Pope Francis' Christmas Message

Pope Francis

Pope Francis' Christmas speech conveyed the values of peace and justice. This is a ceremonial speech's ultimate goal: to convey values. In turn, the Pope used these values to support public policies.

Here are a few highlights, from the Vatican's official English translation:

The Pope began with the Christmas story, and quoted Isaiah 9:6, familiar to most of us from Handel's Messiah: "For to us a child is born . . . Wonderful counselor Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Peace became Francis' theme. He denied that Jesus' power was "the power of this world, based on might and wealth; it is the power of love." He continued by quoting Luke 2:14: "And on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!" The Pope gave this practical application: "Peace to men and women in the war-torn land of Syria, where far too much blood has been spilled."

Continuing, he urged, "May Israelis and Palestinians have the courage and the determination to write a new page of history, where hate and revenge give way to the will to build together a future of mutual understanding and harmony." He prayed for peace in Nigeria, South Sudan, and the Congo. He called for peace in Ukraine, "where there is urgent need for a common desire to bring relief tot he civil population and to put into practice the commitments which have been assumed." And so forth. He called for peace for the victims of terrorism.

Pointedly he called for "peace to exiles, migrants, and refugees, to all those who in our day are subject to human trafficking." When too many Christians in the United States openly seek to oppress immigrants, sometimes in the name of Christianity, this message might have special impact. Yet, although this controversy was surely in the back of the Pope's mind, he did not criticize people with whom he disagreed, but instead set forth an entirely positive message for a troubled world. The Pope ended: "Merry Christmas to all!"

Pleading for Christians and non-Christians alike, Pope Francis did not call for exclusion of non-believers. Although he deplored the lack of peace, he did not accentuate divisions; instead; he urged healing. He did not complain about a make-believe war on Christmas; instead, he rued the world's failure to live up to the Christ child's fundamental message: a message of peace. He gave a speech for unity, not division.

Good ceremonial (epideictic) speeches aim at values; these values in turn imply actions and policies. The Pope did not make arguments for his policies; instead, he tied them to Jesus' values. A powerful method.

I wish a Merry Christmas to all who celebrate that holiday, and Happy Holidays for everyone.


If you're interested, I posted last January about New Year's speeches. 



Image: Pope Francis, edited from a historical White House photo

Why Do Politicians Exaggerate? President Trump's Signing Speech

Donald Trump, WH photo

I wrote yesterday about Nancy Pelosi's speech against the tax reform bill. She badly overstated her case. President Donald Trump has now signed the bill into law and, lo and behold, he badly overstated the law's benefits. Why do politicians exaggerate?

When signing the law at a White House ceremony, Mr. Trump said:

As you know, $3.2 trillion in tax cuts for American families, including the doubling of the standard deduction and the doubling of the Child Tax Credit. The typical family of four earning $75,000 will see an income tax cut of more than $2,000 — many much higher than that — slashing their tax bill in half. And they’re going to start to see that.

This was quite misleading. Expert analysis shows that the total tax cuts are indeed huge, but the law also raises revenue in other ways (for example, by eliminating personal exemptions) taxes, so the net tax cut is more like $1.5 trillion. That is still a great deal of money, and Mr. Trump did not need to overstate his case. By exaggerating, he puffs up his accomplishments for true believers, but reduces his credibility among people who look into the facts. 

Later in his speech, Mr. Trump repeated a ridiculous claim that he has made several times:

And the bottom line is, this is the biggest tax cuts and reform in the history of our country. This is bigger than, actually, President Reagan’s many years ago. I’m very honored by it.

Reagan's tax cuts were certainly much bigger.  Yet, this is still a huge tax cut, so why would Mr. Trump misrepresent it, thus reducing his long-term credibility?

That is a hard question to answer. Obviously, there are people who speak truthfully, and yet they rarely seem to make their way to high political office. Those who do are often ridiculed, or even perceived to be weak. Most elections are decided by voter turnout, not by convincing people to change their minds, so people who advocate a particular viewpoint often have an advantage over people who speak circumspectly. Many people build careers by under-promising and over-delivering. Politicians seem to build their careers by over-promising and under-delivering. Too bad! Still, the public can, and should, be alert when politicians say things that cannot possibly be true.

A note about fact-checking. Not all voters want to know the truth. Many are happy to live in an ideological dream world. However, for those people who want to know the truth about political issues, the leading fact-checking websites are FactCheck.org, operated by the Annenberg School of Communication, the Washington Post's Fact Checker, and Pulitizer-Prize winner PolitiFact.com. USA Today, CNN, and AP both operate good fact-checking operations, but they are less complete than the ones I recommend. Fox News' fact-checking is usually OK as far as it goes, but they seem to have developed the habit of fact-checking Democrats but not Republicans, which can give the reader an unbalanced impression.

Not everyone who claims to check facts actually does so. Reader beware!

Why Do Politicians Exaggerate? Nancy Pelosi's Fire-Breathing Tax Speech

Nancy Pelosi

I posted the other day about Nancy Pelosi's tax reform speech, in which she pitched to the galleries. Pelosi attacked tax reform with fire-breathing language. Did this help or hurt her case? That depends: to whom was she making her case?

For example, she said:

The Frankenstein’s monster of giveaways and special interest loopholes . . . 

Frankenstein's monster?

She also said, during the Christmas season, that:

In this time, the moral obscenity and unrepentant greed of the GOP tax scam stands out more clearly.

Moral obscenity? 

And she said:

The GOP tax scam is simply theft. Monumental, brazen theft – from the American middle-class and from every person who aspires to reach it.  The GOP tax scam is not a vote as an investment in growth or jobs.  It is a vote to instill a permanent plutocracy in our nation.  They’ll be cheering that later.

And so forth.

Now, Democratic partisans would agree with every word. Few Republicans would respond well to her strong language; most were probably offended. Writing in the conservative National Review, Rich Lowry ridiculed "Nancy Pelosi's tax apocalypse." Independent voters would probably consider her speech to be intemperate and implausible. Such strong language is highly polarizing: her true believers would respond well, while she would drive away everyone else. We have known since the 1948 Elmira, New York study that partisanship is the main determinant of how people vote. That is why voter turnout determines elections far more often than people actually change their minds. If Pelosi motivated her supporters to vote, then she might consider her speech successful.

Still, I would be happier if politicians spoke the simple truth. If your policy is better (and I think, for what it's worth, that the tax bill that Ms. Pelosi criticized is indeed a mistake), then you don't really need to overstate your case.  Reasoned discourse has a much milder, slower effect, but it might also reduce polarization a bit. The Bible says this: "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright" (Proverbs 15:1-2). Not that I think that Ms. Pelosi was unwise, just that she overstated her case. 

Here's my earlier post about this speech.

Official US Congress photo

Al Franken, the Loss of Truth, and the Problem of Credibility

Sen. Al Franken

Earlier today, Senator Al Franken delivered what seems to be his last floor speech in the United States Senate. Viewd out of context, it was a very good speech. In context, however, Franken's lost credibility mattered more than his final words. Franken had announced that he would leave the Senate after a string of credible allegations that he had engaged in sexual misconduct. A former comedian, Franken served Minnesota as a liberal Democrat. Most of his speech reviewed familiar Democratic positions: he attacked the recent Republican tax plan as a giveaway to the rich, discussed the dangers of climate change, and decried the loss of rights of transgender persons.

Concluding, Franken pointed out how important truth is:

I could go on and on and on and on. You know, before I came to the Senate, I was known as something of an obsessive on the subject of honesty in public discourse. But, as I leave the Senate, I have to admit that it feels like we are losing the war for truth. Maybe it’s already lost.

I could not agree more. Truth is in trouble, and people believe the silliest things. Some of the silly beliefs lead to great harm. In general, many media outlets, sadly including many prominent conservative outlets, have provided a platform for bizarre conspiracy theories and outlandish accusations. The unreliable website Gateway Pundit has become one of the main information sources on which conservative voters rely. Still, truth and politics have never gotten along very well. It would seem that Republicans have, for example, lied about their tax plan more often than the Democrats have lied about it, but, let's face it, lies are lies. Unless Democrats stop lying--completely--what is their credibility for complaining about Republican lies? The right amount of lying is zero, and once a liar has been caught, that person is, well, a liar.

So, let's remember that Franken gave this speech on his way out, and he is on his way out because of things he did out of the public eye. Let us suppose that he is right that truth is losing the war for public opinion. Who is going to believe Al Franken?


Aristotle wrote thousands of years ago that the speaker's character is the most powerful mode of persuasion. Once a speaker has lost the character battle, what is left?

Of course, many other members of Congress display various ethical problems: sexual behavior, corruption, incompetence, general venality. Yet, the public continues to elect people whose moral character is suspect, and, once they elect them, they don't trust them.  Or, worse, they trust the wrong ones.

Official Senate portrait

Nancy Pelosi's Tax Speech: Pitching Values to the Galleries

Nancy Pelosi

Speaking on the floor of Congress against the Republican tax reform bill, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the bill, which awaits passage sometime today, as a "GOP tax scam" and a "brazen con job." The bill does, indeed, offer massive tax breaks to the very rich and to large corporations, including foreign corporations, while driving up the budget deficit. There is controversy about whether the bill will raise or lower taxes on lower and middle-class Americans. There is also controversy about whether the bill would stimulate massive growth. Fox News correctly noted that reactions to the bill have been very polarized. I'm not an economist and give no opinion about that one way or another about those latter issues, although I found a good article in the business magazine Forbes.

In her speech, Ms. Pelosi raised larger value questions: instead of focusing exclusively on nuts-and-bolts details, Pelosi said things like this:

Mr. Speaker, today, we choose what kind of country America will be. One that champions the ladders of opportunity for all, or one that reinforces the power of the wealthiest and well-connected. 

and, nearing her conclusion:


It does violence to the vision of our founders, it disrespects the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform who are  large part of our middle-class and to whom we owe a future worthy of their sacrifice, and it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children. 

Ms. Pelosi quoted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who, complaining about the harms to the working poor, called the bill "simply unconscionable." This appealed to a moral sense while citing the bishops' authority.


At the end, Pelosi reaffirmed values:

It demands--it morally demands--a "no" vote from every Member of this House of the people.

Ms. Pelosi surely knew that her voice would influence no votes. Her arguments would convince no Republicans to change his or her vote. Instead, she was reaching out to the larger audience, firing a salvo in what will likely be a long public dispute.


What lessons can we draw about public speaking? First, Pelosi spoke to the larger audience, not just the group in the room. (As President Donald Trump himself had done in an earlier tax reform speech.) Her very strong language--"tax scam" and "brazen con job"--was aimed at the general public, not the Congress. Second, she focused on values, using facts and figures only to aim at value questions. This drew attention away from esoteric issues that few of us really understand, and toward larger questions about the role of Congress in setting policy.


Official US Congress photo

Here's my follow-up post. 

Donald Trump at the FBI Graduation Ceremony: Who Was the Audience?

Donald Trump at FBI Ceremony

Who is the speaker's audience? That sounds like a simple, obvious question with a simple, obvious answer. Sometimes it's not. President Donald Trump spoke yesterday at the FBI National Academic Graduation Ceremony. Shortly before his speech, Mr. Trump reamed out the FBI: "It's a shame what's happened with the FBI, but we're going to rebuild the FBI."  He may have been reacting to reports that some FBI agents involved in the Russia investigation opposed his politics. The FBI has long been considered to be among America's most conservative institutions, yet, during the Russia investigation controversy, some pundits claim that it has been taken over by liberals. This seems unlikely, but, well, people are entitled to their opinions. Mr. Trump said, "people are very, very angry" about perceived liberal bias in the FBI. Why, however, did the audience in an FBI facility not seem to be offended by Mr. Trump's anti-FBI stance? Why did Mr. Trump express opposite opinions on the same day?

Indeed, when he spoke a little later at the FBI ceremony, Trump effused praise: "For over 80 years, this rigorous and world-renowned program has trained America’s most dedicated local law enforcement officers from all across the country.  So respected." He continued: "You left home for 11 weeks to enroll in this program because you love your jobs, you love your communities, and you love your country." Quite different from "people are very, very angry!"

Actually, much of Mr. Trump's speech reviewed standard conservative positions such as that police departments were underfunded and "totally underappreciated." He lamented violent assaults against peace officers. He complained about urban violence, the MS-13 gang, and unfettered immigration.

What news reports often missed were two points:

1. Mr. Trump's real audience was his conservative voting base, not the group in the room. When a politician speaks, we should always assume that the speech represents political outreach. Mr. Trump knew that the speech would be widely reported, and, with his keen media sense, may even have known that the controversy would make it more widely reported.

2. Many in the room were not FBI people at all, but law enforcement personnel from across the country. It is possible that many FBI personnel would be offended by Mr. Trump's earlier anti-FBI remarks, but there were reports that most of the audience members were not FBI at all.  While he was addressing law enforcement in general during much of the speech, and by supporting law enforcement's hot-button issues, Mr. Trump knew that he ran less risk than one might think of a hostile audience reaction. Very clever? Or fortuitous?

Chaïm Perlman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca put forward the idea that the real audience exists in the speaker's mind. Mr. Trump's FBI speech worked from that exact principle.

Ordinary People in President Donald Trump's Tax Reform Speech

Donald Trump speaking on tax reform

How does a president sell an unpopular tax plan? Surrounded by Christmas trees, President Donald Trump discussed tax reform from the White House yesterday. The Republican Party's proposed tax reform plan has led to much controversy, as some authorities think that it gives disproportionate tax cuts to very rich people, while others worry that some ordinary Americans will actually pay more in taxes. The possibility that much of the tax savings will go to overseas corporations has received less attention, but there seems to be good reason to think that is likely. Others express the unpopular view that no tax cut is needed at this time. Numerous pundits have complained that the tax plan was hastily written and poorly studied.

Of course, no one likes to pay taxes, and Mr. Trump's campaign and his inaugural address pictured him as a populist who would stand up for the ordinary, forgotten American. So, how to sell the tax plan? Mr. Trump returned to his populist roots to pitch the proposed tax plan as a bonus for the American people.

First, Mr. Trump emphasized those parts of the proposal that target ordinary Americans, while skimming past the tax cuts for large corporations. He promised to cut unspecified "special interest loopholes" and to lower "tax rates for families." He promised that "A lot of jobs are going to be created with the money that you spend--very special." 

He also promised that "We want to give you, the American people, a giant tax cut for Christmas. And when I say giant, I mean giant." He said that "The typical family of four earning $75,000 will see an income tax cut of more than $2,000, slashing their tax bill in half. It's going to be a lot of money." He promised to "expand the child tax credit for working families" (which has actually led to much controversy among Republicans in Congress).


Typical, ordinary Americans turned out, as far as this event was concerned, to consist of people from pro-Trump regions. So, Mr. Trump introduced Bryant and Ashley Glick from rural Pennsylvania, promising to reduce their tax bracket. Mr. Glick then commented that he would use the tax break for "home renovations." Next, the Kovacs family from Ohio, who Mr. Trump said would get "nearly one-third of their money back," talked about home renovations and saving for their children's college. The Giampolo family from Polk County, Iowa, Leon and Maria Benjamin from Richmond, Virginia, and the Howard family from Tenino, Washington expressed similar sentiments. Ending his speech, Mr. Trump asserted that Democrats actually liked the plan but opposed it for purely political reasons, and summarized that "With your help, we will bring back our jobs; we will bring back our wealth as a country; and, for every citizen across this beautiful land, we will bring back our great American Dreams."

There was no better way to identify with ordinary Americans than to bring them to the White House and give them a chance to speak. Linguist George Lakoff explains that people make political decisions on emotions, not logic. Mr. Trump did present a few facts and figures, but he ignored criticisms of the proposal and drew attention to ordinary, mostly rural Americans. This was powerful, populist, and emotional. Was it enough to make his case? Time will tell.

Donald Trump's Speech at the State Dinner in South Korea: A Unifying Speech

President Trump at State Dinner in South Korea

Although President Donald Trump is better known for divisive speeches, he gave a unifying speech at a November 7, 2017 state dinner with President Moon of South Korea, during President Trump's trip to Asia. My former professor Charles Urban Larson distinguished between the pragmatic speaking style, which we often associate with President Trump, and the unifying style, which brings people closer together.

The event started with a graphic in Korean and English: "We Go Together." President Moon's remarks emphasized the long alliance that the two nations shared. A toast was raised.

President Trump promised that the next day would be "exciting . . . for many reasons that people will find out." Well, surprise and suspense are classic Trump tactics. Mostly, however, Mr. Trump emphasized unity: "The partnership between our two nations and our two people is deep and enduring. We have been proud to stand by your side for many decades as an unwavering friend and a loyal ally." In what sounded like a response to North Korea's recent missile tests, he continued: "And you have never had a time where this ally has been more loyal or stood by your side more than right now." He also talked about "our close and abiding bonds of friendship."

Most ceremonial or epideictic speeches turn to values; this was no exception: "Together, our nations remind the world of the boundless potential of societies that choose freedom over tyranny, and who set the[m] free." That passage not only reaffirmed unity, but also reinforced democratic values. He praised South Korea for "South Korea's success and affirm our close and abiding bonds of friendship."

A notable feature was Mr. Trump's clear endorsement of the South Korea-United States alliance, which contrasted with Mr. Trump's earlier reluctance to fully endorse the North Atlantic alliance earlier this year.

Throughout the event, translators communicated the speakers' words. All in all, this was a safe speech: unifying, reassuring, dignified, carefully scripted. President Trump followed the script, caused no problems, and aroused no controversy. Sometimes, when danger lurks, calm reassurance is a speaker's best attitude.

Speakers Need Research: The Continuing Case of Donald Trump?

Donald Trump speaks to business leaders in Japan

Speakers need to do their homework before they say something, but I added a question mark to this blog post's title because the context of President Donald Trump's latest mistake remains unclear. Did he make a mistake at all, or did he just phrase his point a bit carelessly?

In a rambling, partly extemporaneous speech to American and Japanese businesspeople yesterday, Mr. Trump praised United States economic growth, complained about the United States trade deficit with Japan, and then said this:
 
"And we love it when you build cars -- if you're a Japanese firm, we love it -- try building your cars in the United States instead of shipping them over. Is that possible to ask? That's not rude. Is that rude? I don't think so. (Laughter.) If you could build them. But I must say, Toyota and Mazda -- where are you? Are you here, anybody? Toyota? Mazda? I thought so. Oh, I thought that was you. That's big stuff. Congratulations. Come on, let me shake your hand. (Applause.) They're going to invest $1.6 billion in building a new manufacturing plant, which will create as many as 4,000 new jobs in the United States. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. (Applause.)"
(I added the italics.)

The mainstream press jumped on Trump's statement because he implied that Japanese companies are not building cars in the United States. But is that what he meant?

Mr. Trump did, a moment later, talk about a Toyota-Mazda project in the United States. Second, he may have simply extemporized over his intended comment. He also promised quick approval for Japanese plants being built in the United States. Maybe he meant to say this: "And we love it when you build cars [in the U.S.A] . . ." but rushed to make his next point before he finished his previous point. Most of us make mistakes like that when we speak off-the-cuff. Still, from his phrasing, he didn't seem to know that about 3/4 of Japanese cars made in North America have final assembly in North American factories. If he had held that fact had firmly in his mind, he probably would have phrased his point more clearly. Research will often prevent a speaker from making mistakes like that.

Also, just before his controversial statement, Mr. Trump said this:

"I also want to recognize the business leaders in the room whose confidence in the United States -- they've been creating jobs -- you have such confidence in the United States, and you've been creating jobs for our country for a long, long time. Several Japanese automobile industry firms have been really doing a job."

That wasn't wrong, but maybe it was a bit unclear. Was he praising Japanese companies for creating jobs in the United States? Or not? Maybe . . .


Lost in the brouhaha is that Mr. Trump also complained that few American cars are exported to Japan, which is absolutely true, and which contributes to the trade imbalance. If he not have made his slip of the tongue, the press might have focused on that more important policy comment.

To his credit, a Washington Post columnist pointed out that Mr. Trump did acknowledge a new Japanese factory being built in the United States, and accused other reporters of "cherry-picking" Trump's comments.

More broadly, when I took college communication classes, my professors pointed out that important people like presidents often read their speeches precisely because the entire world will jump on them if they make a mistake. Judging from the video, Mr. Trump read part of the speech from a text, while extemporizing part of it. His delivery and presentation were much better when he was not reading, but his language was clearer when he was reading. For you and me, off-the-cuff speeches are sometimes the best. For a president, not necessarily so.

I've often blogged to show that speakers need research; for example, here.

Rose McGowan's Me-Too Speech: A Study in Language

I'd like to take a break from politicians and talk about Rose McGowan's "Me-Too" speech, which discussed sexual abuse, at the Women's Convention in Detroit, Michigan. McGowan's character resisted evil on the television show Charmed, and it was interesting to hear her talk about real-life evil. I'll talk little about her actual allegations and motivations--other people are more qualified to discuss them--and instead look at her language use, which featured sophisticated rhetorical tropes and figures of speech. Powerful language helps a speaker emphasize key points. The audience remembers points that a speaker expresses in powerful language.

First, the #MeToo hashtag is itself a neologism, that is, an invented term attributed to Tarana Burke. Unfamiliar phrases, especially if they are short and pithy, grab our attention. Referring to her own history as a sexual assault victim, McGowan used the "me-too" phrase to identify herself with her audience: "Thank you, Tarana Burke, thank you to all of you fabulous, strong, powerful me-toos, because we are all me-toos -- and thank you to Tarana for giving us two words and a hashtag that helped free us." McGowan continued by linking "I" and "we" statements to establish identity: "I have been silenced for twenty years," soon followed by "We are free. We are strong. We are one massive collective voice."

In that opening section, one also notes McGowan's parallel language: "We are free. We are strong. We are one massive collective voice." The "we are's" have a cumulative effect. She continued: "Its time to be whole. It's time [to] rise. It's time to be brave." Also parallel, also a cumulative effect.

A "monster" metaphor then drove home her attack on evil: "In the face of unspeakable actions from one monster, we look away to another: the head monster of all right now and they are the same and they must die." Repetition then drove her point home: "It is time. The paradigm must be subverted. It is time."

People respond well to groups of three, leading us to notice McGowan's rhetorical tricolon: "Name it, shame it, call it out." She ended with a brilliant allusion to Nathaniel Hawthorne: "The scarlet letter is theirs, it is not ours. We are pure, we are strong, we are brave and we will fight."

At the end of her speech, she tied her sense of unity and female empowerment into a thinly-veiled attack against Donald Trump's Access Hollywood scandal.

Effective, powerful language made this speech memorable.

Alas, McGowan was later charged with a drug offense. Too bad.  

Responses to Jeff Flake's Retirement Speech

Every communication student learns that a message is never complete until someone receives and interprets it. Just as every speaker brings his or her knowledge, attitudes, and experience to the speech, so every audience responds in terms of their own previous experience, attitudes, and values. Jeff Flake's dramatic retirement speech, which I wrote about earlier today, generated responses across a wide field. In that speech, Flake criticized President Donald Trump's behavior as "reckless, outrageous, and undignified." I will sort the responses into three categories: people who thought that Flake gave a great speech, people who think he should have done even more, and people who thought his speech was awful.

Let us start with the positive responses. CNN Editor-at-Large Chris Cillizza called Flake's speech "a clarion call to the governing wing of the Republican Party to wake up from the fever of Trumpism." He continued that Flake had given "the most important political speech of 2017 – and one of the most powerful political speeches in the modern era of the Senate." Sounding sad, Cillizza thought that "it is uniquely possible that it will not change a thing." Noting that Flake faced a difficult primary challenge from an even more conservative opponent, Slate's Jim Newell said that Flake "admitted that in order to win the primary, he would have to become a hard-right, bullying caricature." Commenting on Flake's speech, an editorial in the Baltimore Sun lamented that the rise of "Trumpism" was "the logical conclusion of a cynical bargain Republicans have pursued over the years to stoke cultural resentments as a means of rallying voters who do not benefit from the party’s real priorities of cutting taxes for the wealthy and removing constraints on corporations." The editorial did express, hopefully, that Flake's speech could be one of the first steps on the difficult path to a new, more functional political reality." Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin said that Flake spoke "with a moral clarity we have rarely seen among his fellow elected Republicans — and never from GOP leadership on Capitol Hill."

Writing in the Washington Post, Stephen Krupin, a Democrat, complained that, although Flake was wise to complain about Trump's governing approach, he gave up: "Then he surrendered." His point was that, by leaving the Senate, Flake was giving up his chance to influence public decisions.

The conservative media, however, found Flake's speech appalling. Breitbart's Tony Lee gleefully reported that Flake's retirement was "another scalp" for alt-right leader Stephen Bannon, President Trump's former White House advisor. Conservative commentator Bill Kristol tweeted:

"Flake took on Trump.
Trump & Bannon took on Flake.
Flake's gone."

I guess that made a point – a point in which power and success measure one's moral qualities.

Complaining that "Republican voters don't appreciate an out of touch loon who lectures them every other week,"  Jim Hoft, in the popular conspiracy theory website Gateway Pundit, described Flake's speech as an "annoying screed." Of course, we do not want to miss President Trump's Twitter responses, which speak for themselves:

So, depending on their political perspectives, different listeners reacted to Senator Flake's speech in much different ways. It is unreasonable to think that one speech will change everything. All the same, Senator Flake stimulated a great deal of public controversy about President Trump's leadership methods. What will come of this, good or bad? Time will tell.

I have seen comparisons between Flake's speech and speeches responding to Senator Joseph McCarthy. Instead, I thought about John Kennedy's best-selling book, Profiles in Courage. Kennedy's book talks about courageous actions that United States Senators took at the risk of their careers. Such courage seems like a pipe dream today, does it not? Today, politicians seem to adjust their opinions according to the latest polls, and not according to any moral compass. Yet, even Senator Flake did not think he could run for re-election and still speak freely.

Senator Jeff Flake's Retirement Announcement: Appealing to Tradition

Jeff Flake's Retirement Speech

Announcing that he would not run for reelection, conservative Republican Arizona Senator Jeff Flake delivered on the Senate floor a carefully-crafted blast at President Trump. Flake said that "Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as 'telling it like it is,' when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified." He warned that "when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else: It is dangerous to a democracy." He denied that "a pivot to governing is right around the corner." He protested the abandonment of American political tradition: "We must never regard as 'normal' the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals." 

As a thoroughgoing mainstream conservative, Flake filled his speech with appeals to tradition. For example, he cited Federalist #51: "Ambition counteracts ambition." Noting that many Republicans favor absolute loyalty to President Donald Trump, Flake responded by quoting Republican President Theodore Roosevelt to say: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." He said that "Humility helps. Character Counts." He cited one of the United States' mottoes: "E Pluribus Unum. From many, one." He said that history had proven our ancient principles: "When we have been at our most prosperous, we have also been at our most principled." Continuing to address principles, he insisted that "These articles of civic faith have been central to the American identify for as long as we have all been alive. They are our birthright and obligation."

Flake then listed the harms that he felt President Trump had caused by deviating from our traditions: "Now, the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question." He further said that "the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values. Despotism loves a vacuum." He warned that "mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people." Yet he had hope: "This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say the sooner the better." Flake ended his speech by quoting Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address: "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

The definition of conservatism requires a speaker to talk about traditional practices or values. Many, probably most, people who call themselves conservatives do nothing of the kind, and instead advocate the triumph of their class over others. That leads to disruption, and conservatives fear disruption more than they fear cardiac arrest. Yet, President Trump identified worries and concerns that many voters experience, and, although he seems to have the wrong solutions -- stopping immigration and suppressing Muslims will not improve America's heartland -- those worries remain unaddressed. Flake articulated what may be the United States' defining conflict: can returning to ancient traditions restore us to health? Or do we need to move to new principles and, if so, what will those principles entail?

Reactions to the speech have split, not according to party lines, but according to alt-right versus everyone else. My next post will look at those reactions. Later, I will also post about the appeal to tradition, which some people (most often, liberal college professors) consider to be a fallacy. Is tradition a fallacy? Or is it wisdom's source?

Here's my follow-up, as promised.


Image from www.flake.senate.gov

Vice President Mike Pence's Speech at the Marine Barracks: Policy without Proof?

Mike Pence, White House Photo

Yesterday, October 23, 2017, Vice President Mike Pence spoke at the Marine Barracks in Washington DC to commemorate the 1983 Beirut bombing, which killed 241 service personnel, mostly United States Marines. Members of a peacekeeping force, they were killed by a suicide bomber. The bombing, probably planned by Hezbollah and Iran, eventually led to President Ronald Reagan's decision to withdraw American forces from Lebanon.

Although Pence's speech was mostly long, dull, and predictable, he made some important points in an important way. As I have noted many times, ceremonial and commemorative speakers often support policies. But they do not support policy with arguments and evidence. Instead, they tell the audience what values the honored dead stood for, and say that we must follow their example. Or they might use praise and flattery. This can be, on the one hand, noble and right. We do want to honor our traditional values, which we forget at our peril. On the other hand, because the world changes every day, we want to be sure that our old policies are still right, which might require careful study.

Epideictic speeches, usually given at ceremonies like this one, give praise or blame to someone, often someone deceased. Praise is more common. Pence praised the courageous Marines: "This facility is an enduring testament to the fortitude and valor of America's Marines." He said that the Marines in Lebanon died for a noble cause: "this force of freedom stood together to protect the innocent and prevent a civil war from becoming an even greater tragedy." But it was, Pence said, "for that very reason, because of the principles for which they stood and the peace for which they strived, these heroes aroused the attention of great evil. And on that Sunday morning, that evil set them in its sights." Pence, who is noted for Evangelical Christian views, quoted the Bible: "the Lord is close to the brokenhearted." (Psalm 34:18). For those who shared Pence's religious views, quoting the Bible re-emphasized values. Pence said that "We remember our fallen heroes and those they left behind."

None of that could cause much controversy. Of course we should remember our fallen heroes. Of course we oppose evil. However, Pence jumped to a controversial policy: "But we also have a duty to honor the memory of our fallen by continuing to stand strong to fight and defeat the enemy that so cruelly took them from us." He announced that "The Beirut barracks bombing was the opening salvo in a war that we have raged ever since -- the global war on terror." He praised President Donald Trump's policy: "President Trump has already taken decisive action to make the strongest military in the history of the world stronger still." He promised that "this President has made clear that America will stand with our allies and we will stand up to our enemies." He condemned "radical Islamic terrorism," which he called "a hydra with many heads." He criticized "Iran's theocratic rulers." He praised President Trump's very controversial decision to decertify an agreement to slow Iran's nuclear weapons program. Pence promised that, "under the leadership of President Donald Trump, we will drive the cancer of terrorism from the face of the earth."

To know for sure whether those policies are right or wrong goes beyond the skill set of a retired speech professor like me. They are, however, all controversial. Good arguments could probably be made for or against any of them. By using epideictic speech, Pence advocated these policies without giving a single concrete reason for any of them. Was Iran complying with the nuclear arms deal? Pence never even said. Would a powerful, modern military be able to stop a radical ideology from spreading? Pence never explained.

What Pence did, instead, was to cite the Marines' bravery, praise their values, and then to announce that Mr. Trump's controversial policies continued to spread those values.

Like Ronald Reagan at Pointe du Hoc, like John McCain speaking about nationalism, like Hillary Clinton speaking at her alma mater, like President Barack Obama advocating gun control in his Charleston speech, like many other epideictic speakers throughout history, Mike Pence slipped directly from values to policy, appealing to tradition rather than to reason. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the audience knows what the speaker is doing.

Was Pence's speech dull? Surely! Did that make it  bad? Maybe not. He said the expected things in the expected manner, making his implied policy arguments harder to argue with. Conservatives -- real conservatives -- often go out of their way to sound solid and traditional. Being solid and traditional becomes part of their ethos. That's a nifty little track that speakers sometimes use.

https://www.facebook.com/marines/videos/10154742711950194/

Mike Pence speaking at Marine Barracks

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

A speaker’s credibility can take years to build, and a moment to destroy.

At the start of training, United States Marine recruits are told: “Be completely honest in everything that you do. A marine never lies, cheats, or compromises.” Retired United States Marine General John Kelly, White House Chief of Staff, involved himself in a dustup on what should have been a minor issue. Apparently, possibly due to poor staff work (which should be General Kelly’s area?), President Donald Trump delayed almost two weeks to acknowledge the deaths of four United States service personnel in Niger. Instead of fixing the issue quietly, the President accused some of his predecessors of neglecting the same duty.  Unnecessary, but, oh well. Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson then accused President Trump of making a tasteless phone call to one of the Gold Star families. She probably should not have made that public, but, oh well.

John Kelly

Yesterday, however, General Kelly gave a brief speech from the White House in which, after discussing how the military informs and comforts grieving families, he lashed out at Congresswoman Wilson on an unrelated matter. He felt that Ms. Wilson was tasteless during the dedication of the FBI Field Office in Miami, Florida, which was named after FBI Special Agents Jerry Dove and Benjamin Grogan, who died fighting bank robbers in Miami in 1986. 

Unfortunately, General Kelly made several incorrect accusations against Congresswoman Wilson. He said that “In October of 2015, while still on active duty, I went to the dedication of the FBI field office in Miami." He continued that family members and survivors of the gunfight were there. So far, totally off the point, which was supposedly Mr. Trump's handling of the Niger incident, but otherwise OK.

Unfortunately, Kelly didn’t stop there; his voice quivering with indignation, he called Congresswoman Wilson names and made blatantly false accusations against her:

“And the congresswoman stood up and in the long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise stood up there and all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building. And how she took care of her constituents because she got the money. And she just called up President Obama and on that phone call he gave the money, the 20 million dollars to build the building. And she sat down. And we were stunned. Stunned that she'd done it. Even for someone that was that empty a barrel, we were stunned.”

General Kelly then described her speech as “Selfish behavior of a member of Congress.”

However, the Orlando Sentinel found a video of Ms. Wilson’s speech, and it objectively, irrefutably disproves those accusations. First, Wilson did not claim credit for funding the building and did not claim that she called President Obama. She called Speaker of the House John Boehner and told him that the FBI and the country needed to have the building named quickly and she gave Mr. Boehner credit for getting the bill passed. She mentioned that she undertook her efforts at the FBI’s request. She spread credit to several other members of Congress, including Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who was also in the room. She also recognized FBI Director James Comey, FBI agents, agents' families, General Services Administration officials, the head of the FBI Miami field office, and the mayor. The audience did not appear “stunned;” they laughed, applauded, and cheered throughout her speech.

Second, although Ms. Wilson did briefly brag about getting the name adopted, it remains that, contrary to General Kelly’s accusation, she said nothing about the funding. She did not claim to have called President Obama. Ms. Wilson explained that a copy of the bill and the President’s signing pen would be given to FBI. She said that this “speaks to the respect that our Congress has for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The men and women who put their lives on the line every single day.” She greatly praised the agents, especially Special Agents Dove and Grogan. She asked all law enforcement and first responders to stand for applause. “We are proud of you.”

So, in sum, she did not claim credit for funding the building, did not claim to have called President Obama, and did not leave the audience stunned.

Political reaction has been interesting. The Miami Herald noted in detail that General Kelly “was wrong.” The Washington Post called on General Kelly to apologize. The New York Daily News agreed. The San Francisco Chronicle published an AP Fact check showing that he “distorted the facts.” The Sun Sentinel editorialized, "Frederica Wilson is No 'Empty Barrel,' John Kelly."

Yet, the very conservative Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle published an editorial cartoon this morning calling for “John Kelly for Prez 2017.” Now that Kelly has been proven to speak falsely with the correct level of righteous indignation, does that make him qualified to be a Republican President? Really? Conservative columnist Erick Erickson complained that General Kelly “became the subject of attacks from the left,” but cleverly neglected to mention his false accusations against Ms. Wilson. White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that it was wrong to question General Kelly: “If you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that’s something highly inappropriate.” President Trump tweeted, "I hope the Fake News Media keeps talking about Wacky Congresswoman Wilson in that she, as a representative, is killing the Democrat Party." 

Lessons about Public Speaking?

First, although his loyal supporters continue either to defend General Kelly, or at least to ignore his mistakes, his false accusations have been well-publicized and his credibility will never, ever recover. Even if he says something true, his word will now mean less.

Second, ad hominem attacks are no substitute for argument. The underlying issue was whether Mister Trump was doing his job correctly, and calling Ms. Wilson an “empty barrel” – twice – did not defend President Trump. An ad hominem attack's purpose is to divert attention. Even if General Kelly’s attacks had been true, they were off the point.

Third, people hear what they want to hear. Conservative posters on social media have redoubled their personal attacks against Congresswoman Wilson. Doing so defends neither President Trump's oversights nor General Kelly’s mistakes.

Fourth, General Kelly may have relied on his personal memory and did not investigate Congresswoman Wilson’s speech before he spoke. We all remember things wrongly. Speakers, as I have said many times, need research.

Finally, people need to admit it when they make a mistake about something important, and they need the admission to be prompt and cheerful. We all make mistakes. This entire dustup arose because President Trump did not admit that he made a mistake when he delaying commenting about the tragic Niger incident, and General Kelly and the White House staff are making a mistake by not admitting that he was wrong about Congresswoman Wilson. A few moments of honesty would make the entire controversy go away.

P.S.: Special Agents Dove and Grogan died fighting bank robbers, not drug dealers as Kelly said, and it was Special Agent Dove, not Duke. Again, research is good. You're speaking for the White House. Get it right.

 

Quotations from Kelly's and Wilson's speeches are my own transcriptions directly from the videos, and there could be trivial differences from the published versions. 

  Photo: Department of Homeland Security

George W. Bush and the American Vision, Part 2

George W. Bush

Let's continue our discussion of President George W. Bush's speech at the "Spirit of Liberty: At Home, in the World" conference. During that excellent speech, Mr. Bush decried conspiracy rhetoric and fabricated stories: 

"In recent decades, public confidence in our institutions has declined. Our governing class has often been paralyzed in the face of obvious and pressing needs. The American dream of upward mobility seems out of reach for some who feel left behind in a changing economy. Discontent deepened and sharpened partisan conflicts. Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication."

First, yes, Congress and the state legislatures seem unable to pass the most obvious legislation. Congress has abandoned the usual order for legislation: first and second readings, committee hearings, and floor amendments, as described in any high school government text. Instead, leaders write ridiculous bills behind closed doors, and then express wonderment that they don't pass. The American economy has left many people behind, particularly in the nation's heartland, and yet neither those states' voters nor their leaders are willing to face the problems, preferring instead to rattle out absurd conspiracy theories (birthers, Benghazi, and so forth). Just recently, Fox News published an opinion column about a long-discredited conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton. Mr. Bush himself has been the victim of 9/11 truther conspiracy theories, which hold that the World Trade Center collapsed from a controlled demolition and that the huge airliners that everyone saw crash into the buildings had nothing to do with it.

In fact, the Bush administration itself seems to have uttered many statements during the run-up to the Iraq War that turned out to be false. 

When people face problems, appealing to unproven conspiracy theories does not solve them. Although the extreme mistrust that  justifies those theories might be sometimes valid, it is wrong to believe horrible things about people without proper evidence. Real conspiracies do occur, but people should believe them only when they have proof.

My motto is, "truth wins." Truth often takes a long time to win, and it wins best when people will pursue it. Although George W. Bush has been far from perfect, I commend this excellent and important speech.

Please see my earlier post about conspiracy rhetoric.

Department of Defense photo

George W. Bush and the American Vision

George W. Bush

Yesterday, at the "Spirit of Liberty: At Home, in the World" conference, former President George W. Bush spoke for traditional American values and against the growing trend toward nationalism and isolation. Some people interpreted this as an attack against Donald Trump, although Bush never mentioned Trump by name and denied that he was criticizing the current president. Bush stated his thesis:

"We are gathered in the cause of liberty this is a unique moment. The great democracies face new and serious threats – yet seem to be losing confidence in their own calling and competence. Economic, political and national security challenges proliferate, and they are made worse by the tendency to turn inward."

President Donald Trump ran for office on an "America First" theme. Often pictured as a radical departure from American tradition, Mr. Trump's opposition to foreign entanglements and foreign trade actually follows a long-standing political theme. George Washington warned against foreign alliances during his Farewell Address: "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?" John C. Calhoun's "American System" combined public infrastructure projects with trade restrictions. William McKinley won the presidency on an anti free-trade stance, which he held for four years before changing his mind just before his assassination.

Still, President Trump's election campaign took advantage of a what is often called populist unrest. Bush spoke against this, noting that "For more than 70 years, the presidents of both parties believed that American security and prosperity were directly tied to the success of freedom in the world. And they knew that the success depended, in large part, on U.S. leadership." He contrasted "the DNA of American idealism" against "resurgent ethno-nationalism." Bush deplored that many young people lack confidence in our democratic institutions. He diagnosed our nation's problems, in part, as "a deficit of confidence."

I fully agree with Mr. Bush that young people seem to appreciate our democracy less, and often fail even to understand it. I recently retired from many decades of university teaching. All of my students were required to take courses in American history or government. It did not seem to help them very much. I would ask them to name the three branches of government, and counted myself fortunate if one student out of an entire class could do so. Few of them knew what side we fought on during World War II, much less what side we were on during the Vietnam conflict. These deficiencies did not occur because they had not been instructed; the problem is they did not care about these things. They wanted to know how to get a job and how to find a husband or wife. Larger issues of citizenship mattered to them far too little. Thus, the nation became open to populist or even demagogic thinking that denies the American mission and denigrates American democracy.

Finally, was Mr. Bush really criticizing Mr. Trump? After all, Mr. Trump campaigned by saying things that he knew would win votes. The real problem is not the current president; the real problem is that so many people liked what he said. Many people, including millions of people who think they are conservatives, have lost sight of our nation's traditions. It is good for a prominent speaker to remind us what those traditions are and why they matter to all of us.

___________________

Follow-up post:  

Harpine's Thoughts about Public Speaking: George W. Bush and the American Vision, Part 2

John McCain's Speech about "Spurious Nationalism"

Sen. John McCain, US Senate photo

Yesterday, speaking at the United States Constitution Center, United States Senator John McCain, a conservative Republican from Arizona, gave a speech accepting the Liberty Medal, which was presented by his long-time friend, Democratic Senator Joe Biden. Senator McCain talked about the first time he met Senator Biden, when McCain was still a young naval officer, and talked about the sacrifices of American service personnel during World War II. This led him to praise the international order that the United States built following that most terrible of wars. This led him to address national policy. He did not do so by offering detailed, fact-filled policy arguments, but by reminding the audience of the United States' values. This is the epideictic (ceremonial) speaker's classic method: he praised people who are obviously praiseworthy, and advised the audience to learn from them.

Here is an example of the epideictic praise that McCain delivered during the speech:


We are living in the land of the free, the land where anything is possible, the land of the immigrant’s dream, the land with the storied past forgotten in the rush to the imagined future, the land that repairs and reinvents itself, the land where a person can escape the consequences of a self-centered youth and know the satisfaction of sacrificing for an ideal, the land where you can go from aimless rebellion to a noble cause, and from the bottom of your class to your party’s nomination for president. 


He then explained how world stability, marked by justice and prosperity, was made possible by American leadership:



We are blessed, and we have been a blessing to humanity in turn. The international order we helped build from the ashes of world war, and that we defend to this day, has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. This wondrous land has shared its treasures and ideals and shed the blood of its finest patriots to help make another, better world. 

Pearl Harbor Memorial, US Navy photo

This led him, by relentless but unspoken logic, to reject nationalistic policies: "We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil. We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad." He then criticized unnamed persons who spoke for "half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems." He thought that this was "as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history." Senator McCain talked about how World War II veteran George H. W. Bush came to the verge of tears when he spoke at the Pearl Harbor Memorial.

Although Senator McCain did not name names, it is obvious that he was thinking about President Donald Trump's "America First" policy, or the jingoist nationalism that alt-right leader Steve Bannon advocated the other day at the Values Voters Summit. By not naming names, Senator McCain elevated his talk above the kind of crass partisanship that Bannon's speech expressed.

Senator McCain was in a particular position to speak frankly, since he suffers from terrible health problems and will not run for reelection. McCain, however, has always been willing to speak his mind. Some of the things that he said in the past seemed outrageous to me, but, in this case, he was spot-on.

On a side note, Donald Trump said terrible things about Senator McCain during the 2016 election campaign. Did Mr. Trump really expect McCain to knuckle under and not respond? Senator McCain's speech yesterday was a remarkable response: dignified, on-the-point, and inarguable. He made his response without criticizing anyone, without giving detailed arguments, and without rancor, but merely by reminding his audience about the values that Americans fought for.

On a larger note, conservatism is supposed to be about preserving American values. Many people who call themselves conservatives today, especially those who are loudest and most forceful, not only reject but stomp upon the past's hard-learned lessons. Thank you, Senator McCain, for reminding us about them.

Note: epideictic speakers often use methods similar to Senator McCain's. Here are a few of my earlier posts on that same rhetorical theme:

Hillary Clinton speaking about women and girls

Singer Pink and the Power of Pearls

President Trump Awards a Medal of Honor

Steve Bannon's Value Voters Summit Speech: Rhetoric of Polarization

A movement pulled in two directions?

My two previous posts mentioned that Steve Bannon’s Values Voters Summit speech used polarizing rhetoric. I promised to explain polarized rhetoric.

Polarized rhetoric pushes listeners to get out of the middle and pick a side. Although radical speakers often use polarization, it is unusual for powerful people to use it. Instead, powerful people use power to get their way, which, in turn, requires consensus-building. During his speech, Bannon identified himself with the alt-right, a loose collection of extreme right-wing groups that include the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, Richard Spencer’s neo-Nazi movement, certain militia groups, and various others. Although Bannon tried to deny it, these groups all advocate white supremacy. Bannon managed Donald Trump’s campaign during its successful closing months, and served in the White House until his presence became too controversial. Yet, Bannon’s polarized speaking style has not equipped him to lead.

As we will recall from my earlier post, Bannon used war metaphors to describe his conflict with the Republican establishment. Bannon cited Ecclesiastes: “a time of war and a time of peace.” He continued: “this is not my war. This is our war. And ya’ll didn’t start it. The Republican establishment started it.”  He specifically attacked Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and Bob Corker for not sufficiently supporting President Trump’s agenda. Corker had criticized Trump’s White House as “adult day care.”

When people of good will disagree with one another, they might debate, dispute, argue, or yell at one another. They might compromise. When people are at war, however, they try to destroy one another. By declaring war against the Republican establishment, Bannon signified that he was not trying to make deals: his goal, which the cheering crowd apparently shared, was to destroy them. We now have two opposite sides, with conservatives forced to choose one or the other. This is polarization, and it is exactly the effect that radical agitators try to create.

In their excellent book, The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, John Waite Bowers and Donovan Ochs explain that agitation occurs when people who are outside of the power centers work to get major changes that the established authorities resist. Agitation takes five steps:

Step One is “Petition of the establishment.” This is when reasoned persuasion takes place.

Steve Bannon, WH

If petition fails, Step Two is “Promulgation,” when the movement spreads its views. This has been going on for years in the conservative movement, notably among extreme conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Spencer, and, yes, Steve Bannon. Right-wing websites like Breitbart.com, Before It’s News, or Gateway Pundit developed and spread a body of doctrine. For the most part, people of other points of view paid no attention at all to these information sources, so the growing discontent and the arguments that the agitators were making surprised them.

Step Three is “Solidification.” Here, the agitators partially disappear from public view while they further develop their doctrines and persuasive methods.

Step Four is “Polarization.” If the movement has not yet succeeded, then a major effort is made to force people to choose sides. Polarizing rhetoric does not try to get a majority. It tries to force people to choose sides, so that people who side with the radical rhetorician will be extremely committed. Name-calling, insults, and so forth are common tactics. Donald Trump’s name-calling (“Crooked Hillary” or “Little Marco”) was typical.

Step Five is “Escalation/confrontation.” This is where the radical makes unreasonable demands, tries to create disruptions, or behaves offensively. This stage's purpose is to increase polarization. Frustrated by the demands of leadership, Bannon’s speech was starting this stage by, for example, trying to expel insufficiently motivated conservatives like Corker and McConnell.

The next two stages, steps six and seven, involve increasing violence. It is, sadly, possible that we will reach that point. (Was Charlottesville a start?) Remember that the anti-Vietnam war movement often became violent.

What Bannon did not seem to grasp is that his revolution has succeeded. Donald Trump won the presidency and very conservative Republicans control Congress. Nevertheless, President Trump’s populist agenda does not seem to be worked out well enough that he can implement it. Congress is reluctant to approve radical new laws unless the president exercises far more leadership than what Mr. Trump exerts. Here we run into a basic problem that Bannon failed to understand: once you win, you need to lead. Once you are elected, you are no longer an outsider; you are now the establishment. Repeal and replace Obamacare? But replace it with what? No one seems to know! Implement tax reform to help the middle-class? But what kind of tax reform? The one-time agitators do not seem to have a plan.

While polarizing their hearts out, right-wing agitators have, in recent years, often announced that they are co-opting the ideas in radical left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals. They don’t seem to have read the whole book. Alinsky explains: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” It is not enough to win; you also need a plan for victory. President Trump should be able to get any legislation that he wants, but he needs to work with Congress to present constructive, detailed ideas. This requires much different skills from those of a polarizing persuader. I noted in my previous posts that Bannon spoke about values, but never said what his values are. This is the larger problem: Bannon and Trump knew how to win, and wisely identified legitimate discontents that troubled Republican voters, but they have no plan to solve those discontents. Radicals need to polarize to win, but they need consensus to lead.  

For more information about Bowers and Ochs’ theory, see this excellent website by Professor Lee McGann of Monmouth University. The updated edition of Bowers and Ochs book is still in print and highly recommended.