John F. Kennedy Spoke for World Peace at American University

John F. Kennedy

“I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.”

On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy stood on a stage at American University in Washington DC and spoke these words. He also said that to speak of peace is: “to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived—yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.”

In this particular speech, President Kennedy praised, not a person, but the moral value of a higher peace.

All good ceremonial speeches convey values: what is good, and what is bad? What should we praise, and what should we condemn? So it was with Kennedy’s speech that day. Although most commencement speeches offer personal reflections or give the graduates life advice, Kennedy guided his audience toward Universal values. He spoke for peace, progress, and hope. In today’s more cynical milieu, we need to remember his message all the more. For Kennedy spoke of moral excellence, not national arrogance. He spoke of setting a good example for other nations, not of dominating other nations. He reminded the graduates, and the nation, and the world, that true world peace requires justice, morality, and hope. Instead of dreaming of the wonderful past, Kennedy looked forward to an inspiring future. Kennedy guided his audience – the graduates, the nation, and the world – toward a future of higher values.

John Kennedy Spoke for World-Wide Freedom and Independence in his 1962 Fourth of July Speech

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

Commemorative Plaque at The American University

First, Kennedy redefined the word “peace.” To Kennedy, peace was not merely the absence of war. Peace did not mean that the United States would wield military power to enforce an uneasy peace on a reluctant world:

“What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.”

No, in contrast to that limited definition of peace, Kennedy offered a higher value. To Kennedy, peace meant an opportunity to thrive, for everyone to have better lives: 

“I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women—not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”

Phrases like “America First,” proudly shouted by antisemites in the 1940s, and repeated by today’s Republican Party, imply domination. The America First Committee of 1940-1941 called Jews warmongers and echoed Nazi ideology. “America First” implies isolation and a bit of arrogance. In contrast, President Kennedy, a decorated combat veteran of World War II, saw a better way. As he concluded his speech, he rejected war and its horrors:

“The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough—more than enough of—war and hate and oppression.”

“As the world knows,” Kennedy insisted. I shudder to ask: does the world still know that today?

Kennedy did not mistake peace for weakness, for the nation must always be prepared for war:

“We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it.”

Instead, Kennedy sought world peace that arose, not from selfishness or arrogance, but from justice and security:

“But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on—not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.”

And, with that assurance, Kennedy concluded. He did not give the graduates insights into how to get a job or to live a satisfying personal life. Instead, he advised the graduates about their moral place in the universe. This speech led directly to treaties limiting nuclear arms. Alas, Kennedy spoke for a time, that has, I fear, vanished in the mists, when peace arose not from power, but from justice.

Yet, Kennedy taught a lesson that the world needs to remember even as I write. It is a lesson that every American needs to remember on every election day. It regards a value that requires us to let hope replace fear.

No, John Kennedy was no more perfect than anyone else. He did, however, understand that the United States of America must use its power, influence, and values for the greater peace. That forgotten wisdom still lingers. Let us pursue that value today. 

by William D. Harpine

Joe Biden's 2022 University of Delaware Commencement Speech Reminds Americans that Our Nation Was Founded on an Idea

Ronald Reagan Spoke about Freedom, Friendship, and Hope at Moscow State University

____________

Theoretical Note: In rhetorical theory, a ceremonial speech (or epideictic speech) either praises or blames, and usually expresses values for the audience to emulate. Some of the greatest speeches, with Lincoln's Gettysburg Address serving as the pinnacle, have fallen under this genre.

Personal note: My father, Casper Allen Harpine, Jr., received his law degree from the Washington College of Law at American University in 1956. American University is one of several outstanding universities found in the United States of America’s capital city.

Copyright ©2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of John F. Kennedy, official White House photo, public domain

Image of commemorative plaque, The American University, used by permission

Ben Tillman's Speech Supporting Autocratic Rule

Senator Ben Tillman

Autocrats must be brazen and overconfident. Even the wickedest autocrat must inspire dedicated supporters, and that requires them to convert voters into true believers. Tyrants must state a value system, no matter how corrupt that value system might be, explain policies to achieve their vile goals, and muster funding and acceptance. Autocrats of today – autocrats of the past – are all the same. At some point, they must show their motives. Thus, speaking to the United States Senate on March 23, 1900, South Carolina’s Benjamin Tillman said that the victims, not the perpetrators, created South Carolina’s voting rights riots. He never pretended to support the rights of nonwhite voters:

“It was the riots before the election, precipitated by their own hotheadedness in attempting to hold the government, that brought on conflicts between the races and caused the shotgun to be used.”

“Shotgun?” “Hotheadedness?” Wanting to exercise voting rights was hotheaded? What shameless word choices!

Shameless or not, the fight for white supremacy in the post-Civil War United States impelled white conservatives in the South to evade the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution, suppress the African American vote, and establish a police state to maintain their rule. Such a massive project might or might not start with some kind of conspiracy, but its execution required public persuasion. Yes, Tillman’s views were autocratic, but he felt a need to justify his values. So, as his speech continued, Tillman denied that African Americans received the ballot after the Civil War “to protect themselves against the indignities and wrongs,” but only because radical members of Congress wanted to oppress white people. Indeed, Tillman literally insisted that African Americans, who would suffer the indignities of chattel slavery and the Ku Klux Klan, were the autocrats, while their shotgun-wielding white overlords were victims:

“I say that [the Negroes were given the ballot] because the Republicans of that day, led by Thad Stevens, wanted to put white necks under black heels and to get revenge.” [brackets added by historical editor]

So, to Tillman, putting “white necks under black heels” counted as oppression, while having black necks under white heels, seemed okay, I guess, and the idea that everybody should have equal rights evidently escaped Tillman entirely. White supremacy was his value system. Us versus them. White versus black. With that clarified, Tillman laid out the mathematical fact that letting African Americans vote would surely put them in power:

“In my State, there were 135,000 Negro voters, or Negroes of voting age, and some 90,000 or 95,000 white voters. General Canby set up a carpetbag government there and turned our State over to this majority. Now, I want to ask you, with a free vote and a fair count, how are you going to beat 135,000 to 95,000? How are you going to do it? You had set us an impossible task.”

Tillman’s twisted value system assumed, as if no argument could arise against it, that white rule was the only possible rule. Tillman rejected “a free vote and a fair count” because it contradicted his morally bent value system. Indeed, Tillman protested that the Radical Republicans, as they were called, had offered white people no choice:

“You had handcuffed us [and] thrown away the key, and you propped your carpet bag Negro government with bayonets. Whenever it was necessary to sustain the government, you held it up by the Army.”

Fannie Lou Hamer, "Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired," Gave a Voting Rights Speech in Narrative Style

Susan B. Anthony's Speech about the Right to Vote

 Although the 15th Amendment made it illegal to deny the right to vote on account of race, creed, or color, the former Confederate states and some Northern states accomplished the same purpose with subterfuges: unfair literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and off-the-books intimidation. There were always excuses, since it seemed reasonable to expect voters to be informed. These discriminatory practices continued well into the 1960s, and, as a Southerner myself, I can testify that they have, even to this day, not totally died. In fact, just now, there is talk of sending the National Guard to key voting sites, presumably to intimidate Latina/Latino voters.

The post-Civil War constitutional amendments – the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves, the 14th Amendment that provided for equal rights, and the 15th Amendment that guaranteed the right to vote, never sat well with conservatives. Anyone who follows the news, even today, can see that the 14th and 15th Amendments continued to anger American conservatives. The so-called SAVE Act currently under debate, which is based on the false premise that illegal immigrants are voting in large numbers, follows that path. Conservatives today, disturbed that women and racial minorities don’t always vote for them, invent seemingly reasonable requirements (voter ID, but with the ID requirements made absurdly bureaucratic, restricting mail voting, and so forth) when their obvious purpose is to tilt election outcomes. Although less intense than Tillman's shotgun, such moves surely remind us of the old Jim Crow literacy tests, which sounded so reasonable, but whose purpose was to oppress.

Thus, Benjamin Tillman delivered a clear, specific speech. With no hint of conscience, he insisted that voter suppression was the only way to obtain white supremacy in the South. That is, obviously, almost as true today as it was then.

Ben Tillman Cartoon, Chicago Tribune

Do Tillman’s arguments stun the reader? Why? They should surprise no one. Tillman’s position prevailed throughout large parts of the United States for decades. In his effort to obtain support and justify his arguments, Tillman revealed Southern conservatives’ true motives. It is not as if those motives were ever well hidden, but at some point, the autocrat needs clarity. The autocrat’s followers need to know what their policies are, why they are felt to be necessary, and how they should be executed. Thus, Tillman chose to be explicit.

I am not saying that politicians never conspire in secret. After all, who knows? Nevertheless, a secret conspiracy can never garner public support. Thus, evil voices face a dilemma. Yes, they need to gather support, and that requires them to state their ideas. Yet, however, once they have posted their ideas, good people can (usually slowly, excruciatingly slowly) spot the danger and work against it.

Tillman protested that racial equality could only be upheld by “the bayonet.” In the year 2026, have the past’s civil rights accomplishments made us complacent? Do we not need to remember the struggle for freedom, year after year, century after century, against the forces of oppression that still wield power and threaten at any moment to replay the old tragedies?

The so-called Radical Republicans of post-Civil War America voted for the absolute abolition of slavery, equal protection of the law, birthright citizenship, voting rights, and employment opportunities. These basic rights, which we too often take for granted, were adopted only because former Confederate soldiers were denied the right to vote until they petitioned to be reinstated. An odd voting paradox, is it not? Odder yet, to my way of thinking, is the way the Republican Party of 2026 now stands foursquarely against the rights that their forbears provided us. Yes, the Radical Republicans were indeed considered radical. Their ideas still sound radical today, to the extent that President Donald Trump constantly rails against “radical left lunatics) whose ideas still resemble those of the old Radical Republicans. Let us not fool ourselves, for freedom and liberty have long been radical concepts.

Yes, Benjamin Tillman laid out a rhetorical path that still infests the political scene. He stated his motive, which was to preserve white rule. He stated his method, which was to suppress African American voters. He placed blame on the oppressed and their defenders, while picturing himself as the morally outraged victim. He flat-out admitted that democracy could not preserve white rule in the South. Tillman’s ruthless and bold rhetoric not only expressed his strategy, but gave it a philosophical justification. Tillman’s critics could call him crazy or evil. Did he care? Why should he? Autocrats seek power, not justice; obedience, not admiration. 

By William D. Harpine

Copyright 2026 by William D. Harpine

Portrait of Ben Tillman, G. V. Buck, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Ben Tillman Cartoon, 1906 Chicago Tribune, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Trump's April 1 Iran War Speech: Did He Rise to the Occasion?

"We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong." 

On April 1, 2026 (April Fools’ Day, as informally celebrated in the USA!), President Donald J Trump delivered that terrible threat during a White House speech about the month-old war against Iran. Sadly, he neglected to rise to the situation, in that he failed either to state clear war goals or overcome contradictions caused by his previous speeches, which claimed that he had previously "obliterated” Iran’s nuclear weapons. 

Donald Trump, White House photo

Thus, Trump failed to meet the situation’s demands. In 1968, communication professor Lloyd Bitzer, in a landmark article on “The Rhetorical Situation,” showed that certain situations cry out for a speech. For example, the Gettysburg cemetery dedication called for a speech, and Abraham Lincoln responded brilliantly. Lincoln stated a powerful goal: “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

What Did the Gettysburg Address Really Say?

Likewise, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor called for a speech, and President Franklin Roosevelt likewise responded with greatness: “a day which will live in infamy.” 

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

Bitzer explained that any rhetorical situation has three parts: an exigence, which is “an imperfection marked by urgency.” The second part is the audience, and the third consists of the “constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience.” As an example of a constraint, Roosevelt promised, “No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion,” for all wars require great resolve.

Like Pearl Harbor, the Iran war called out for a speech: the public (the audience) needed to hear the President state the war’s goals, reassure the world, and inspire the nation for the oncoming struggle. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, Trump said little to reassure or inspire his audience. His speech failed because he did not overcome the constraints that he himself had created. 

The First Constraint

The first constraint that Trump had imposed on himself involved his main rationale for the war: the need to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons:

“For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat.”

As it happens, however, Trump had previously stated – vociferously emphasized! – that the United States’ June 2025 bombing raids had already “obliterated” (his word) Iran’s nuclear program. Since this presumed war goal had, he had said, already been achieved, why did he start the current war? 

Donald Trump, the Iran War, and the Art of Doublespeak

Indeed, since Trump had previously boasted that Iran’s nuclear weapons had already been obliterated, he needed to tack on more justifications. Thus, he complained about Iran’s “vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles,” noted that Iran had killed many of its internal political opponents, complained about the long-ago bombing of the USS Cole, and grumbled dubiously that “Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal” was a “disaster.”

In other words (granting, as I do, that Iran’s government is evil), Trump followed the rhetorical strategy of throwing handfuls of half-cooked spaghetti against the wall, hoping to see a few strands stick. Trump's justification for the war nevertheless remained slim, for he had already trapped himself in a contradictory position. You cannot, after all, destroy something that you had already “obliterated.”

The Second Constraint

This led to the second constraint that Trump failed to overcome, which was the need to state a war goal. Again, he was constrained by his previous claims that he had already crushed Iran's ambitions. To state goals was part of Trump's rhetorical situation, that is to say, part of the exigence. The American public – Trump’s audience – needed to know why we were fighting and what we hoped to accomplish. Now, a goal is an outcome by definition. However, instead of stating an outcome, Trump only stated a method - the method of violent destruction:

"They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force.... If we see them make a move, even a move for it, we’ll hit them with missiles very hard again. We have all the cards. They have none."

So, yes, Trump announced that the United States was bombing Iran. He did not, however, clarify the political outcome that he expected the bombing to produce.

Yes, Trump complained about the cruelty of Iran’s government. Oh? Did that mean that regime change  was his goal, then? Fascinatingly, Trump slithered about regime change:

“Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They’re all dead.” [Italics added]

Startlingly, Trump even said that his unstated war goals had already been achieved:

“We’ve beaten and completely decimated Iran. They are decimated both militarily and economically and in every other way.”

Yet, paradoxically, Trump forcefully insisted that he would continue the war until his objectives, whatever they were, had been met:

“I made clear from the beginning of Operation Epic Fury that we will continue until our objectives are fully achieved. Thanks to the progress we’ve made. I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly. Very shortly.”

Regrettably, Iran’s government never got the message that their military forces had been devastated, for, subsequently to Trump’s speech, they shot down two American aircraft, presumably using their nonexistent antiaircraft weapons. As I write, Iran continues to obstruct the crucial Strait of Hormuz. Just today, a few days after the speech, Iranian missiles destroyed some of our allies’ data centers. The sad fact remains that, in any war, the enemy always gets a vote.


Why Trump’s Speech Failed

Whenever they are called to war, the people of the United States want to know why they are fighting and what goals the government expects to accomplish. We live in a constitutional, representative republic, not a dictatorship, which means that only massive public commitment can lead to any war’s success. Trump’s speech failed to rise to the rhetorical situation, for he said too little, too late. He failed to articulate clear goals. Instead of rousing the nation to fight, as Lincoln did at Gettysburg and Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor, Trump played make-believe by pretending that victory was already at hand.

War is always a great horror, and suffering is never to be embraced. All the same, bombs themselves do not win wars. War requires commitment. Americans will fight, and fight hard, if they perceive a worthy cause. Now, as Bitzer explained, every public speaker must confront and overcome constraints. Nevertheless, Trump’s weak, ambivalent speech failed to meet the rhetorical situation, leaving the nation in moral limbo. He failed to clarify the war’s goals, and, instead of overcoming the constraints against his speech’s success, he let the constraints trap him in contradictions. Wartime presidents always need to rise to the situation. Create passion, or invite defeat. 

by William D. Harpine

___________ 

Note about Presentation: One cannot overlook the week, hesitant, and monotonic delivery that Trump brought to this April 1 speech. That vacillating approach was not calculated to inspire anyone. His presentation seemed to lack his usual energetic, forceful, and sardonic persona. 

Copyright ©2026 by William D. Harpine

Susan B. Anthony's Famous Speech about the Right to Vote

Susan B. Anthony

In 1870, Susan B. Anthony said that women were people, too, just like men, and she accordingly voted in an election. The legal system called this a crime and had her arrested. 

Anthony then gave a speech to argue that the United States Constitution combined with simple logic to require that women had equal voting rights. Cleverly citing conservatives’ favorite arguments against them, she laid out a convincing, value-laden case for women’s right to vote. She used the nation’s deepest traditions to support her point. She insisted that the United States should live up to its noble values. Using the same legalistic strategy that Abraham Lincoln had mastered, she defined her argument in traditional terms.

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

To start that process, Anthony quoted the entire preamble to the United States Constitution:

“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Then, Anthony reminded her audience that the Constitution did not give rights only to males, but to people:

“It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.” [italics added]

Continuing her constitutional argument, Anthony claimed that preventing women from voting (since women are defined as people!) violated the Constitution on multiple grounds:

“For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity.”

Here, Anthony assumed that her audience was aware that the United States Constitution specifically outlawed the bill of attainder and ex post facto laws.

Pursuing definitions further, Anthony noted that conservatives like to call our system of government a republic, not a democracy. Turning the tables against that position, Anthony argued that those who restricted women’s right to vote wanted neither a democracy nor a republic. Indeed, she denied that those people supported any part of our system of government:

“To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex.”

Then, reducing her opponents’ argument to absurdity, Anthony insisted that to deny the right of vote required her opponents to deny that women are persons. Surely, she noted, not even they would sink that low:

“The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities.”

In this short, brilliant speech, Susan B. Anthony insisted that the United States should live up to the noble values that its founding documents stated but often ignored. Using the same legalistic strategy that Abraham Lincoln had mastered, Anthony defined her argument in traditional terms. Perhaps the most powerful persuasive technique of all is to accept your opponents’ own arguments, and then show that they actually support your side, not theirs.

Fannie Lou Hamer's Voting Rights Speech, "Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired"

As the United States of America celebrates Women’s History Month in March 2026, let us pause to remember, not only women’s many accomplishments, but also the endless struggle for the equality of all women and all persons. As politicians today try to adopt the so-called SAVE Act, which tries to improve voting security but imposes greater paperwork requirements on married women’s voting rights than on men’s, let us remember that the only thing separating us from freedom is a moment of tyranny.

by William D. Harpine

______________

Research Note:

First, the appeal tradition is not necessarily a fallacy; it depends on the tradition. Some traditions are good and some are bad. Although some things that used to be good have grown obsolete, other old things remain the best. Anthony’s argument was that the people who oppose women’s voting pretended to be traditional when they had, in fact, rejected United States of America’s traditional values. It is a powerful argument.

Second, the debate strategy of reductio ad absurdum uses the simple tactic of taking a seemingly reasonable argument to its logical conclusion. This classic technique can prove that things that only seem to be reasonable are in fact faulty. Anthony applied that strategy to perfection.

For more about fallacies, there is still no better source than the work of philosopher Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, which I often used as a textbook in my debate classes.

To understand the power of arguments from definition, one must study the great conservative rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver, especially his groundbreaking work, The Ethics of Rhetoric.

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Susan B. Anthony, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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