, never give up. Never lose confidence in freedom. Never believe anything until you have studied both sides. Never lose faith in representative government. And, when good people warn you—listen to them!

It is never too late to learn. We must learn to sort truth from obvious falsehoods. We must shake aside our complacency and face dangers, both domestic and foreign. We must never give up hope. We must learn to hear both sides of controversies. We must listen.

For we were warned about all of this.

by William D. Harpine  

Copyright @2025 by William D. Harpine

J. D. Talked about Freedom of Speech. But Did He Mean What He Said?

J. D. Vance

Maybe he should have lectured himself. Without a trace of irony, newly minted United States Vice President J. D. Vance instructed European leaders about freedom. Downplaying Vladimir Putin’s saber-rattling in Eastern Europe, and ignoring his own administration’s attacks on free expression, Vance castigated European governments for alleged free-speech violations:

“We shouldn’t be afraid of our people, even when they express views that disagree with their leadership.”

Yes, in his forceful February 14, 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance boldly defended the right of populists and conservatives to express unpopular opinions. He also blithely ignored the Trump-Vance administration’s own malicious attacks against liberals’ free speech rights.

Clue: in a free society, if your side has rights, the other side shares those rights. Sadly, Vance evinced no awareness of that great principle – the exact doctrine that his speech purported to support. Let’s look at that speech.


Vance Defends Free Speech

Vance berated the stunned European leaders for allegedly violating freedom of speech:

“I look to Brussels, where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest, the moment they spot what they’ve judged to be ‘hateful content.’”

And...

“I look to Sweden, where two weeks ago, the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Quran burnings that resulted in his friend’s murder.”

Also... 

“A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes.”

Furthermore, amplifying on Scotland:

“This last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called Safe Access Zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law.”

The Scottish government promptly refuted Vance’s last claim, emphatically denying that anyone restricted private prayer: “The Vice President’s claim is incorrect. Private prayer at home is not prohibited within Safe Access Zones and no letter has ever suggested it was.” Vance has yet to document his accusation. Indeed, that Vance needed to fabricate an accusation suggests that he offered a weak case.

Anyway, continuing, Scotland pointed out that rights must balance:

“People continue to have the right to protest and to free speech, however, no one has the right to harass women, or to try to influence without consent their decision to access healthcare, or to impede their access to it in any way.”

So, overlooking the obvious truth that every right carries responsibilities, Vance may have missed the point. By way of analogy, I have a right to pray for peace, but I do not have a right to pray for peace while standing on Interstate 95 during rush hour. The Scottish man clearly could have prayed outside the designated safe zone. The only reason for him to pray inside the safe zone was to intimidate women as they entered. One right balancing against another?


Practice What You Preach

More telling against Vance’s credibility, however, is the political context. While Vance arrogantly preached for absolute freedom of speech, the Trump-Vance administration and their Republican Party continue to stomp on free speech in Vance's own country. Trump’s executive orders forbid public schools from teaching about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Should schools and teachers in the United States not have freedom to teach whatever they think students need to learn? The Trump administration banned Associated Press reporters from the White House briefing room because they refused to join Trump in renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. Additionally, Trump’s strict rules against federal DEI programs quickly resulted in the government concealing a museum exhibit that celebrated the work of minority group members and women in our national defense. Do they not have free-speech rights?

And across the United States’ more conservative regions, school libraries too often find that conservative censors are driving Toni Morrison books and literature about civil rights off their shelves. If populists have rights, so does everyone else. 

Trump's Speech at the Social Media Summit: Free Speech Isn't Free Speech?

The Problem

Public speaking teachers have known since ancient times that the speaker’s credibility is the most powerful mode of persuasion. That is where Vance failed. Yes, we all eagerly defend our own free speech rights. That is not the point. The point is to respect everyone’s free speech rights. As long as Vance’s own political movement callously suppresses freedom of speech in the United States, he has discarded his credibility to condemn censorship elsewhere.

Thomas Jefferson

My blog’s faithful readers have long known that I am a free-speech libertarian. Yet, every freedom does come with responsibility – a principle that conservatives once supported. Still, governments themselves also have a responsibility - to prevent freedom from being abused. That line is hard to draw, and people reasonably disagree about it. My readers surely also know that the purpose of liberty is not to defend the powerful, but to protect the weak. Not to promulgate what is popular, but to give voice to people on the margins. As Thomas Jefferson said, “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Free Speech on Campus Needs to Apply to Everyone

So, yes, let us have freedom of speech. Still, until the Trump administration and the Republican Party exhibit more respect for liberals’ free speech rights, Vance needs to stop pontificating. And he needs to stop now.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright @2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of J. D. Vance, official White House photo, public domain

Image of Thomas Jefferson, Library of Congress

 

How Not to Be Fooled: America, Protect Yourself from Elon Musk!

Donald Trump, official WH photo

Did Donald Trump just call himself a “radical leftist?” In a recent social media post, Trump said:

“DOGE: Looks like Radical Left Reuters was paid $9,000,000 by the Department of Defense to study ‘large scale social deception.’ give back the money, now!”

However, elementary investigation finds that this program dates to 2018, under the first Trump administration. Furthermore, the grant did not go to Reuters News, but to an entirely different Reuters company. A headline in The Independent gleefully stated: “Trump demands ‘Radical Left Reuters’ return a $9 million government contract. He’s the one who paid it out in the first place.” Further, the actual contract centered on preventing cyberattacks. The facts, with the complete story, were easy to find.


What Is DOGE?

DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency, a semi-mythical government agency), headed by multi- billionaire Elon Musk, purports to examine government fraud and waste. Unfortunately, they seem to pursue that laudable goal with neither skill nor integrity. The program in question investigated cyber hacking, not social deception, and was a product of Donald Trump’s first administration. That is, like most conspiracy theories, the Musk/Trump social media exchange began with a speck of truth – in this case, an itty-bitty, tiny speck – and then spun out a far-reaching, complicated, and utterly paranoid spiderweb of speculation. All encapsulated into cryptic social media posts.


This Isn’t the First Time

Yesterday, I noted how a reporter corrected Musk for wrongly claiming that a USAID grant had spent millions of dollars sending condoms to Hamas terrorists. Even when Musk’s claim turned out to be wrong, he hedged but didn’t back down. This new conspiracy theory proves that they still have not learned to check their facts.

Earlier Post: Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Art of Squirming

 
DOGE dominates the news with endless stories alleging government fraud and waste. Although I lack time to investigate all of them, I have yet to find even one of Musk’s major accusations that stands up to even elementary scrutiny. Now, granted, fraud and waste do occur in the federal government. Probably plenty. It’s less clear that Musk and his inept team will uncover any of it. Instead, they rely on what I have called the “jackhammer method of persuasion”—to unleash more deceptions than anyone can hope to track. 

Earlier Post: Conservatives, Public Health, and the Jackhammer Method of Persuasion

Yet, deception often works. Over the years, many gullible voters uncritically and angrily respond to every wild accusation: the FBI shot JFK, Nelson Rockefeller was the leader of the world communist party, the government created HIV, millions of immigrants are lining up, fake IDs in hand, to vote without ever being caught. Millions of people believe that the COVID vaccines are deadly, sadly leading to thousands of well-documented but needless Republican deaths. We must sort the silly from the true. So: can we engage in critical thinking? Is critical thinking even that hard?

And, Now, a New Dubious Claim

With that in mind, let us look at the Reuters claim. Citing DOGE, President Trump claimed on social media that:

“DOGE: Looks like Radical Left Reuters was paid $9,000,000 by the Department of Defense to study ‘large scale social deception.’ give back the money, now!” [italics added]

Since this program dated to 2018, when Trump was president, it seems that Trump was calling himself a radical leftist. 

Proudly responding on X, and undaunted by any mundane details like dates, Musk added:

“Reuters received far more money than this from US government organizations, but via various subsidiaries and intermediaries to hide how they were getting it. This is just what @DOGE has found so far.”

Wow! Did DOGE discover that the federal government was trying to stomp out social deception? Heaven forbid! What Trump supporter could tolerate that? After all, Trump thrives on deception…but I digress.


Lessons to Learn

Musk and his team obviously exercised little effort to learn the facts about the program in question. My impression is that they usually do not. Therefore incumbent, the viewer or reader must check the facts. Since the facts, in this case, were effortless to find, there is really no excuse – none at all – for Elon Musk to be fooling people.

We live in the Information Age. Almost everyone over the age of two has a computer. Yes, I know that it is easy, and tempting, to believe whatever these paranoid con artists might want to tell you. It is, however, almost as easy to check the facts.

I am sure that we all want to stop government waste, fraud, and abuse. To do so, however, we need to have the facts. You don’t need to be a genius to learn the facts. It makes no difference whether you like or dislike what people say. The only thing that matters is the truth. Unfortunately, sometimes the people who scream “fraud” the loudest turn out to be the guiltiest. Musk and Trump have repeatedly proven themselves to be unreliable. That puts the burden on the rest of us. We do not need to plow through the archives at the Library of Congress. We do not, however, want to start by getting angry and shouting, “How do radical leftists get away with this fraud?” Instead, we must delay the anger for a moment. Ask yourself, “Is this even true? Am I getting the whole story?” If, and only if, the accusations turn out to be right, then, yes, go ahead and get angry. Wise people think first, and only after thinking do they rage.

To this point, Musk, Trump, and DOGE have spewed out various wild claims without checking the details. Nor do they back down when corrected. Given their track record, the public would be unwise to trust them. If their next accusations turn out to be inaccurate, don’t be gullible. Remember that at least two people are at fault in every confidence game: the con artist, and the gullible mark. Don’t be a mark. Don’t be naïve. Take a moment to check the facts. Check the facts first, and get angry later. America depends on it. Thank you.

by William D. Harpine

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap

___________

P.S. There is a reason that conservatives tell people not to trust the mainstream media. That is because they only want you to hear one viewpoint. The idea that you might check up on them – that you might examine their claims – terrifies them. Whenever they tell you not to check them out, well, take that as a warning. Always.

P.P.S. Do liberals tell lies? Of course they do. Seriously. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? Lyndon Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Unfortunately, I see no sign that Trump, Musk, or anyone currently on Fox News has either the moxie or the talent to catch them. Once again, that job falls to you as the reader, the listener, the audience – seek the truth and don’t be gullible.

Copyright @ by William D. Harpine

Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Art of Squirming

I suppose that all politicians sometimes play confidence games, and the number one trick of confidence artists is the Squirm and Shift. Known in the business world as Overpromise and Underdeliver.

Such was the travesty of a news conference held yesterday, February 11, 2025, by United States President Donald Trump and his supervisor, billionaire Elon Musk, who heads a semi-mythical government agency called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which supposedly uncovers fraud and waste. As his young son clung to him, entertaining the TV audience while distracting everyone from the issues, as only an adorable child can, Musk slithered around the issues.

The central theme behind DOGE’s fallacies is equivocation about words like “fraud” and “abuse”. Or the phrase, beloved by politicians, “fraud and waste.” Fraud and waste are, although both bad, not the same. The public most often thinks that fraud is an illegal act in which money or services are obtained by trickery. However, if we bunch “fraud and waste” together, we can use the word “fraud” (or even “treason”) to describe any expenditure of which we disapprove. Note that it is often hard to prove fraud in the usual sense, but it is easy to prove that someone is spending money in a way we disagree with. Nevertheless, “fraud” sounds terrible – indeed, illegal – whereas “I don’t like the way we are spending money” might be more accurate, but fails to create the same blood-curdling chills. Fraud sounds terrible, while misplaced priorities come down to value judgments.

Anyway, citing fraud and abuse, Trump introduced Musk’s presentation:

“And we’re going to be signing a very important deal today. It’s DOGE and I'm going to ask Elon to tell you a little bit about it and some of the things that we’ve found which are shocking, billions and billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. And I think it’s very important.” [italics added]

Now, later in the news conference, one reporter, having discovered that DOGE had made a factual error about condom purchases, asked this reasonable question:

“Mr. Musk, you said on X that an example of the fraud that you have cited was $50 million of condoms was sent to Gaza, but after fact check[ing] this, apparently Gaza and Mozambique and the program was to protect them against HIV. So, can you correct the statements? It wasn't sent to Hamas, actually. It was sent to Mozambique, which makes sense why condoms [were] sent there. And how can we make sure that all the statements that you said were correct so we can trust what you say?”

That is, the reporter caught DOGE making a careless error, and gently asked Musk whether DOGE’s findings are trustworthy (which they obviously are not). Musk responded:

“Well, first of all, some of the things that I say will be incorrect and should be corrected. So, nobody's going to bat a thousand. I mean, we will make mistakes, but we'll act quickly to correct any mistakes.”

After tentatively and quite vaguely admitting that he made a reckless mistake, Musk immediately squirmed and shifted his argument to a question of policy values:

“I'm not sure we should be sending $50 million worth of condoms to anywhere, frankly. I'm not sure that's something Americans would be really excited about. And that is really an enormous number of condoms, if you think about it. But if it went to Mozambique instead of Gaza, I'm like, ‘Okay, that's not as bad. But still, why are we doing that?’”

Let us simply unpack that exchange. First, Musk did not specifically admit that he had made a silly mistake. From the standpoint of dialectical honesty, he should have said something like, “Well, it sounds as if I made an error, and I guess I should have been more careful about that.” He didn’t. Instead, he fidgeted.

Second, Musk continued to promote his case even though his premise turned out to be factually false. Now, the condoms had not gone to Hamas, which United States considers to be a terrorist organization. Instead, they went to the more peaceable nation of Mozambique. Furthermore, the purpose of the condom shipment was to reduce the spread of a deadly disease – not to support vicious terrorists. With the wind totally taken out of his argument, Musk stated: “I'm not sure we should be sending $50 million worth of condoms to anywhere.” He could have admitted that he was wrong but that he wanted to give a different argument against the condoms. However, he did not. Instead, Musk admitted that “That’s not as bad,” but nevertheless persisted. He plowed right past his mistake.

The aura of government mismanagement, the implication that the condom shipment was tantamount to treason, had been utterly refuted. Did Musk back off? No.

I think that many American voters would label a program that supplies sexual aids to a terrorist organization as fraud and abuse. I suspect that many Americans would consider it a good thing to reduce the spread of HIV. Shifting and squirming, wriggling and writhing, DOGE had created the impression that a basically healthy program was tantamount to fraud, or gross mismanagement, or something like that. The reality of humanitarian aid was besmirched by the false aura of fraud, sullied by a careless but momentous factual mistake. Most critically, Musk totally ignored the reporter’s punchline: “And how can we make sure that all the statements that you said were correct so we can trust what you say?” That was the real question. If DOGE’s wild accusations turn out to be factually false, or even fabricated, why should the public give the slightest credence to anything that DOGE or Musk has to say? Musk never answered! Instead, slippery as a California rattlesnake, he slithered away from that real issue.

And that, dear readers, is the black magic of ambiguity. Equivocation. Shifting and squirming. Refusing to debate openly. Politicians practice those evil tactics all the time. Nasty Democrats have done it, but this time it was a contemptible Republican. And it is my job, as a specialist in argumentation and debate, to call out this kind of sneaky argument whenever I see it.

Oh, what a better world we would have, what a happier nation, if politicians would debate honestly!

by William D. Harpine

 

Earlier Posts:

Elon Musk's 2016 Mars Speech: A Speech and a Vision

Debbie Lesko, Anthony Fauci, and the "Illusion of Proof"

_______

P.S.: Thanks to rev.com, a commercial transcription service, for providing a prompt verbatim copy of the press conference. 

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image from DOGE.gov's rapidly changing website