Donald Trump and the Art of Doublespeak

Donald Trump

When Donald Trump gave his Truth Social speech in the wee hours of February 28, 2026, “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear program did not mean that he had obliterated anything. Why did Trump play a word game? He needed to squirm out of the trap that he had created with his own rhetorical history. That is, Trump had earlier boasted that a June 2025 attack had obliterated Iran’s nuclear program. That was false. The raid damaged the program but did not obliterate it. 

The problem is that “obliterate” is an absolute word. So, we could damage something but not obliterate it. There can be degrees of damage, but there is only one level of obliteration. According to the dictionary, to obliterate something means “to remove or destroy all traces of; do away with; destroy completely.” That is quite absolute!

When something has been obliterated, it simply no longer exists. Unfortunately, since Trump had previously claimed to have obliterated Iran’s nuclear weapons program, he needed to play a word game to justify obliterating it again. Never one to admit error, Trump played a game of doublespeak to justify his February 2026 attack.

Yes, yesterday, February 28, 2026, United States President Donald Trump gave a brief speech – on Truth Social, of all places – announcing an air and missile strike against Iran. After reviewing various Iranian bad actions, most of which dated back decades, Trump’s Truth Social speech emphasized that he wanted to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, indeed, the same nuclear program that he said he had obliterated in June 2025. He said:

“It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again, they can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Continuing, Trump boasted that the United States military had, at his direction, previously “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program:

“That is why in Operation Midnight Hammer last June, we obliterated the regime's nuclear program at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.” [italics added]

Trump then accused Iran of trying to “rebuild their nuclear program.” He promised that Iran’s missile program “will be again totally obliterated.” [italics added]

Again? After only a few months?

Obliterated once, obliterated again: Trump’s speech began to sound like a science fiction story in which the dead space alien comes back to life again, again, and again.

Sadly, however, Trump’s previous statements trapped him. We must remember the history of Trump’s obliterations. That is, back in June 2025, he had posted on the White House website that:

“Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear [sic] sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term! The white structure shown is deeply imbedded [sic] into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!” [italics added]

Obliteration!

At the same time, Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had said:

“Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. [italics added]

That, as it happens, turned out to be wrong. United States intelligence services quickly found that the June 2025 attack left Iran's major nuclear equipment undamaged.

It defies credulity to think that we would need to obliterate a program that had already been obliterated, and, indeed, obliterated so recently. Disinclined to admit that Trump could be mistaken, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded, still in June 2025, that the intelligence report was wrong, and that Iran’s nuclear program had, in fact, been obliterated: 

“The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.” [italics added]

Although Leavitt tried to defend Trump’s gross overstatement of the facts about the June 2025 raid, she also unwittingly foreshadowed the rhetorical history that Trump would need to overcome in February 2026.

Trump Prayer Breakfast Speech: Fighting for God?

That is why Trump’s word game – obliteration then and obliteration now – only worked, to the extent that it worked at all, if Trump used the exact word every time. If he said in June that the program had been obliterated, and then said yesterday that the program had merely been destroyed in June, the entire word game would fall apart. Trump could not say, “We obliterated Iran’s nuclear program in June, and now we have destroyed it.” He could not say, “We obliterated Iran’s nuclear program in June, and now we have smashed it.” Obliteration does not permit degrees. Logic gave Trump no escape, but the word game helped Trump avoid conceding that he had been wrong the first time. 

Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech: A Lesson for Our Own Time

In his novel 1984, George Orwell defined doublethink as the political practice of holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Writers have evolved the related term “doublespeak” to reflect a similar idea, in which we use one word to mean contradictory things. In Trump’s case, does “obliterate” really mean “obliterate”?

Trump’s linguistic trick is obvious: brazen, maybe. Unfortunately, its powerful persuasive force cannot be denied. Trapped in a history created by his own previous exaggerations, unwilling to retreat, unable to admit error, Trump implicitly asked his audience to revise the entire concept of obliteration. Doublespeak indeed. 

by William D. Harpine

______________

P.S.: Now, I am just a retired speech teacher, and I’m not qualified to say how much damage these raids did to Iran’s warlike ambitions, nor am I qualified to say whether Trump’s policy is wise or unwise (although I have my doubts!). One must suspect, however, that Trump would not play word games if he and the facts played for the same team.

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Donald Trump, public domain, official White House photo 

Trump Prayer Breakfast Speech: Fighting for God?

Donald Trump, White House photo

Does Donald Trump use faith for the awesome power of doing good, or does he use the awesome force of government to crush all opposition?

“I'm never going to make it to heaven. I just don't think I qualify. I don't think there's a thing I can do.”

So confessed President Donald Trump at the February 5 National Prayer Breakfast. Trump’s thesis was that he, himself, was on a wrong moral path, but he had spread religion across the land. As he spoke about religion, Trump expressed values of power, not wisdom. He boasted that he used his power to spread a religious movement. The Christian Right had long supported Trump, and Trump boasted that he supported their movement! So, what are our values? Like most speeches, this one reflected Trump’s values.

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

Indeed, Trump’s lengthy speech said little about prayer, but much about political triumph. Trump reflected the Christian Right’s view that Christian evangelism needs the power of government. As he did so, Trump revealed the disconnect between the Christian Right’s politics and such Christian values as caring for the poor and protecting vulnerable people. Do we use government policy to advance Christian ideals, such as caring for the downtrodden, or do we instead seek to use government to impose a particular interpretation of religion?

Indeed, former TV star that he is, Trump boasted that he had made religion “hotter:”

“But all of these good things I'm doing, including for religion. You know, religion is back now hotter than ever before. I mean, I have to tell you. But I said even though I did that and so many other things, I named things, I said I won't qualify, I'm not going to make it to heaven. We call him Rand Paul Jr. You know, it's like they just vote no. They love voting no. They think it's good politically. The guy's polling at about nine percent. It's not good, but we have great support and we have great support for religion. You know, I've done more for religion than any other president. When Paula [Rev. Paula White] was saying that, it was so nice.” [italics added]

Did that comment say a thing about prayer? About being religious? No! Trump said he was doing “good things . . . for religion.” He said “great support for religion.” He did not say, “the good things that religion asks us to do.” Trump was only talking about power—the power to spread religion – and conflict – his conflict with Republican Sen. Rand Paul.

Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies in 2019

Continuing, Trump absorbed Rev. White’s praise and boasted again that he used his power to spread religion:

“I was proud of it and I said that’s true. I told the people backstage, what she [Rev. White] said is true. Who else would say that, right? But it is true. But then I said, but that’s not saying much because not too many presidents have done too much for religion. I want to tell you that, certainly modern day. Certainly modern day presidents, they didn’t. They bailed out on you.” [italics added]

It is telling that, despite the First Amendment’s provision against an established religion, Trump literally complained that other presidents, including overtly religious presidents like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama, had done little to advance religion. However, was that their job? Does being a religious president mean that you do religious things, or that your government spreads religion?

Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us What We Should Have Known All Along: There Are Two Different Christianities

The Christian Right has, of course, long supported Trump. Paula White had, in fact, been one of many conservative Christian pastors who promoted Trump's candidacy. They overlook his moral failings—failings that he admitted during this speech—to obtain their religious goals. At times, all too often, they seem to worship him like a prophet.

The Golden Trump Statue at CPAC 2021: Why Is the Christian Right Silent?

Rev. Robert Jeffress Prayed a Pro-Trump Political Speech

Franklin Graham Prayed for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents

Still, if our national policy becomes to oppress immigrants and the poor, what good has the Christian faith done for us? The Christian Right has indeed gained great power, but to what end? Are they following the teachings of Jesus? Did Jesus say to deport immigrants, make life harder for the poor, to be cruel and hateful? 

With stark clarity, Trump revealed American Christianity’s basic choice: do we trust God enough to follow his laws in public life, or do we seek to rule by power? Speeches do, indeed, reflect our values.

by William D. Harpine

Note:

A recent Pew survey found that White Evangelical Christians still support Trump more than do other groups, but less so than they did a year ago.

Trump made little mention of the Christian religion per se, as opposed to religion in general, but I think most people figured out what he meant. 

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

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

Marco Rubio, Climate Change, and the Dark Rhetorical Art of Changing the Point

Marco Rubio

“A climate cult?” That is how United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed global warming at the Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2026.

There is an old lawyer’s saying:

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.

Since none of that would work for Rubio, he instead chose to pound his opponents and change the subject. Rubio did not prove his point, which could not be proven anyway, and instead diverted the audience’s attention just as a magician uses smoke and mirrors to divert an audience’s attention. As Rubio showed, there is more than one way to twist an argument!

So, since Rubio pounded neither facts nor law, let us look at what he did pound. Overall, he gave a remarkable statement of what passes for intellectual conservative orthodoxy. The assembled dignitaries thanked Rubio with thunderous applause, probably, as we shall see in a moment, because Rubio skillfully helped them miss the point. By sneering at the opposition and changing the emphasis, Rubio buried climate science below the level of a footnote.

 
First, let us remember that centuries of burning fossil fuels have raised the earth’s average temperature by about 1°C. That doesn’t seem like a lot, but if you multiply 1°C across the entire planet, well, that’s a lot of energy. Literally thousands of scientific studies have confirmed this beyond any arguable doubt. For example, a research team led by Shae Wolf of the Center for Biological Diversity stated that: “The evidence is clear that fossil fuels—and the fossil fuel industry and its enablers—are driving a multitude of interlinked crises that jeopardize the breadth and stability of life on Earth.” Similarly, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration affirms the scientific view about global warming: “The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia. It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun’s energy in the Earth system.” [Italics added] Indeed, as far back as 1977, Exxon’s own scientists predicted that burning fossil fuels would warm the climate; indeed, they predicted the results with great accuracy.

Second, conservative orthodoxy denies climate change research. Since climate change research fails to support their side to any degree, one must assume that the multibillion-dollar oil, gas, and coal industries encourage this denial. Conservative orthodoxy avoids discussing science at all since they have little scientific evidence to give.

Third, lacking research or factual basis, Rubio's speech simply repeated conservative dogma. Accordingly, instead of proving his point, he dismissed climate science as if it were a religious cult:

“To appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people, even as our competitors exploit oil and coal and natural gas and anything else – not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own.” [Italics added]

That was Rubio’s entire statement about climate change. Now, Rubio’s brief comment obviously proved nothing. If you have little to say, say as little as possible! Still, Rubio’s shallow but crafty statement applied several powerful, albeit specious, persuasive methods:

1. Rubio adapted to American conservatives – his real audience – and they are eager to gobble up his point. Thus, he was content to insult climate scientists rather than to deal with their ideas. Rubio could dismiss the scientific consensus only because, for years, Fox News, talk radio, and conservative pressure have loudly ridiculed climate science. Thus, it comes as no surprise when a Pew survey found that Republicans are far less prone than Democrats to worry about climate change.

Thus, Rubio’s main audience didn’t need to hear evidence. 

2. Audiences often think most about the point that the speaker talks about the most. By my count, Rubio spoke 45 words about the climate while devoting about 2,400 words to the unity of Western civilization. By burying his anti-climate point, Rubio led the audience to think about world partnership, not climate change. The world leaders may have bypassed Rubio’s climate point as they, with relief, praised his lengthy appeal for world partnership. Granted, both questions matter, but why bring up climate at all if he wasn’t going to develop the point? 

3. Lacking evidence, Rubio kept his climate discussion brief. Actual arguments about the climate would invite refutation or ridicule, so why take the chance? 

4. Finally, to the extent that Rubio offered arguments at all, he diverted attention from science to economics. He maintained that limiting fossil fuels would create short-term economic destruction: “not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own.” Rubio diverted the audience’s attention by skipping the real argument. 

What you don’t say matters as much as what you do say. Rubio dismissed the issue while saying nothing about climate science. Could Rubio’s rhetorical chicanery convince anyone that climate change is a hoax unless that person wants to be fooled? No, of course not. Nevertheless, can his make-believe intellectualism swing enough people to Rubio’s side to serve his cause? That, I fear, is entirely possible. Indeed, conservatives from Rick Santorum to Jonathan Turley have called Rubio’s absurd speech a masterpiece of statesmanship that might lead him to the White House. In the modern world of brokered power, leaders need support, but, sadly, they don’t need a majority, do they?

If you have the facts, pound the facts. In Rubio’s case, if you have no facts, insult your opponents (“climate cult?”) and change the subject.


Earlier Posts about Climate Speeches

The Solution to Climate Change Is in the Cities: President Ursula von der Leyen's Speech at the European Energy Award

How Does Tucker Carlson Use Personal Attacks Instead of Proof about Climate Change?

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Marco Rubio: 

Official State Department portrait, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Will History Repeat Itself? Trump and the Art of Making Horrible Threats

January 6, 2021 Capitol Riot

When world leaders make threats, they usually mean them. The public must heed. Leaders make threats to guide their devoted followers. Donald Trump does this often. Hitler did it before him. Threats polarize the public, which divides itself into strong supporters and meek opponents. Now, since the polarizing leader cares little about the meek opponents, it is the strong supporters who make a difference. We often fear secret conspiracies, but it is the public announcements that should terrify us.

For example, debating against his successor, Joe Biden, in September 2020, Donald Trump specifically alerted a right-wing terrorist group to prepare in case he lost the election:

“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what: somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem this is a left-wing.” [sic]  

Threats Prepare for Action

“Stand back and stand by” was a threat that laid the groundwork for action. Leaders, even the cruelest, stupidest, most authoritarian leaders, need support. They need followers who they can mobilize into action. They need soldiers to carry the rifles. They need pilots to drop the bombs. They need angry mobs to crush the opposition. That is why they state their mission coldly, plainly, and bluntly.

Of course, on January 6, 2021 thousands of Capitol rioters followed Trump’s commands. Trump had alerted and guided his supporters. Trump’s comment to the Proud Boys was not an idle threat. It was part of his method. 

 We should never have dismissed his threat. Leaders must instruct their public. Indeed, in December 2020, after losing the election, Trump announced the January 6 riot in advance:

“Big protests in D.C. on January 6. Be there. Will be wild!”

Indeed, as prosecutor Jack Smith recently said about the January 6 riot, this “does not happen” without Trump.

Sadly, the public seemed neither to believe nor care that Trump had threatened to revolt against the election. When January 6 arrived, Congress went blithely along, solemnly counting the electoral votes, oblivious while an angry mob collected outside. Indeed, even today, years later, many people continue to deny the obvious.

Indeed, it was not just the Proud Boys who were ready to “stand back and stand by.” As I write this, a Republican-controlled Congressional subcommittee is holding hearings to rewrite the narrative of January 6. In those hearings, Trump-supporting Congressman Troy Nehls of Texas questioned reports that Capitol Police officers were injured that day. He said it was “Trump haters” who spread such claims. Last week a CBS/YouGov poll found that: “The percentage of Republicans who strongly disapprove of the Jan. 6 attack has dropped more than 20 points since January 2021 — from 51% then to 30% now.” Trump led; his voters followed.  

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

Trump's Second January 6 Speech Accidentally Spiked MAGA Conspiracy Theories


Does Trump Use Hitler’s Methods?

As I noted in my previous post, Hitler openly threatened the Holocaust in a major speech. 

Hitler Pretended to Be a Prophet, but He Was Really an Evil Führer

Hitler’s supporters trusted him. Did they really expect him to start a devastating war?  Did they really expect him to lead Germany truants? Probably not. But they should have believed his threats. Hitler was, months before the war, telling his supporters that massacres were coming. So, when Hitler told a cheering Reichstag in 1937, two years before the war in Europe, that he intended to abolish individual rights, he meant what he said:

“In the new German legal system which will be in force from now onwards the nation is placed above persons and property.”

Hitler was not just saying awful things, for he was also briefing and guiding his supporters. Totalitarians cannot, after all, work in secret!

Trump Continues to Make Threats

Greenland Town

Trump uses similar methods to propose annexing Greenland. Trump recently told a group of reporters:

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt chimed in:

“Utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option.”

Once again, despite a little public agitation, Trump’s meek opponents fail to take him seriously. A war over Greenland? It seems so incredible! Surely Trump is joking! Maybe Trump is just negotiating by extortion! Maybe he is just ranting!

Even podcaster Jesse Kelly, one of Trump’s most loyal supporters, denied that Trump meant what he said:

“People freaking out about Trump threatening military action for Greenland are all either dumb or lying. This is how he negotiates everything. And he’s been doing so publicly for a [sic] like 50 years now. Carrot and stick. He’s gonna buy it. He was always gonna buy it.”

How naïve! No, a thousand times no. Donald Trump, like all world leaders, leads by communicating. There is no other way to lead! He gives speeches. He makes statements. Those speeches and statements guide his supporters and organize their actions. The fact that he is a leader means that he is not working alone. He is leading other people. Now, Trump might change his mind, or his worried donors might stop him, but no one should ignore him. 

Worse, is our constitutional republic dying? Trump commented, just today, that:

“When you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.” 

Was he facetious, as his spokesperson later claimed? Was this a joke, or a threat?

Totalitarian Rulers Lead by Threats

Polarization in Steve Bannon's Value Voters Summit Speech 

Trump does not need a majority. No polarizing leader needs a majority. All he needs is to motivate a core group of fanatical supporters. That is what polarization means. So, should we take Trump seriously when he threatens to war against our friends and neighbors? Honestly, we are fools if we do not. Should we take pleasure if his poll numbers drop? Maybe not. Once leaders start to polarize us, what difference do opinion polls make?

Prophecies? Threats? Bloviating? Instructions? Or warnings?  

by William D. Harpine

_______________

Research Note: One finds surprisingly few research studies of Hitler's speaking. I'll mention two of the best. First, Haig A. Bosmajian's 1960 article "The Nazi Speaker's Rhetoric," is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, although a good library might be able to find a copy. 

Also, Randall L. Bytwerk's book Bending Spines: The Propagandas of Nazi Germany and the German Democratic Republic delves into the terrifying rhetorical pathology that made Hitler possible. I defy anyone to read this book and not see connections with Trump's rhetorical style.

There is no better source about polarization than the masterful study, The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, by John W. Bowers, Donovan J. Ochs, Richard J. Jensen, and David P. Schulz.

On Trump's persuasive methods, Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump by Jennifer Mercieca is worth a careful look.

Copyright 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of January 6 Capitol riot, by TapTheForwardAssist, 

Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Greenland town: Buiobuione, 

Creative Commons license, via Wikimedia Commons

Hitler Pretended to Be a Prophet, but He Was Really an Evil Führer

Reichstag in Ruins after WWII

 
I’ve been a prophet in my life very often and was mostly laughed at.” 

So said Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939. Was Hitler a prophet, as he claimed, or was he a tyrant organizing the Holocaust? Was Hitler’s speech a prophecy, or a warning? For he followed the path of all dictators, using speech to guide his foolish supporters—a path that want-to-be tyrants still follow today. He laid out his conspiracy theory, blaming Jews, not himself, for the coming war, and urged his supporters to unify. None of this was secret. To organize Germany for conflict, Hitler told his country exactly what to expect. Did the world heed his warning? No, sadly, not really. Do we, today, remember his warning? Of course not. 

Given the strong support that German Christians gave to Nazism, it is no accident that Hitler called himself a prophet. We think that a prophet predicts the future. However, someone who shapes the future would not be a prophet, but a leader – maybe a führer. To carry out his schemes, Hitler shaped the future. He identified an enemy and told his supporters how to meet the threat. That enemy did not need to be real. A conspiracy theory would do just fine.

Hitler, the Harbinger of the Modern Christian Right, Gave His Inaugural Speech

    

The Conspiracy Theory

Anyway, to pursue his theme of prophecy, Hitler needed to identify an enemy. He continued:  

“At the time of my struggle for power, it was primarily the Jewish people who only accepted my prophecies with laughter.” 

Prophecies? More like warnings. Hitler was not predicting the future; he was shaping it. Indeed, in this terrifying oration, with world war only months in the future, Hitler bluntly announced – prophesized – his plan to murder Jews en masse. He said: 

“Today I want to be a prophet again: If international financial Jewry in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the peoples once again into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thus the victory of Judaism, but annihilation the Jewish race in Europe.” [italics added] 

As he spoke, Hitler blamed Judaism for the coming world war:

“I believe that if the Jewish international press and propaganda laws were to be stopped, the understanding between the peoples would be established very quickly. Only these elements are constantly hoping for a war. But I believe in a long peace.”

And, as Hitler continued to rant against Jews:

“International Jewry may hope to achieve satisfaction in their vindictiveness and greed for profit, but that they represent the monstrous slander that can be done to a great and peace-loving people.”

So, Hitler predicted the coming war (that was his prophecy) and blamed it on Jews. 


The Plan

Holocaust Memorial, Albania

Now, why would he speak so boldly? First, leaders need popular support. Hitler could not murder six million Jews by himself. He needed to inspire countless thousands of men to fire the rifles and run the gas chambers. Second, he needed tell his followers his goals and ambitions. Otherwise, how could they act on their leader’s behalf? They needed guidance! Hitler always knew that public speaking was a leader’s most potent tool, and he had mastered the art. After all, a dictator can only lead if enough people are willing to follow. Dictators do not only rule by spreading fear, but also by persuading. 

Truly, Hitler, who we today consider to personify evil, did not became a dictator by himself. Nor could he wreak evil by himself. No, he became Chancellor of Germany by winning an election and building a coalition. Once in power, he transformed German government into a personality cult. As he did so, he publicly announced the evil that he planned.  

So, when he spread his conspiracy theory (“international financial Jewry”) and blamed the victims for his own wickedness (“plunging the peoples once again into a world war”), Hitler used his speech to set the philosophical and political stage for genocide. Nazis needed enemies! Only in a twisted sense would we call this prophecy.  Hitler’s underlying argument, his implied enthymeme, was that he prophesized war and strove to make his prophecy come true.  

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

The Lesson Forgotten

Hamburg after WWII Bombing

Yet, expecting him to help the economy (for a while, he did!), Hitler’s short-sighted supporters worried little. Instead of being chastened, they were inspired. History teaches the result. Mass murder. A brutal war. Seven short years in the future, Germany would be reduced to a pile of smoking rubble. 

Now, Hitler did not really state a prophecy. What he in fact did was to lead his deluded followers. Indeed, in this speech Hitler called for the “disciplined and obedient popular community.” Germany and the world should have heard a warning.

Hitler was briefing his enthusiastic faction. Germany was no poverty-stricken nest of ignorance. No, Germany in 1939 was a center of religion, philosophy, art, and music. The great philosopher Martin Heidegger and the musician Herbert von Karajan threw their arts behind Hitler’s cause. Almost all religious leaders acquiesced; indeed, many threw themselves behind him. Religious martyrs like Dietrich Bonhoeffer were few. If Nazism could arise in Germany, it could arise anywhere. It could arise in the United States of America. Do not ever think that it cannot. Perhaps it is arising today. Are there similarities today? 

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

Leaders need supporters, and leaders guide them by speaking to them. When they issue prophecies, we must hear warnings. When they state their seamy values, we must hear plans. When they say things that seem too awful to believe, we need to believe them all the more. Will people listen? Will people learn to listen?  

by William D. Harpine

_________

Research Notes:  

The prophets of Hebrew Scripture were not soothsayers so much as they were moral guides. They warned kings and citizens of impending danger, urging them to reform. This higher road of prophecy is the topic of James Darsey’s prize-winning book, The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America.  

When people ignore clear warnings like Hitler’s, this may be due to a psychological or persuasion concept called the incredulity effect. When the speaker says something more extreme than the audience expects, people may mentally process it by thinking, maybe, “a great Christian leader like Hitler would never mean that.” They might even think, “he was being sarcastic,” “he is exaggerating,” “he is being metaphorical,” or whatever. Listeners can deny it at the moment they hear it: “a great Christian leader like Hitler would never say that.” Our sense of reality runs from us easily. 

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Reichstag:

No. 5 Army Film and Photo Section, Army Film and Photographic Unit

Charles Henry Hewitt, Imperial War Museum, public domain

Image of Holocaust Memorial, Albania:

Bdx, Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication., via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Hamburg, Crown Copyright, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Trump's Second January 6 Speech Accidentally Spiked MAGA Conspiracy Theories

The US Capitol on January 6th

“I know how you feel,” said President Donald J. Trump to the defeated crowd of rioters.

Today is the anniversary of the most shameful day in American history: January 6, 2021, when a horde of screaming, violent lunatics attacked the United States Capitol to stop the election count and certification of the votes that resulted in Joe Biden becoming the next president. Hours later, as the riot neared its unsuccessful end,
Trump emerged from hiding and briefly urged the ignorant insurgents to give up and go home. History has largely ignored that speech. Yet, we should not ignore it, for Trump’s own words devastated the ludicrous conspiracy theories, including his own conspiracy theories, which would soon follow.

Today, I make one simple point: Trump’s short speech totally refuted the leading January 6 conspiracy theories. Indeed, he refuted some of his own subsequent conspiracy theories. In fact, he noted - indeed, proudly admired - that the January 6 crowd insurrected against the United States on his own behalf, and he blessed them. They were not Democrats disguised as MAGA Republicans. They were not Antifa. They were not federal agents leading a “fedsurrection.” 

The bizarre conspiracy theories spread in violation of all reason. It is time to put them down, not by quoting the mainstream media (which conspiracy theorists never trust), nor by checking facts (since, after all, conspiracy theories hold facts in contempt), but by quoting Trump’s exact words. Trump’s own statements destroyed the conspiracy theories.

Yes, January 6 conspiracy theories spread from the outset, angrily endorsed by top Republicans. Several Republican members of Congress, including Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Ron Johnson specifically questioned whether federal officials supported the January 6 riot, presumably to make Trump look bad. My own senator, Ted Cruz, said, “A lot of Americans are concerned that the federal government deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on Jan. 6.”  Representative Clay Higgins claimed that FBI agents were in the crowd, “inside the Capitol dressed as Trump supporters.” Social media pundits regularly castigate Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi for enabling the riot. Indeed, years later, Trump himself blamed the riot on Pelosi. 

These absurd accusations resist endless refutation, but can they survive Trump’s own words? I don’t see how! So, let us remember Trump’s concluding speech that day! Let us look at his exact words. 

First, in his mercifully brief but despicable speech, Trump not only identified with the conspiracy theorists but shared their suffering:

“I know your pain, I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side.”

Trump continued by lying that “this was a fraudulent election.”

Second, Trump praised the rioters:

“We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil.”

Trump would never have praised Antifa, nor would he have praised FBI agents who supposedly rioted against him. He praised the crowd because he knew they were his people. No other motive could explain his speech. 

Finally, Trump, identified with the rioters’ false anger but acknowledged that the riot had been defeated and the protestors needed to go home:

“But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt.”

Finally, once again sympathizing with the rioters, Trump told them:

“I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.”

Donald J. Trump

Now, the people who falsely believe that the 2020 election was stolen will never learn, will never change, and will never accept reality. I can’t help them. Let us, nevertheless, notice that Trump himself knew that the rioters were on his side. Trump admired them. Trump said that he admired them. He said he loved them!

So, the rioters were not a hidden cabal of Nancy Pelosi supporters. Trump would never have loved them. This was not a cabal of federal agents who defied Trump’s authority as their president and demonstrated against his electoral defeat. Trump would not have loved them, either. These were Trump’s people, and Trump acknowledged them, and Trump shared their pain. Period.

To believe that the rioters were anyone other than Trump’s most fanatical supporters defies, not just logic, not just facts, but Trump’s own heartfelt words. Trump and his supporters can, and do, spread other lies to justify January 6, but this particular set of falsehoods collapses under Trump’s own language.

This was lucky for the cause of truth. In his brief, lie-filled speech, Trump could, ironically, not resist speaking from his true, albeit foul, heart. He loved the rioters, empathized with their fears, and sympathized with their goals. As it happens, confirmed liar that he was, Trump still could not resist telling the one central truth.

To overcome conspiracy theories poses a great challenge. Conspiracy theorists ignore fact-checkers and cling to their make-believe world like a seamy security blanket. They sneer at anyone who might question their narrative. They cannot, however, conceivably question the words of Donald Trump himself. By momentarily stating the truth, Trump dissipated an entire set of conspiracy theories. All we need to do is to remember what Trump said on that shameful day. From speech, a hidden truth. “We love you,” Trump said. “I know how you feel.” 

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

Liz Cheney and the Firehose of Truth: Using the Republicans' Text Messages Against Them

by William D. Harpine

_____________________

For my other posts about January 6 rhetoric, search for "January 6" in the box at right.

Follow-up: After I posted this, I saw that the White House published a note that, indeed, repeated the same conspiracy theories that Trump carelessly discredited in his second January 6 speech. How shameless, and oh, how easily people forget! 

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Official 2025 Inaugural Portrait of Donald J. Trump, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of January 6 Capitol riot, by TapTheForwardAssist, Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

Lincoln’s Cooper Union Speech Turned the Tables on the Slavers

Abraham Lincoln

“What is the frame of government under which we live?”

Future President Abraham Lincoln asked that question during his speech of February 27, 1860, at New York City’s Cooper Union. Speaking like the skilled lawyer he was, Lincoln turned the tables against the slave states’ claim that they, and they alone, stood for the United States’ constitutional traditions. Thus, he skillfully used the conservatives’ own argument against them. Surprisingly, Lincoln presented himself as the true conservative in the slavery debate.

Slave owners had claimed that the federal government had no authority to restrict the spread of slavery to new territories. Lincoln, in contrast, wished to prevent the spread of slavery to new territories. In this speech, Lincoln used the historical record to show that tradition supported his view, not the slavers’ views. Sadly, even though Lincoln established that his opponents’ beliefs supported his position, not their own, the slavery dispute stubbornly resisted even Lincoln’s powerful logic.


Turning the Tables, Step #1

Beginning this magnificent speech, Lincoln insisted that he would speak from tradition:

“The facts with which I shall deal this e7vening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them.”

Far from using the more radical abolitionists’ blood-curdling language, Lincoln emphasized the traditional: “old and familiar;” “nor is there anything new.”

Continuing, Lincoln endorsed the traditional perspective. He quoted the pro-slavery argument of his erstwhile political opponent, Illinois’ pro-slavery United States Senator Stephen Douglas:

“In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in ‘The New-York Times,’ Senator Douglas said:

“‘Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.’”

Douglas had framed the argument as a return to the principles of “our fathers.” Lincoln pounced on Douglas’ view that “our fathers” understood the traditions better than anyone. This enabled Lincoln to turn Douglas’ argument against him:

“I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: ‘What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?’”

When turning the tables, the speaker accepts the opponent’s premise and uses it to prove the opposite conclusion. The argument’s power came from the fact that Douglas had handed Lincoln his argument. Lincoln did not say that tradition was wrong, nor did he say that we need to create new and progressive ideas. Instead, he co-opted Douglas' proud claim as “a text for this discourse.” Once he proved his point, neither Douglas nor any other advocate of slavery could refute Lincoln’s premise. After all, it was their own premise!

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”

Turning the Tables, Step #2

Lincoln reframed the slavery debate by setting the debate as a dispute over what the tradition was rather than making an argument for change. Lincoln did not ask whether the founders of our Republic were wrong to endorse slavery. No! That would reject the constitutional tradition, which did accept slavery. Instead, Lincoln contended that southern secessionists misunderstood the traditions. That might sound tricky, but Lincoln cited the historical record. Mocking Douglas, Lincoln asked:

“What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood ‘just as well, and even better than we do now?’

“It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government  to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?”

Thus, Lincoln sidestepped the question of states’ rights. For secessionists took their legal framework from the notion of states’ rights, as embodied in the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution. In contrast, Lincoln pointed that the Constitution did not provide for territorial rights. Making a close, lawyerly distinction, Lincoln reminded his audience that territorial rights were not states’ rights. If more states were admitted to the union, the principle of states’ rights might give them the legal privilege to choose whether they would, or would not, permit slavery. If they were merely territories, however, Lincoln assigned that right to Congress. Furthermore, as we shall see, he drew that conclusion from tradition—indeed, repeating Douglas’ exact words, “our fathers.”

Cooper Union, Foundation Building

Turning the Tables, Step #3

So, to demonstrate that the nation’s founders supported his view, while turning Douglas’ premise against him, Lincoln examined the historical record. Again, if one wants to be traditional, where could one turn, if not to history? Lincoln cited the historical fact that in 1784, before the Constitution was adopted, three men who would later serve in the Constitutional Convention voted to withhold slavery from the Northwest Territory. Lincoln also cited a 1789 law, the very first law passed under the new constitution, which prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory. The bill’s author was, in fact, Thomas Fitzsimmons, who had served in the Constitutional Convention. The bill was then passed into law with unanimous consent, in a Congress that, as Lincoln explained, included fully sixteen members of the Constitutional Convention.

Thus, Lincoln concluded from historical events that the very same people who wrote the Constitution felt were willing to prohibit slavery in a territory:

“This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory.”

Continuing, Lincoln cited the vote of Rufus King, who participated in the Constitutional Convention, to prohibit slavery in Missouri. Lincoln did acknowledge that Charles Pinckney voted against such a prohibition. Still, summing up several cases, Lincoln used the historical record to show that twenty-three of the thirty-nine participants in the Constitutional Convention had, at one time or another, voted to prohibit slavery in one territory or another. In a long, argumentative sentence, Lincoln was now ready to deride Douglas’ claim that the "fathers” of our Republic “understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now:”

“Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers ‘who framed the government under which we live,’ who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they ‘understood just as well, and even better than we do now;’ and twenty-one of them—a clear majority of the whole ‘thirty-nine’ — so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories.”

Again, Lincoln quoted Douglas exact words: “understood just as well, and even better than we do now.” Having found that a slim, but real, majority of the Constitution’s framers explicitly supported his position, Lincoln concluded, with more than a little sarcasm:

“Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder.”

By that point, Lincoln had taken the same premise that Douglas praised— to revere “our fathers— and turned it to his own purposes.   

Turning Tradition against the Traditionalists

Lincoln craftily avoided picturing himself as a reformer, a radical, or even a liberal. No, he spoke as the true traditionalist. Marshaling fact after fact from the historical record, argument after argument from tradition, Lincoln had cited, not only the Constitution’s text, but the actions of the men who wrote it: the “fathers” who Douglas had cited as the ultimate constitutional authorities.

Lincoln’s proposals were, by the standards of the time, moderate. He did not, in this particular speech, protest against slavery. He did not ask the slave states to free their slaves. Lincoln’s consistent argument during his run for the presidency, and, indeed, during the early years of his administration, was that slavery should not spread, while the existing institution should be left alone. He had earlier prophesied in his “House Divided” speech that the United States would eventually become either slave or free, but he had always held short of abolitionism. Unlike Frederick Douglass or William Lloyd Garrison, who opposed slavery in all forms, and who were, at the time, considered to be dangerous radicals, Lincoln stood in the middle.

One Searing Phrase: Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right 

Instead of sounding radical, Lincoln argued like an attorney proving his case in court, or a debater who crushed his opponents’ case with a deluge of facts. On the one hand, the Cooper Union speech may have contributed to Lincoln’s nomination by the Republican Party and his subsequent election to the presidency. Newspapers published the speech’s text, while the Republican Party distributed it in pamphlets and flyers. On the other hand, Lincoln's carefully reasoned arguments could never soothe white Southerners’ fears. Despite his many assurances that he would leave southern slavery alone, South Carolina shelled Fort Sumter barely six weeks after Lincoln took office in 1861.

Red Cloud's Cooper Union Speech

Indeed, although Lincoln utterly and masterfully turned the tables against the South’s philosophical and historical argument, his speech proved nothing so much as the sad fact that logic can fail to persuade people. Yes, Lincoln made a powerful argument that tradition upheld his legal position and proved that the facts contradicted Douglas’ argument from tradition. Unfortunately, by 1860, the United States had fractured beyond repair. Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech had pummeled the slavers’ philosophical and legal niceties into logical rubble. The nation lurched into the Civil War anyway.

“What is the frame of government under which we live?” Given the turmoil of the Trump years, I am not certain that we have answered that question, even today. 

by William D. Harpine 

____________


Research Note: Communication scholars Michael C. Leff and Gerald P. Mohrmann published a detailed analysis of Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech. Large libraries can probably find a copy for you. Their article, which is considered a masterpiece in the neo-Aristotelian theory of rhetoric, suggests that the speech was a major factor in Lincoln’s successful election.

Even more remarkably, in his book The Ethics of Rhetoric, conservative scholar Richard Weaver develops the surprising view that Abraham Lincoln was a true conservative. Weaver reasoned that, although Lincoln spoke for progressive ideas, he rested his arguments on fundamental definitions and moral attitudes. Anyone who wants to understand Lincoln in particular, or, more broadly, rhetoric’s ethical foundations, should study Weaver’s book. For that matter, anyone who wants to be a conservative should ignore Ayn Rand and the soulless politicians, and instead carefully ponder Weaver’s uplifting insights.

Historical Note: The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art is a small but renowned university in lower Manhattan. Business magnate Peter Cooper provided a massive endowment that enables students to attend at either free or greatly discounted tuition. Lincoln was the most renowned of the many prominent speakers who have appeared in the famous Great Hall in the basement of Cooper Union’s Foundation Building. 

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Abraham Lincoln, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Cooper Union Foundation Building, Eden, Janine and Jim, Creative Commons License