Trump's "Jekyll and Hyde" Convention Speech Promised Fierce Leadership

Donald Trump

“Win, win, win, win, win, win.” So said Donald Trump in his speech last night, July 18, 2024, accepting the Republican presidential nomination. Rambling for about an hour and a half, Trump spoke little about policies, although he did manage to spread a pile of falsehoods. PBS's fact checkers discovered a long series of false or misleading claims. Now, we are all accustomed to Trump and his falsehoods. Furthermore, noting that Trump wandered from sounding conciliatory to spewing out angry accusations, a columnist in the conservative National Review called it a “Jekyll and Hyde speech.” 

However, among all this smoke, let us not miss Trump’s point. Trump promoted, not facts, not policies, but an attitude: he promised to be “fierce.” In the nation’s history, Trump explained, “No enemy was too fierce.” The nation needed, he said, in true conservative fashion, to return to that past attitude. And it is attitudes – not facts, not policies, but attitudes –  that determine election victory. 

Earlier Post: Do 2020 Republican National Convention Speakers Care About Fact Checkers?

Yes, although Trump mentioned policies, this was not a policy speech. Instead, this speech asked, what do we value? And Trump valued strength. Trump promised to be strong – powerful – unyielding. He warned the audience of “crisis… crisis… crisis.” Fear. He warned of dangers of every kind. Powerful, evil, and malicious people threaten us. Facing those dangers, Trump promised to be “fierce.” Trump did not sell himself as a bastion of domestic or foreign policy wisdom. He barely mentioned such virtues. No, in his dark vision, dangers attack us from without and within, and the only solution – the only protection – is to be fierce.

Social scientist George Lakoff explains that conservatives and liberals operate with different metaphors. Conservatives (like Trump’s base voters?) seek a “strong father.” Conservatives seek strength. Liberals, in contrast, prefer what Lakoff calls a “nurturing mother.” Liberals pursue wisdom and compassion. Do the twain ever meet? Trump sought to be elected by promising the American people that he would be strong, that the United States’ enemies will quail in fear as he approaches, that his relentless power will make America safe – that he will “make America great again.”


The United States Is Falling Apart?

Throughout world history, conservative thought often comes from the feeling that things were better in the past. Change causes anxiety and failure. The ancient Greeks fondly remembered the mythical time of Achilles and Odysseus. American conservatives look back to Revolutionary war heroes like George Washington. We fall when we abandon ancient wisdom. Thus, as he began his remarkable discussion of fierceness, Trump lamented the decline – the inescapable decay – that liberal leaders create:

“Under the current administration, we are indeed a nation in decline.”

Crises, Crises, Crises!

Next, Trump narrated the terrible dangers that attack the United States. Unlike the past, which was (so Trump claimed) inflation-free, rising prices now wrack the economy:

“We have an inflation crisis that is making life unaffordable, ravaging the incomes of working and low-income families, and crushing, just simply crushing our people like never before. They’ve never seen anything like it.”

Trump badly overstated his case. According to Investopedia, inflation under Richard Nixon was 5.70%, rising to 8.0% under President Gerald Ford and 9.90% during the Jimmy Carter administration. The inflation rate under Biden has been about 5.70%, which is a bit high, but you can’t honestly say that we have “never seen anything like it.” As I mentioned, however, Trump was not talking about facts to start with. His point was crisis – fear! We are in danger! Who will save us?

Likewise, immigration, which is Trump’s prime “America First” selling point, also morphed into a terrifying crisis:

“We also have an illegal immigration crisis, and it’s taking place right now, as we sit here in this beautiful arena. It’s a massive invasion at our southern border that has spread misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction to communities all across our land. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it.”

Now, unauthorized immigration has indeed risen during the Biden administration, although, as the Christian Science Monitor demonstrates, probably not as dramatically as Republicans like to say. But look at Trump’s language of fear. “Crisis!” “Massive invasion!” “Misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction!” And, of course, Trump insisted, “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it.”

Who will protect us from immigration danger? From the crisis?

Of course, Trump also talked about “an international crisis:”

“Then there is an international crisis, the likes of which the world has seldom been part of. Nobody can believe what’s happening. War is now raging in Europe and the Middle East, a growing specter of conflict hangs over Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, and all of Asia, and our planet is teetering on the edge of World War III, and this will be a war like no other war because of weaponry. The weapons are no longer army tanks going back and forth, shooting at each other. These weapons are obliteration.”

Indeed, even as I write this, war does ravage parts of the world. Yes, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has been threatening nuclear war. The dangers are real. Look, however, at Trump’s apocalyptic language: “War is now raging.” “A growing specter of conflict.” “Our planet is teetering.” And, in the nuclear age, Trump is right to warn us that “These weapons are obliteration.” Danger and fear.

That is why voters must ask themselves, what defends us against danger? Wisdom, or force? That is a value question, and Trump insists that only force can do the job. (For my part, I would like to say wisdom and power both, but how often do those two join hands?)


Trump Says We Need to Be Fierce!

How can the United States repel such dangers? Biden, of course, like most liberals, projects himself as wise, knowledgeable, and involved. In this speech, Trump rarely mentioned such virtues. Instead, we need to be “fierce:”

“It’s time for a change. This administration can’t come close to solving the problems. We’re dealing with very tough, very fierce people. They’re fierce people. And we don’t have fierce people. We have people that are a lot less than fierce, except when it comes to cheating on elections and a couple of other things, then they’re fierce. Then they’re fierce.” [italics added]

Repetition has powerful persuasive effects: “very tough, very fierce people.” “They’re fierce people.” Trump decried Biden’s alleged weakness: “we don’t have fierce people.” (Also, Trump could not, of course, avoid mentioning his stolen election conspiracy theory.)

Earlier Post: Joe Biden Organized His Holocaust Remembrance Day Speech to Place Values in Context


Who Will Keep Us Safe?

In this speech, Trump projected himself to be the ultra-strong father. Not just a strong father, but a fierce leader. He would exert power. He would be, to the Republican National Convention’s cheering delight, the president with the clenched fist.

Yet, historically, fierce leaders rarely keep their publics safe. By the time Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo and went into exile, his wars had inflicted French casualties that may have reached into the millions. Hitler and Mussolini certainly did not keep their nations safe. What about Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution? Did Pol Pot keep Cambodia safe? If history teaches us anything, it is that strong leaders can create terrible dangers. If weakness does not keep us safe, neither does fierceness. I, for one, would feel more comfortable with Trump’s apparent lead going into the November election if he had talked about being “strong and wise” instead of simply being “fierce.” 

Still, fear overwhelms people’s rational thinking. Faced with crises, they seek strength. They yearn for walls, strong leaders, and powerful protectors. That is what Trump offered. As he concluded his long, long speech, Trump once again promised strength:

“America’s future will be bigger, better, bolder, brighter, happier, stronger, freer, greater and more united than ever before.

“And quite simply put, we will very quickly make America great again.” [italics added] 

Lakoff may be right: our competing metaphors (strong father or nurturing mother) seem to define our political divide. The November 2024 presidential election does not only give the United States a choice between two candidates. The voters will assert their values. Is strength alone enough? Do leaders need to combine strength with wisdom or compassion? Does it matter that Trump uttered false or misleading statements, one after the other? Does fierceness overcome all else? Or, as Trump hopes, do many voters value ferocious strength above all other attitudes? If so, Trump offered his case.

by William D. Harpine

______________ 

Earlier Post: Donald Trump's 2020 RNC Acceptance Speech: American Carnage, Revisited?

Earlier Post: Kristin Urquiza's Speech at the 2020 Democratic National Convention: Short and She Told a Story

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo

Did West Virginia Governor Jim Justice Just Advocate Violent Revolution?

Jim Justice speaking at an earlier event

Did West Virginia Governor Jim Justice call for the violent overthrow of the American government when he talked about becoming “totally unhinged?” Or did he not?

Speaking at the 2024 Republican National Convention on July 16, 2024, Justice called for Republicans to engage in violent insurrection.

Radical speakers often speak in what scholars call “multivocal communication” but which the press often calls “dog whistles.” Multivocal means “in two voices,” and a dog whistle can only be heard by some ears but not others. Diplomats call a similar technique “plausible deniability.” That is, Justice said something ambiguous that was profoundly evil, but deniable.

Now, most (not some, but most) Republicans falsely say that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump by unproven fraud. Still, one suspects that many of them also know, deep in their hearts, that the January 6, 2021 Capitol Building riot was evil and unpatriotic. How does one reconcile that moral discrepancy? Simple! Plausible deniability. Talk out of both sides of your mouth. Say something that your listeners instantly understand, but which remains ambiguous.

What Did Justice Say? 

Dressed in a stylish but ill-fitted pinstripe suit, Justice stood behind the podium, offered various folksy comments, and sent for his well-fed bulldog “Babydog.” Babydog sat quietly in a luxurious chair as Justice rambled along in his 6 ½ minute talk. About two minutes into the speech, Justice announced that he stood for truth:

“The foundation of my life is the truth. I’ve got to tell you just this and tell you this right now. I challenge the media all the time to find something that knowingly I’ve told them that’s not the truth. And they can’t do it because I’m not gonna to do that.”

But what “truth” did he speak in that moment? The absolute next thing he said was:

“Now I want you to listen to this and pay really close attention. The bottom line to why we’re here. The bottom line to every single thing that’s going on in this great country today is one thing. We become totally unhinged if Donald Trump is not elected in November.” [Attendees cheered] [Italics added]

Now, let us recall the January 6, 2021 riot at the United States Capitol, when hordes of Donald Trump’s supporters responded to Trump’s brazenly unhinged speech to march on the Capitol to overthrow the 2020 election. The crowd screamed for the deaths of various government officials and shouted “Stop the Steal” as they protested Joe Biden’s election victory. Various rioters ended up in prison.

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

Justice’s statement rested on two carefully chosen (he told us to “pay really close attention”) words: “we” and “unhinged.” Those are the words that created ambiguity. How so?


Multivocal Interpretation #1

First, given the historical context of how Republicans behaved when they lost the 2020 election, my interpretation – my reading – is this. Justice was threatening that “we” (meaning Republicans) would become “unhinged” (meaning deranged) if Trump loses the upcoming presidential election. That sounded like a threat to repeat January 6. Judging by the crowd’s enthusiastic cheers, I think that the attendees understood what Justice said exactly in that way.


Multivocal Interpretation #2

At the same time, can we prove Interpretation #1? No! This is multivocal communication. It is plausibly deniable! For, after all, “we” might mean “the entire United States,” not just Republicans. Maybe Justice was saying that the entire nation would become unhinged because of four more years of supposedly inept Democratic Party leadership. Is that what Justice really meant? Or is that what he could pretend he meant?


So, Which Is It?

Multivocal Interpretation #1 expresses a threat. I think that Justice intended to make a threat. He threatened “unhinged” violence if Trump lost. There is little doubt in my mind. I don’t think there was any doubt in the attendees’ minds. I base that interpretation on the fact that Justice preceded his statement by saying “listen to this and pay really close attention,” that he uttered the statement carefully and deliberately, and that the audience responded enthusiastically.

However, Multivocal Interpretation #2 also fits the bare facts. If, for example, somebody arrested Justice and charged him with treason or insurrection, his lawyers could say that he intended Interpretation #2, and nobody could prove otherwise.

Still, Interpretation #2 seems unlikely. If he had truly intended Interpretation #2, it is far more likely that Justice would have said something like, “if we have four more years of Democrats, the nation will fall apart.” Or, he might have said, “if we have four more years of Democrats, the nation will become unhinged.” That would be both more precise and more forceful. I don’t think he intended anything of the kind. The rest of his speech was precise and forceful, and it would be odd indeed if his most important point (the “bottom line” that he asked us to “listen to … and pay really close attention”) was ambiguous. What he intended was to make a veiled threat while leaving room to squiggle away from criticism.

Justice’s overall theme was love: that Babydog loved everyone, and so did Trump. Odd indeed, meaningful indeed, to throw in a seemingly random comment about becoming “totally unhinged.”

Politicians often talk out of both sides of their mouths. This speech, however, was a doozy.

When politicians tell you what they believe, we should sometimes take them seriously.

by William D. Harpine

Earlier Post: Were Trump's Tweets Racist? They Were (Sort of) Deniable Dog Whistles

Earlier Post: Mitch McConnell and the Art of Dog Whistles

______________

P.S. It’s just my view, but I think that Babydog was the best-behaved individual in the entire convention hall. By the way, does Jim Justice always speak the truth, as he claimed in this speech? His record on PolitiFact (which includes one “Pants on Fire” rating) isn’t as bad as Trump’s, but it is far from perfect.

Republican delegate Melinda Morris said at the same convention that, “If this election gets stolen, Trump won’t have to call for a meeting,” she added. “The Americans will be showing up on the doorsteps of Washington, D.C. themselves. This is where we draw a line in the sand. They will not do this to us again, and if they do, we’re going to have to do something about it.” That stated the same point as Justice, but without the multivocal character.

Research Note: University of Texas Professor Bethany Albertson explains her theory of multivocal communication in a highly recommended essay.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: From Governor Jim Justice, marked as public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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

Neville Chamberlain

After the September 1938 Munich conference, at which he caved into all of Adolf Hitler’s territorial demands, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain promised “peace for our time.”

Wow, was he ever wrong! Wanting something does not make it so. Today, too many of the United States’ conservative leaders have forgotten that cruel lesson.

Yes, Chamberlain wanted “peace for our time.” Don’t we all? Unfortunately, it’s the details that matter!

We study historical speeches so that we can learn from history. In the brief speech that Chamberlain gave when he returned from Munich, Chamberlain explained neither how nor why appeasement would bring peace. What he did not say was more important than what he did say. Chamberlain did not say, “trust Hitler, but verify.” He just implied, “trust Hitler.”

Yes, history is a cruel teacher, and naïveté brings its own punishment. Yes, we can learn much by studying great speeches. Sometimes, however, we can learn even more by studying horrendous speeches, like Chamberlain’s brief, soothing talk. Chamberlain taught the world a cruel lesson that we have, unfortunately, now forgotten: bullies think that appeasement represents weakness. An appeased bully is a dangerous bully.

The idea behind the Munich conference was that the Western powers could (without asking Czechoslovakia), cede part of Czechoslovakia to Germany. The territory in question, the Sudetenland, was a group of large German-speaking provinces. Chamberlain believed that that this huge concession would satisfy Adolf Hitler’s territorial demands. Hitler would, Chamberlain believed, calm down and be satisfied, and the world would hum along. 

Nothing new under the sun! Stunningly, United States Senator J. D. Vance recently said of Russia’s attack on Ukraine: “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.”

The Munich Agreement

Arriving at the Prime Minister’s official residence at 10 Downing Street in London, on September 30, 1938, Chamberlain read aloud a brief statement that he and Hitler had jointly drafted:

“We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.

“We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.” [Italics added]

Czechoslovakia, which lacked Britain and Germany’s military power, did not agree to any of this. Instead, in the time-honored tradition of European foreign policy, the powerful nations treated small nations like pawns on a chessboard. 

Continuing, Chamberlain made his own personal statement:

“My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.

“I believe it is peace for our time...

“Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”

Chamberlain meant the sleep of foolishness, I guess. 

Hitler promptly removed the Sudetenland’s non-German population. Within a matter of months, Hitler arrogantly annexed all of Czechoslovakia. Much later, Chamberlain gave a longer speech in which he explained that he had believed Hitler’s obviously insincere promises. Too late! 

World War II Ruins of Hamburg, Germany

In any case, 11 months after the Munich conference, on September 1, 1939, Hitler’s massive war machine struck out at Poland – another innocent nation that had the misfortune to have a German-speaking minority – and World War II gradually flamed across Europe. Breaking his word, Hitler had already invaded all of Czechoslovakia, promptly revoking basic human rights for that nation’s non-German population. By 1945, more than 50 million people had died. The larger part of the dead were civilian massacre victims. Millions of Jews died in Heinrich Himmler’s concentration camps. Much of Europe was laid to waste, and Germany’s great cities had been reduced to piles of dusty, smoking rubble.

That is not what I would call “peace in our time.”


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

Earlier Post: Biden's 2024 State of the Union Warned of Impending Calamity

We Can Learn Lessons

Where can we begin?

First, Chamberlain was stunningly naïve. Instead of giving truth to the British people (or even to himself), he offered them false hope. We sit on a stormy beach as a hurricane approaches, serenely confident that the violent waves will never wash us out to sea.​ Then, terror strikes when we realize that we should have heeded the warning.

Second, Chamberlain and Hitler taught us that brutal dictators are not to be trusted.


What about Today?

Germany today has regained its industrial and cultural might and its current government is a hallmark of representative government. After the war, the Allied nations created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance devoted to forestalling Russian aggression. Many terrible conflicts have afflicted the world since 1945, but the NATO alliance continues to guard a shaky peace among the major powers.

Still, many Americans, who often call themselves “conservatives,” have begun openly to excuse or even support Russia’s vicious aggression in Ukraine. As the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, rattles swords and makes blood-curdling threats, the voices of appeasement arise once more. Senator Tommy Tuberville openly praised Putin and bizarrely claimed that the NATO nations provoked Russia’s attack on Ukraine. In fact, Tuberville sneered at NATO during a Fox News appearance. Conservative opinion leader Tucker Carlson fawned over Putin during a lengthy interview. Presidential candidate Donald Trump claims that he will immediately end the war in Ukraine. How? Does he have a plan other than appeasement? If so, no one has heard it.

I am no foreign policy expert, and I will not speculate as to the best course of action. Almost everyone wants peace, yet violence constantly tears the world apart. Still, we learned one lesson from Neville Chamberlain’s short speech: bullies respect no one.


Sometimes the Doomsayers Are Right

Soon after the Munich agreement, British Conservative Party leader Winston Churchill gave a masterful speech criticizing appeasement. Sadly, history proves that Churchill’s warnings were correct.

Conclusion

When a naïve world leader tells us to get a nice quiet sleep, well, it’s time to start digging bomb shelters.

Wishing peace and happiness – and, most importantly, wisdom – to all…

by William D. Harpine

_________

P.S. Many of the Sudetenland's residents supported Hitler. Did that make appeasement right? What a hard question! Feel free to post comments.

By the way, a neighbor of mine survived the Hamburg firebombing (Operation Gomorrah) by swimming in the river. Lucky at that, because the fires sucked the oxygen out of the air raid shelters and her part of the river didn't boil. Never trust "strong" leaders like Hitler to keep you safe. They don't. "Strong" leaders are always dangerous. Never trust wimpy leaders like Chamberlain who tell you to "get a nice quiet sleep." Wisdom is not a political game. 

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image of Neville Chamberlain, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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

Cicero Knew How to Talk to Traitors. American Moderates Do Not.

Tapestry of Cicero by William Blake

“When, O Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience?” (“Quō ūsque tandem abūtere, Catilīna, patientiā nostrā?”)

Such were the words of Marcus Tullius Cicero in 63 B.C.E., in the first of his four speeches against Catiline. Cicero was a Roman senator and consul, as well as a famous orator and scholar. Cataline, a Roman nobleman, started an armed uprising to seize control of Rome. His revolt failed when Cicero discovered the plot and suppressed it.


There Is a Time and Place for Invective

Cicero showed us how to talk to traitors. His speech was a model of the art of vituperation. Rather than launching childish personal attacks or crude insults, Cicero laid out Cataline’s crimes, showed why those crimes threatened the republic, and explained how Cataline threatened basic constitutional values. He attacked, criticized, and proved. That is the way to suppress evil men and women.

Cicero used the facts of Catiline’s rebellion to prove that he threatened Italy’s security. Cicero condemned Catline in vigorous, uncompromising, but relevant and pointed language. The best invective comes from reason. Reason was, in this case, accelerated by anger, but it was reason all the same. Cicero didn’t say that Cataline was evil: he proved it.

Cicero did not merely rant; on the contrary, he used the fact that Catiline threatened the nation’s security to prove that he was evil. He reviewed Catiline’s wicked deeds. He called for Catiline’s wickedness and calumny to end. Placing himself, step-by-step, on the moral high ground, Cicero reduced Catiline to disgrace.

As the Hebrew prophet writes, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Although your high school history course praised ancient Athens as the first democracy, the Founders of the United States of America’s largely copied the Roman Republic.

The Roman government had Assemblies, which represented the ordinary people, and a Senate, representing the upper classes. Both groups passed laws. Day-to-day administration at first fell to two consuls. Eventually, an Imperator (Latin for commander) became the chief ruler. Following that model, the United States Constitution established a House, a Senate, and the commander-in-chief. Contrary to what you might remember from history class, the Roman Republic never really died, not in the usual sense. Instead, as time went by, the Imperator grew in power, as the Assemblies and Senate shrank into subservience. And, in due course, the Imperator became like a king.

Perhaps all republics eventually break down into tyranny. My readers will recall that Patrick Henry warned us that this exact fate awaited the American Republic.

Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?


Cicero Condemned Catiline’s Rebellion

Cicero’s arguments succeeded. Cataline’s rebellion was suppressed. He was exiled and his chief lieutenants were killed. So, to understand Cicero’s brilliant vituperation, let us return to Cicero’s thundering introduction:

“When, O Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now?”

“Thundering” is surely the right word. Cicero did not respond to Catiline with the milky condemnations that the United States’ constitutional leaders offered to Donald Trump after his unsuccessful January 6, 2001 insurrection. No, Cicero thundered: “abusing our patience,” “that madness of yours,” “unbridled audacity,” “swaggering!” That, dear Americans, is how you talk to a traitor: clearly, forcefully, fairly, and without hesitation. Although Cicero eventually criticized Catiline’s specific actions and philosophy, he began by condemning the rebel. He did not say, “on the one hand, Catiline believes this, but I, on the other hand, respectfully believe something else.” He said nothing like that. Catiline was destructive and disloyal. He was dangerous. Did Catiline deserve courtesy? Cicero offered him none.


Cicero Reviewed Specifics

Instead, Cicero lambasted Catiline. Cicero pointed out that he, Cicero, stood for the Republic’s safety, while Catiline revolted against it. He reviewed details of Catiline’s conspiracy. He directly challenged Catiline to deny the accusation:

“You shall now see that I watch far more actively for the safety than you do for the destruction of the republic. I say that you came the night before (I will say nothing obscurely) into the Scythe-dealers’ street, to the house of Marcus Lecca; that many of your accomplices in the same insanity and wickedness came here too. Do you dare to deny it? Why are you silent?”

I like that: “I will say nothing obscurely.” Still not sparing words: “the same insanity and wickedness.”


The Constitution Lives in Our Body

Barely taking time to catch his breath, Cicero amplified the threat of civil disorder. Cataline’s rebellion, he explained, could only lead to destruction and chaos. Deeds should be judged against values. Thus, Cicero immediately challenged Cataline’s patriotism and his loyalty to the constitution:

“O ye immortal gods, where on earth are we? in what city are we living? what constitution is ours? There are here,—here in our body, O conscript fathers, in this the most holy and dignified assembly of the whole world, men who meditate my death, and the death of all of us, and the destruction of this city, and of the whole world.” [italics added] 

Cicero did not talk about a constitution that existed as a yellow piece of paper moldering in an archive. Whereas the present-day defenders of the American republic speak in such polite, dignified tones, Cicero proudly proclaimed his values. Sparing no one’s feelings, he insisted that the Republic’s values were deep, religious, and spiritual. Cicero personalized the constitution. The Roman constitution was “here in our body.” The constitution was not merely a set of rules; it was the nation’s body. The legislature was not merely a form of government, it was “this most holy and dignified assembly of the whole world.” Never one to underestimate a threat, Cicero warned that Catiline’s violent conspiracy threatened death, “the destruction of the city,” and indeed, “of the whole world.” (When ancient Romans mentioned “the world,” they meant the areas controlled by Rome – the rest of the world was an irrelevant collection of barbarians.)


Catiline and the Big Picture

We should never direct invective at legitimate political disagreement. If, however, purely selfish reasons drive a traitor to attack a legitimate political system, invective should be the least of our responses. That is why, like the wise political speaker that he was, Cicero looked for the big picture. After blasting Catiline for a few more minutes, Cicero reminded the Senate that his rebellion had driven Catiline into disgrace and poverty. Still, more important than Catiline’s personal downfall was the nation’s welfare:

“I pass over the ruin of your fortune, which you know is hanging over you against the ides of the very next month; I come to those things which relate not to the infamy of your private vices, not to your domestic difficulties and baseness, but to the welfare of the republic and to the lives and safety of us all.” [italics added]

As Cicero’s no-holds-barred attack neared its end, he insisted, not just to Catiline, but to the entire assemblage, that the nation was their parent and that parents always deserve respect. What a powerful metaphor! The rebellion was no longer merely an insurrection or an attempt to change the government, no, to Cicero, it was “parricide:” 

“If your parents feared and hated you, and if you could by no means pacify them, you would, I think, depart somewhere out of their sight. Now, your country, which is the common parent of all of us, hates and fears you, and has no other opinion of you, than that you are meditating parricide in her case; and will you neither feel awe of her authority, nor deference for her judgment, nor fear of her power?”

Compare Cicero’s thundering (that is still the right word!) condemnation against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s pathetic criticism of Donald Trump’s January 6, 2021 insurrection. McConnell said:

“So, I believe protecting our constitutional order requires respecting the limits of our own power. It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise American voters and overrule the courts and the States on this extraordinarily thin basis.”

Talk about a yawner.

In contrast, Cicero showed how to conclude a vituperative speech:

“Then do you, O Jupiter … overwhelm all the enemies of good men, the foes of the republic, the robbers of Italy, men bound together by a treaty and infamous alliance of crimes, dead and alive, with eternal punishments.”

And that, dear readers, is how you talk to a traitor.

 

Earlier Post about Cicero's Influence: Sean Patrick O'Rourke's Speech about "Wisdom and Eloquence:" A Defense of the Liberal Arts

Earlier Post: Liz Cheney Spoke against Trump with a Firehose of Truth

More speeches?

Unlike the milky, Greek-speaking character in Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, the real-life Cicero was a bold politician who defended the Republic, always with words, often by violence, and rarely with consideration for his own safety. He was not always on the right side, but he was always dedicated. I would call that patriotism. What would you call it? 

Cicero's assassination 

I suppose that fate sometimes catches up with fearless people. Several years after Catiline’s rebellion, and after another rebellion (with which he sympathized!), Cicero encountered soldiers sent by Mark Antony. They stabbed and beheaded him. Cicero’s hands and head were nailed to the Roman Rostra. 

And so, after one rebellion too many, the Roman Republic gave way to a dictatorship. Various legislative assemblies continued to meet. They still heard speeches, recorded votes, and passed resolutions. For centuries to come, the Roman government still looked like a republic. But it wasn’t.

Will the same happen to United States of America? Could another Cicero slow the trend?

by William D. Harpine

______________

PS: In this post, I am quoting from C. D. Yonge’s 1856 literal translation of Cicero’s speech. As with all ancient speeches, it is hard to know how precisely the published transcript reflects what Cicero said. Still, I think we can see Cicero’s point.

It seems that whenever Cicero got into political trouble, he went into exile and wrote books about rhetoric (the art of public speaking). Click on the "Canons of Rhetoric" link above, where I give a brief rundown of one of Cicero's many rhetorical theories. 

If you want to know more about vituperative rhetoric as a means to regulate power and social order, this book includes a terrific introduction by Valentina Arena. 

Copyright © 2024, William D.  Harpine

Image of Blake tapestry, public domain in the United States, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Cicero's assassination, public domain in the United States, via Wikimedia Commons

The First Biden-Trump Debate: Power, or Nurturance?

Donald Trump

During the first Joe Biden – Donald Trump presidential debate of 2024, Trump said that Biden was weak:

“He opened the borders nobody’s ever seen anything like.”

Later, Trump, who was nearing 78 years of age, volunteered that:

“I think I’m a very good shape. I feel that I’m in as good a shape as I was 25, 30 years ago.”

That is, Trump promised to be strong, while he said Biden was weak.

In contrast, Biden promised to be compassionate and caring:

“I’m going to make sure we have childcare. We’re going to significantly increase the credit people have for childcare. I’m going to make sure we do something about what we’re doing on lead pipes and all the things that are causing health problems for people across the country.”

Joe Biden

As never before, this 2024 debate displayed the two candidates’ moral character. Their words displayed their goals. Political debates are not about facts: political debates are about values. Linguist George Lakoff says that conservatives and liberals prefer distinct kinds of leaders. Conservatives seek what Lakoff calls a “strong father.” Liberals, however, want a “nurturing mother.” The June 27, 2024 debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden offered voters that exact choice. Trump told more lies than a carnival barker (no offense to barkers!), while Biden tried to show that he cared about Americans. That was the debate’s essence.


Trump, the Strong President?

For example, talking about the border policy, Trump highlighted his strength versus Biden’s weakness:

“And he didn’t need legislation because I didn’t have legislation. I said, close the border. We had the safest border in history. In that final couple of months of my presidency, we had, according to Border Patrol – who is great, and, by the way, who endorsed me for president. But I won’t say that. But they endorsed me for president.

“Brandon, just speak to him.

“But, look, we had the safest border in history. Now we have the worst border in history. There’s never been anything like it. And people are dying all over the place, including the people that are coming up in caravans.” [Italics added]

The name “Brandon” has, for inexplicable reasons, become conservatives’ insulting nickname for Joe Biden. Insult aside, Trump’s historical comment was false. My grandparents simply got off the boat in 1906 and made their case at Ellis Island. Indeed, for most of the 19th Century, the United States had no controls restricting white immigrants, and immigration controls were minimal in the early 20th Century – but facts are never Trump’s selling point. His selling point was strength. Trump sought to contrast his strength versus Biden’s purported weakness.

Nor did Trump offer details. Did he really close the border? I live near the border. I saw nothing of the kind. Is the border wide open today? Again, no. A fact check on NBC News noted that the Trump administration oversaw a massive influx of undocumented immigrants:

“In 2019, the last year before the Covid-19 pandemic brought down border crossings, there were roughly 860,000 illegal border crossings, far more than in any year during the Obama administration.”

Unfortunately, Trump never intended to give facts. Fear erases facts. Trump’s approach was simple and stark: fear (fear of immigrants) – protection (“close the border”) – more fear (“worst border in history”) – well, you get the point. Trump wanted us to think that he was a strong leader who protected the United States from hordes of immigrants. Biden, Trump said, opened the border to immigrant caravans, while Trump will close it again. It made no difference whether the things Trump said were real. He wasn’t talking about reality. He was talking about fear, strength, and protection.


Biden, the Nurturing President?

While Trump promised to protect the United States against fearsome hordes of immigrants, Biden boasted of positive internal improvements. These improvements did not necessarily protect people against external dangers, real or imaginary, but instead sought to improve the nation’s domestic policies. Biden talked about healthcare:

“We made sure that they [minority communities] have health insurance. We have covered with – the ACA has increased. I made sure that they’re $8,000 per person in the family to get written off in health care, but this guy wants to eliminate that. They tried 50 times. He wants to get rid of the ACA again, and they’re going to try again if they win.”

The threat against which Biden warned was not an external invasion, but rather that Trump would roll back healthcare benefits:

So, Biden gave the television audience a choice: elect the nurturing president who protected healthcare access, or the dangerous president who would callously roll healthcare back to the dark ages. Presenting another nurturing benefit, Biden discussed progress in jobs and hiring: 

“We provided thousands of millions of jobs for individuals who were involved in communities, including minority communities.”

Biden took extra credit when he said “we provided,” for the president himself did not provide “thousands of millions of jobs” to anyone. The fairer point would be that job opportunities improved under his leadership. Biden remarked that his policies protected minority communities, who are among the most vulnerable members of our society. I don’t know whether “thousands of millions” was hyperbole, or simply a bizarre math error. (“Thousands of millions” calculates to more people than inhabit the entire surface of the earth, and no American president has ever been that nurturing!)

 

Foreign Policy

The strong father versus nurturing mother metaphors broke out in an interesting way when the two candidates examined foreign policy. Biden emphasized that the United States’ security depends on our foreign alliances, especially from the protection that we receive from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Biden promoted strength through unity: 

“This is a guy who wants to get out of NATO. You’re going to stay in NATO or you’re going to pull out of NATO?

“The idea that we have – our strength lies in our alliances as well. It may be a big ocean, but we’re – (inaudible) able to avoid a war in Europe, a major war in Europe. What happens if, in fact, you have Putin continue to go into NATO? We have an Article Five agreement, attack on one is attack on all. You want to start the nuclear war he keeps talking about, go ahead, let Putin go in and control Ukraine and then move on to Poland and other places. See what happens then.

“He has no idea what the hell he’s talking about.” [italics added]

That is, does United States expect a single strong leader to protect our foreign policy? Or, like Biden, do we see strength in unity?

Trump took a quite different view about the United States’ foreign alliances. He boasted that he asserted strength even over our allies. He explained that he forced NATO members to increase their financial contributions, else he would refuse to support them against Russia:

“But the big thing I changed is they don’t want to pay. And the only reason that he can play games with NATO is because I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars. I said – and he’s right about this, I said, no, I’m not going to support NATO if you don’t pay. They asked me that question: Would you guard us against Russia? – at a very secret meeting of the 28 states at that time, nations at that time. And they (sic) said, no, if you don’t pay, I won’t do that. And you know what happened? Billions and billions of dollars came flowing in the next day and the next months.” [italics added]

Trump was laying out an uninformed fantasy (NATO countries do not pay us to protect them) although he did, indeed, get the NATO countries to increase investment in their own defense. Unfortunately, no one in the media or during the debate noted Trump’s inaccuracy. In any case, Trump didn’t care about accuracy. His goal was to show strength. Trump’s message was that he strong-armed our North Atlantic allies. Trump did not tell us that he was an expert: he told us that he was strong. He got things done. He, the strong father, wrestled our allies to the floor. Compared with that strength and power, the fact that Trump knew less about NATO than a well-versed high school student paled into insignificance.

Conclusion

I could go on, and at times the debate got so muddled it was hard to say what positions the two candidates advocated. The key point is that a conservative politician advances by convincing the voters that he or she will be a strong leader who protects them from threats. In contrast, a liberal politician tries to show that he or she will help people reach into their resources and improve their lives. A quick listen to video of the debate confirms the message: Trump was loud and forceful. Biden spoke quietly and often degenerated into details and picky facts of the sort that make voters’ brains glaze over. At times, Biden was so quiet that one could barely hear him. Maybe that carried the nurturing mother metaphor too far: Democrats might want to be nurtured, but they don’t want to be lullabied. 

When pundits complained that Trump lied constantly during the debate, they were right, but they missed the point. Trump’s core supporters don’t want facts. They want a strong leader to protect them. When pundits complained that Biden dwelled too much on data, well, they also missed the point. Social change requires attention to detail: no details, no policy! 

Overall, although this was a terrible debate on both sides, it did offer the American people a choice: pick a strong, forceful leader, or a leader who cares about them and wants to improve their lives. Judging from the polls, public opinion splits about equally between the two candidates, and that split arises precisely from Lakoff’s distinction. The American people might not face the best choice, but they have a clear one. They will not choose according to issues. The choice comes down to values: strength versus compassion.

Earlier Post:

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Both Suffered from Talking Points Disease When They Discussed Abortion in their Third 2016 Debate

Earlier post about this debate: 

Biden versus Trump, the June 27, 2024 Presidential Debate, a Study in Character

______________


P.S. The press has made much out of Biden’s ineffectual vocal delivery during this debate. Does that signify cognitive decline? Maybe (his appearance was disturbing), but I don’t necessarily see it. When I read the debate’s transcript, Biden made at least as much sense as Trump – maybe more. That’s not a high standard, but that is the choice the public faces. Biden delivered facts, many of which were true. He stated various specifics and punched out several childish but pointed barbs. I don’t see how a cognitively distressed man could have done that. Although I would still like to know more about Biden’s health, anyone who is concerned about Biden’s thinking ability on June 27 should put aside the video and read the debate transcript.

Preliminary polling suggest that Trump made a far more favorable impression during the debate than did Biden. Still, preliminary polls mean almost nothing (voters are nothing if not fickle), so let us not rush to judgment. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright ©  2024, William D.  Harpine

Images of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, official White House photos

Biden Versus Trump, the June 27, 2024 Presidential Debate, a Study in Character

Joe Biden

Did Joe Biden or Donald Trump win the June 27, 2024 presidential debate? That depends on how we define the question. Biden did better on the issues, while Trump projected more strength and confidence. In terms of character, Trump seemed strong but spoke dishonestly, while Biden was more accurate but seemed weaker. The voters now have a tricky choice. Let’s look at a couple snapshots of the debaters’ performance.

Snapshot #1: Former President Donald Trump said:

“[Biden] allowed millions of people to come in here from prisons, jails and mental institutions.”

That was totally false, and the fact-checking website PolitiFact.com wisely awarded Trump its dreaded “Pants on Fire” rating. The number of criminals involved ranks in the thousands at the most; many of them were promptly caught, and only a fraction of them crossed the southern border to get to the United States. (There are many other ways to get here.) Whether Trump was lying or engaging in hyperbole, he

Donald Trump

simply spoke irresponsibly.

Snapshot #2: Asked about abortion, Biden, rambling aimlessly, said:

“I supported Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters. First time is between a woman and a doctor. Second time is between the doctor and an extreme situation. And a third time is between the doctor – I mean, it’d be between the woman and the state.

“The idea that the politicians – that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous. That’s the last – no politician should be making that decision.”

Furthermore, video shows that while Biden struggled to corral his drifting thoughts, he looked away from the camera, mumbled so that he could barely be heard, and seemed to drift away for a moment or two.

Two Ways to Judge the Debate?

So, back to our question: who won last night’s debate? Like most debate specialists, I mostly think about issues and proof. Like the philosophy student that I was, I say that it all depends on how you define terms. Biden clearly won on the issues. No contest. But who won the character test? That is trickier. 

Almost everything Trump said was untrue if not incoherent. Trump claimed that he had presided over an excellent economy and that Biden wants to abort children after they’ve been born. Both points are false, and there is obviously no such thing as post-birth abortion. In contrast, Biden often spoke truthfully. Does any of that matter? For Biden looked weak and sounded hoarse. That leads to the real point of presidential debating! To “win” a presidential debate means only one thing: to win the election. The American voters make the final judgment. There is no other judge. Cable news pundits do not judge the debate. I do not judge the debate. Only the voters judge the debate.


How Do the Voters Choose?

Yes, Biden won the issues, but voters are not choosing issues. We voters are choosing a leader. When voters ignore the issues (as they usually do), they’re not necessarily making a mistake. The issues can be surprisingly irrelevant. When George W. Bush and Al Gore debated during the 2000 campaign, the key issue was Social Security. However, the unexpected key issue of Bush’s presidency was international terrorism, which the debates barely mentioned. When we chose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016, no one expected the coronavirus to become issue number one. When we choose a president, we want somebody who can handle whatever unexpected nightmares the world throws at us. The debates are not issue tests. They are character tests. We are not choosing an issue. We are choosing a leader.

Unfortunately, Trump and Biden both failed the leadership test. Trump told endless lies. Biden responded, correctly, that Trump was spewing “malarkey.” Unfortunately, Biden often paused, not for effect, but out of seeming confusion. He failed to make eye contact with the camera, lost his train of thought, and spoke in a scratchy voice. It was more than his usual harmless stuttering. He looked weak. He sounded weak. He rambled. He neither looked nor sounded like someone who could lead the world through its next crisis.

Abraham Lincoln, "Honest Abe"

What about the lying? Fact checking is wonderful if people take it seriously. During last night’s debate, Biden certainly did better with the fact checkers. On PolitiFact.com, Trump received 1 “Pants on Fire” rating, 3 ratings of “Mostly False,” and 12 ratings of “False.” Trump received not a single rating of “True,” “Mostly True,” or “Half True.” Biden’s statements received 1 rating of “True,” 3 ratings of “Mostly True,” 3 of “Half True,” 1 of “Mostly False,” and 2 of “False.” Factcheck.org gave a similar analysis. Although neither man demonstrated the level of matchless accuracy that I would like to associate with the American presidency, Trump’s unrelenting dishonesty pricks the conscience. (Yes, I wish we had a better choice than these two: a compulsive liar versus an occasional liar? What would Abraham Lincoln say?)

This leaves the voters with a terrible choice. Do we want to turn the leadership of the free world and the nuclear codes over to a relentless liar who cannot be trusted to fulfill the simplest responsibilities? Or, instead, do we want to choose a man who is so feeble that he might collapse in a tense situation? If we are honest with ourselves, we will never find a satisfactory answer to those questions. There is no satisfactory answer.


The Debate Leaves Us Swirling in Uncertainty

While we seek answers, however, we need to remember that the debate is merely one snapshot. Biden has given many sharp, alert speeches. For example, in his 2023 State of the Union Address, Biden effortlessly out-argued Republican hecklers on the spot.

Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address: The Republicans Fooled Only Themselves

There is no objective way to judge a debate, which involves influencing perceptions as much as it entails logic. It is often said that Richard Nixon lost the 1960 presidential debate because he looked pale and ungroomed on television, and that people who heard the debate on radio thought he was equal to Kennedy. Similarly, I got a much more favorable impression of Biden when I read the transcript of the debate that I did when listening to him. The fact remains that a debater must project confidence. (I once lost a college debate because I looked flustered – the judge’s word was “shaken” – while giving the right answers. It can happen to anyone.)

Overall, last night raised questions about both candidates. Why did Biden look and sound weak last night? Is he falling to dementia, as Republicans want us to believe? Or was he just knocked down by a respiratory illness? Did the White House physician give him too much cold medicine? Did an allergy attack keep him up at night? The public needs to know whether Biden’s problems are temporary or enduring. In contrast, Trump lied, not occasionally, but constantly. He has a long history of lying. He will be a liar forever. He will tell lies on his deathbed. His tombstone will probably be inscribed with lies.

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

I end by counseling the voting public: kindly view this debate as a snapshot, not as a final image. The public already knows what it needs to know about Trump. Trump is utterly dishonest, and his supporters have made their peace about that. For that matter, so have the media pundits, who have long quit caring about Trump’s unrelenting deceptions. But what about Biden? We need to know more about Biden. Until we do, our key question – who won the debate? – remains shrouded in the mist.

by William D. Harpine

____________

P.S. Biden’s public schedule was essentially empty for several days before the debate. Did he use that time to practice? Or did his advisors give him a chance to recover from a secret illness? If it was the latter, they made a poor choice. It would be far better to call in sick and postpone the debate than to show up dysfunctional. But who knows? Nobody in the White House is talking.

Research Note: Did Nixon make a better impression on radio listeners than on television listeners in the 1960 debate? Theodore White seemed to make that point. It's entirely unclear that this is true. Before the television era, the Lincoln-Douglas debates mostly reached the public via newspaper transcripts. 

Copyright ©  2024, William D.  Harpine

Photos of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, official White House photos, via Wikimedia Commons

Photo of Abraham Lincoln, 1863, Moses Parker Rice, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Soul of Donald Trump, Conspiracy Theorist: Let the Conclusion Prove the Evidence? Huh?

Donald Trump

The way logic is supposed to work is, we gather evidence, and we then use that evidence to prove a conclusion. Simple enough? In contrast, if we use our conclusion to prove our evidence, and then use the evidence to prove the conclusion, we have just tied ourselves into a circle. We have proven nothing.

So, can the conclusion prove the evidence? How does that make sense? It does not, of course. Still, let us try to make sense out of Donald Trump’s latest conspiracy theory:

“You saw what happened this weekend.” So said former President Donald Trump in a June 20, 2024 political rally in Racine, Wisconsin, as he accused Joe Biden of suffering from dementia. He cited manifestly twisted evidence to prove something that his audience already believed, and which they believed without any real evidence. Arguing in a circle.

That’s not a surprise. Abandoning the burden of proof, conspiracy theorists often start with the conclusion, not the evidence. Now, conservatives consistently state, with no real evidence, that President Joe Biden is senile. Who needs evidence? If you believe the conclusion, isn’t that enough? After all, the basic mentality of all conspiracy theories is that the world is out to get you. If we start with the (unproven) claim that Biden is senile, well, then the slightest evidence, no matter how silly, reinforces the existing (unproven) premise. For conspiracy theorists, the (unproven) conclusion becomes its own evidence. Reality twists into a circle.

Jumping on the bandwagon, Trump’s rally speech ripped into Biden with a vengeance:

“Joe Biden is humiliating our country on the world stage. He’s actually humiliating us. You saw what happened this weekend. It’s turning the United States into a total joke all over the world.”

Why would Trump say such a thing? Well, that’s simple enough. Over the last few days, the ultra-conservative New York Post published unscrupulously edited video captures that appear to show President Joe Biden wandering around in a demented stupor. In one of those, the video editor simply cropped the image. The un-cropped picture showed the group of skydivers dropping down on the world leaders in a ceremonial display. While most of the G7 leaders focused on the skydiver in the middle, Biden briefly turned to speak to a skydiver who landed off to the side. The video editor simply cropped the image so no one could see the skydiver off to the side. Any 10-year-old with a computer could explain how to do that.


The Headline Said It All!

Context always matters.

To understand how Trump got to his point (“you saw what happened this weekend”), we need to look briefly at the New York Post’s story. The Post’s story was sneaky: the newspaper posted a deceptive headline, followed by a less deceptive narrative, then slightly less deceptive picture caption, followed by a more accurate explanation tucked into the story, where casual readers could miss it. The Post’s presentation started with a baldly false statement, which, led, step by step, to a somewhat more accurate story. “See!” The editors could have said, “We told the truth – eventually.” 

Let’s start with the headline. Cropping or no cropping, the Post’s headline targeted conservative conspiracy theorists: “Biden wanders away at G7 summit before being pulled back by Italian PM.” That, obviously, was bluntly false. Then, however, the Post’s explanation, in the story itself, hedged the claim: 

“As the leaders of the world’s wealthiest democracies applauded the evening parachuting presentation, the 81-year-old US president’s attention visibly wandered away from where the others were looking.” [italics added] 

That is, as they explained their image, the Post’s authors did not say that Biden was wandering away from the scene. They merely noted, correctly, that Biden briefly looked at something different from what the other leaders looked at. That was still oddly deceptive, but less so than the headline.

The Post added an equally cagey photo caption: “Joe Biden appeared to wander off from the group of world leaders during the G7 summit Thursday” [Italics added]. Since it was inaccurate to say that he wandered off, the Post’s writers qualified their point: Biden “appeared” to wander off. Of course, the only reason that Biden appeared to wander off is that the Post had cropped the image.

Sneaky, sneaky. Unfortunately, the headline said it all! “Biden wanders away.” Once the headline made its point, it was the Post’s sneaky qualifications, not Biden, that wandered into the dell of deception.

A second photo, later in the story, correctly displayed the second skydiver. A bit later in the story, the Post admitted that Biden was interacting with the other skydiver. Accurate, but too late.

Roundly criticized for their deceptive reporting, the New York Post decided that they had no choice but to stick with their story. Conservative media and Big Tech outlets around the world continued to circulate the Post’s deceptive images. The misleadingly edited videos from which they were taken spread across the Internet. As NBC News accurately reported, “Misleading videos and false claims that President Joe Biden wandered off aimlessly from the G7 conference last week continued to go viral despite debunkings and fact-checks that tried to correct the record.” 

Now, let us remember what Donald Trump said. Trump said, “You saw what happened this weekend.” But you didn’t see it!  Trump’s audience presumably saw the events only as the New York Post misreported them! Trump’s audience, I presume, saw only the cropped image. Context always matters.


Donald Trump Ran with the Story

Never let a good smear go to waste. In any case, the New York Post’s ridiculous story gave Donald Trump all the evidence he needed. During this Racine speech, Trump ignored the Post’s hedging. He simply jumped on the headline. Why not? Isn’t that why the Post wrote the headline?

“First, he wandered off the G7 in Europe, the stage. He looked like he didn’t know where the hell he was, but he didn’t know where he was. He’s blaming it now on AI. He’s saying… He doesn’t know what AI is, but that’s okay. Now they’re saying the media is manipulating. Oh, he’s saying the media is manipulating now. On that one, I have to stick up for the media, I have to tell you.” [Italics added] [ellipsis mark in the transcript marks a brief pause]

(Note, however, that the cropped image showed nothing about a stage; the G7 incident occurred outdoors, in a field.) (So, now who is wandering off in confusion? Hmm.) Also note how Trump continued to ridicule his opponents without disproving them: “Now they’re saying the media is manipulating. Oh, he’s saying the media is manipulating now. On that one, I have to stick up for the media, I have to tell you.”

Did Trump have, or offer, any evidence that “he didn’t know where he was?” No. Did he refute the debunking of the absurd images? No! Instead, he merely ridiculed the fact-checkers: “He’s blaming it now on AI [artificial intelligence].”

Quick note: you don’t need AI to crop an image; free photo editing software will do the job in a few seconds. A 10-year-old with a computer could show Trump how it was done.

If Trump wanted to be rational, he might say: “No, the image was obviously not edited; it is accurate, and here are the reasons that I say that…” Trump, however, had no reasons. The image was manipulated. Trump had no evidence otherwise. Any fool can see that it was manipulated. Yet, for Trump’s audience, ridicule was refutation enough. Trump was not merely ridiculing the fact-checkers; he ridiculed the concept of facts. His cheering audience seemed happy to go along.


Conclusion

This blog post started by saying that Trump’s evidence only seems believable because he assumed the conclusion that he wanted to prove. We all know that to be wrong. Conservatives, however, seem to believe that Biden is demented with the same passion that they believe that the Texas sky is blue and the ocean is wet. If their belief has grown strong enough, they can toss out any claim that Biden is not demented. Their belief that Biden is demented is so powerful that it overwhelms contradiction and invites the most ridiculous proof. If they receive the slightest, most absurd, utterly impossible evidence that Biden suffers from dementia, they will accept that absurd, impossible evidence – because they have already accepted the conclusion.

I guess, for some conservatives, inflexible thinking becomes its own punishment.

Does President Biden suffer from mental decline? I don’t know. How could I know? I’m not a psychologist. My first impression, however, concludes that Biden must be healthy: if conservatives had evidence of his mental decline, they would stop manipulating such absurd images.

Trump reinforced his audience by pitching onto evidence that was visibly deceptive. Only an audience motivated by gullibility rather than reason could take Trump’s claim seriously.

Yet, Trump continues to thrive in election polls. What in the world does that say about the United States of America’s voters? I shudder to think.

_______________

Earlier Post: Why Are Trump's Supporters Happy with His Conspiracy Theories at the Helsinki Summit?

Earlier Post: Trump and Conspiracy Theories
_______________

P.S. Once again, I must thank the good people at rev.com for providing a verbatim transcript of Trump’s speech. Rev.com is a commercial transcript-providing company. Their public transcripts, which they post as a service, are a national treasure. There is no better way to poke through the political hype practiced by politicians of all stripes, liberal, conservative, or whatever, than to look at the full text of a speaker’s exact words.


Research Notes:

In a common logical pattern, a previously proven conclusion serves as evidence for further argument. That requires that the conclusion must already be proven. That’s not what either Trump or the New York Post did. What they did was to assume their conclusion. They used that unproved conclusion to prove that their shaky evidence proved their (still-unproved) conclusion. That was just arguing in a circle.

Some arguments do start with assumptions. Happens every day in geometry class. It is, however, never valid to use an assumption to prove that the assumption is true. That is just twisted. The best guide to non-syllogistic logic is still Howard Kahane’s groundbreaking book, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Highly recommended.

Professor David Zarefsky has argued that a basic technique of conspiracy theorists is to make assumptions instead of proving their points. When they do so, conspiracy theorists disregard the basic dialectical burden to prove the points that they assert.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo