Trump versus Merkel: Sort of Not Talking about the Future of NATO

On May 25, 2017, United States President Donald Trump gave an important speech during his first meeting with the leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Shortly after, German Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered what we must see as a startling rebuke to Trump’s position (or, more accurately, to Trump’s lack of position). NATO has, of course, been the Western democracies' bulwark of peace and stability. The NATO treaty calls for an attack on any one nation to be an attack on all. This provision has only been invoked once, when NATO went to war in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks against the United States. Trump's speech was fine, except for what he did not say, and a minor international dispute erupted.

Donald Trump, WH photo

First, Trump's speech. After a brief introduction, Trump observed a moment of silence for victims of the Manchester attack. He remembered the sacrifice of the NATO allies, who "responded swiftly and decisively." In a curious choice of words, Trump termed the terrorists to be "killers and extremists -- and, yes, losers." He reviewed that he objected to terrorism when he met with the Muslim leaders earlier in his trip. He expressed hope that the world could "defeat terrorism, a common threat to all of humanity." He called for increased "focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO's eastern and southern borders." He reminded the leaders that most NATO members were not spending the agreed 2% of GDP on defense, which he sad was "not fair tot he people and taxpayers of the United States." So far, well and good. 

But international attention focused on what he did not say. Unlike the other leaders, he did not reiterate the United States' commitment to  treat an attack on any of them to be an attack on the United States. Conservative opinion write Charles Krauthammer called Trump's speech a "disaster." He explained that "The world was waiting for Trump to say, 'I support Article 5,'" and Trump didn't say it. Article 5 is, of course, NATO's heart.

The important point here is not what Trump said, but what he didn't say. 

Second, European leaders immediately noticed what Trump didn't say.  Speaking at a beer hall rally, which seems to be a German tradition, Merkel, without mentioning Trump by name, said that Europeans "must take our fate into our own hands." She also said thata "We have to know tthat we must fight for our future on our own, for our desitiny as Europeans." This was a clear admission that Europe can no longer count on America.

Two dramatic speeches, that made their points by not saying things that you would expect them to say.

PS: Chapter 7 of my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page, talks about how McKinley made a point by specifically not talking about something important.

Hillary Clinton at Wellesley College Commencement: Then and Now, Part 1

On May 26, 2017, Hillary Rodham Clinton gave the commencement address at her alma mater, Wellesley College. In 1969, she was chosen by her peers to give the student speech at her own commencement.

The press typically characterized her 2017 speech as an attack against Donald Trump. It was, sort of. Let's look at that, but also look at how these two commencement speeches were in most ways typical ceremonial speeches that addressed basic human values.

Now, the 2017 speech did make some oblique references to Trump's rhetoric. Yet, these were undercurrents. She never mentioned names. For example, she commented, "when people in power invent their own facts and attack those who question them, it can mark the beginning of the end of a free society." I imagine that the audience immediately thought about Trump advisor's Kellyanne Conway's statement that White House claims that Trump's inauguration brought the biggest crowd ever were defensible: "You're saying it's a falsehood. And they're giving -- Sean Spicer, our press secretary -- gave alternative facts." Of course, everyone who was interested could see the photographs proving otherwise. Yet, Clinton did not mention Trump, Conway, Spicer, or even the exact incident. She let the audience draw the inference.

Hillary Clinton, DOS photo

Clinton continued on the theme.  She cited late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "everyone," she said, "is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts." She commented that "You are graduating at a time when there is a full-fledged assault on truth and reason." To prove this, she mentioned conspiracy theories, including the ridiculous "hurtful conspiracy theories about child abuse rings operating out of pizza parlors." Clinton herself had been the victim of that accusation, which, although utterly unfounded, and patently ridiculous, had found many committed believers.

Commenting on the political situation in 1969, Clinton said: "We were furious about the past presidential election of a man whose presidency would eventually end in disgrace with his impeachment for obstruction of justice. After firing the person running the investigation into him at the Department of Justice." This was an obvious reference to Richard Nixon. However, no one could miss the parallel to Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey.
 
So, the press in the audience was reading things into her speech. And she obviously wanted people to read things into her speech. All the same, she never mentioned Trump. Her accusations were more along the lines of, if the shoe fits, wear it. That is, she commented on certain things that should not be done, and left it for the audience to figure out that Trump was doing these things.This was much classier than making a direct attack, and probably more effective. It is unfortunate in some ways that the subtle nature of her criticisms escaped most news reporters, who treated her speech as a "firey" assault.

In Part 2, I will talk about how Clinton's two commencement speeches were classic ceremonial speeches, and compare the two of them more explicitly. Stay tuned!


PS: I have been posting about unjustified conspiracy theories for some time, since these have become a blight on American democracy. Real conspiracies are bad, but false accusations of conspiracy are equally bad.

Free Speech on Campus? It Happened Again!

In a protest that turned violent, conservatives demonstrated. against a commencement speech by Linda Sarsour. A leader of the protest (who did not himself encourage violence) was right-wing speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, who has himself been the target of campus protests. Sarsour, a Muslim, is considered to be a progressive speaker who believes that Sharia law is misunderstood. Prior to her speech, she was the subject of an opinion column by Sterling Beard on the Fox News website objecting to her speech.

Now, I do disagree with a number of Sarsour's views. Apparently, however, fabricated conspiracy theories have made Sarsour seem to be quite evil.

College, as conservatives like to remind us, should encourage diverse viewpoints. That you disagree with a speaker is no reason to avoid that speaker.

This has to stop. Let people speak. Listen to one another. You can listen to people with whom you disagree. If you think they are wrong, give a better speech in response. If you are a liberal, listen to conservatives. If you are a conservative, listen to liberals.

See my earlier post about free speech on campus here, here, here, and here.

How Not to Be Fooled by Unjustified Conspiracy Theories

Follow-up to my conspiracy theory post: Informed people get their news from multiple sources. If you only tune in to the conservative network Fox News, or only trust the liberal Huffington Post, you will only get one viewpoint. I advise everyone to follow multiple news agencies, and to seek out agencies that have different viewpoints. People who get their information from only one source, or only from similar sources (Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are not counter-checks!) may be more vulnerable to making mistakes.

Otherwise, if people have only heard one point of view, they will believe that point of view even if it is illogical or uninformed. Otherwise, listeners end up in what Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Capella call an "echo chamber."

Public speakers, in particular, have an obligation to tell the truth, whole and in context. Getting information from multiple sources is step one.

Conspiracy Theories Rise Again: The Case of Blake Farenthold

Texas Congressional Representative Blake Farenthold seemed to endorse a bizarre conspiracy theory about the murder of Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich. No surprise. Many, maybe most, Americans entertain at least one unjustified conspiracy theory. Was the moon landing faked? Did Sandy Hook really happen? Who killed JFK? Was 9/11 an inside job? In a 2016 Farleigh Dickson University PublicMind Poll, about 46% of respondents believe that it was definitely or possible true that "President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened." In the same poll, 60% believed it to be true or possibly true that Hillary Clinton knew about the Benghazi attacks in advance. These beliefs are beyond silly, yet they spread.

Odd and implausible conspiracy theories have been around for a long time, as in this book about Feemasons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies--conspiracy theories that are, of course, still with us today. Note that the author had academic credentials and claimed to have "good authorities."

Recently, an unusually thin conspiracy theory holds that Seth Rich was murdered to cover up his supposed complicity in the hack of the DNC computers, which responsible authorities attribute to the Russian government. Fox News published a story about the unproven conspiracy theory, which they removed, rather tardily, six days later. Fox News commentator Sean Hannity also spread the conspiracy theory on his show. The conservative National Review called Hannity's conspiracy theory "shameful nonsense."

Not to be outdone, Rep. Farenthold implied to CNN that the Trump-Russia investigation was a distraction from the real story, which was that the hack of the DNC computer was "insider job." He justified this claim by saying that "There's stuff circulating on the Internet," and explaining that the Washington DC police had not studied Rich's computer themselves, but had used a contractor to examine the computer.

Farenthold obviously offered very thin evidence for a conspiracy. Unjustified conspiracy theories like this arise from minor anomalies and unanswered questions. In Rich's case, one unanswered question is why the mugger who attacked him did not take his wristwatch. That's not enough evidence to prove a conspiracy.

It is important to stop real conspiracies, but it is also important not to believe unproven ones. The all-time most popular post on my blog gives criteria for telling whether a conspiracy is real. Here are some especially critical criteria:

1. People who allege a conspiracy need to provide evidence for it.
2. Unanswered questions and anomalies are not evidence; at most, they give reason for more investigation.
3. It is part of the human condition that we don't know everything, and that even the best factual proof can leave room for error. 
3. Conspiracy theorists must respond in good faith when their questions are answered.
4. You can't prove that the government is evil just by spewing out unproven conspiracy theories.

Real, large-scale conspiracies are actually very rare, simply because one of the conspirators will want to talk and provide evidence. People want to tell their stories.

Why do conspiracy theories spread so easily? I'll talk about that in a few days.

Oprah Winfrey at Skidmore College, May 20, 2017

It's commencement season!

Actress Oprah Winfrey presented the commencement address at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York. "I want to talk about my dream for you because I have been so blessed to live inside the dream of God." She said she figured out that she had learned "how to lean into life." She talked about choices to fulfill their lives. She assured the graduates that they had learned how to "make the right choices." She drew a personal connection: a member of her Leadership Academy was graduating that day.

She stated her thesis at the outset: "Every decision I've ever made that led me to the right space and place in my life, I got there because I relied on that inner voice, the truth of me." She related personal experiences about her own decisions that she made according to her instincts and "inner voice." This is very important. Like many graduation speakers, Winfrey was making very abstract points. To illustrate those points with stories makes them come alive.

Winfrey also introduced the concept of "intention." It is not just a matter of what someone does or seeks, but also what their intention is. Winfrey illustrated this point by discussing a horrifying example of teenage domestic violence. She explained that she makes every decision only after getting in touch with her own inner intentions. "There is nothing more powerful," she explained, "than you using your personality to serve the calling of your soul. Everyone of us has been called to the planet . . .  to use more of you to bring forth the light." She emphasized that people are spiritual beings. This is not, she said, not necessarily religion, but rather a contact with one's inner self.

Speaking techniques: Winfrey repeated the phrase "inner voice" frequently throughout the speech. Beginning speakers might be reluctant to repeat themselves. This is tricky, as a speaker doesn't want to ramble. But Winfrey's artful repetition reinforced her theme. She spoke very slowly, carefully emphasizing words with her voice: never speaking loudly, but pausing, stretching out important words, and varying speed: sometimes a bit faster, sometimes very slow. People often take you more seriously when you speak slowly. She paused frequently, and some of the pauses were very long. Just as I urged my students for many years, Winfrey marked the sections of her speech with clear, sharp transitions. Vivid personal stories illustrated her points.

A good ceremonial speech is never mere fluff. The idea of a good commencement speech is to honor the graduates, but also to address basic values to live by. Oprah Winfrey is much in demand as a commencement speaker. She is always a good choice.

President Trump's Weekly Radio Address of May 12, 2017

Like many of his recent predecessors, President Donald Trump gives a weekly radio address. On May 12, 2017, with the James Comey firing dominating the news, Trump gave a rambling address that ignored the firing to talk about jobs and the military academies.

Why do Presidents give radio addresses? Ratings suggest that Mr. Trump is getting about 1.7 million views, which is more than Obama's addresses, but not really a lot. General thoughts: Trump is said to enjoy the addresses. Traditionally, presidents can use the radio address to talk about important, but boring, issues that a president is expected to discuss, but which no one really wants to hear about. The president can then, if challenged, say that he is not distracted and that he has been discussing real issues. That few people listen to his radio speeches isn't the point. The Democrats dutifully issue a weekly response, to which hardly anyone tunes in.

Donald Trump's radio address, 5/12/17

Beginning his brief May 12 speech, Mr. Trump said, "Confidence in the American economy has reached levels not seen in many, many years." He cited 211,000 new jobs created last month. He quickly transitioned to the students graduating from school: "Our economic progress is especially good news for the millions of young Americans who, at this time of year, are putting on a cap and gown and receiving a diploma, certificate, or commission." He mentioned that he would be giving commencement addresses at the Coast Guard Academy and Liberty University. "To young Americans at both schools," he continued, "I will be bringing a message of hope and optimism about our nation's bright future."

He continued with standard conservative talking points about about reversing "years of stagnant growth, falling wages, and disappearing jobs." He promised that "We are rolling back the job-killing regulations that make it harder for companies to grow and hire in America." He then offered congratulations to the year's graduates, and promised that "The brightest days are ahead of you."

This address discussed nothing new, and Mr. Trump carefully avoided the week's controversies. On the one hand, what a speaker doesn't say can be as important as what the speaker does say. I make this point in Chapter 7 of my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Presidential Campaign. That Mr. Trump did not talk about Mr. Comey may have been the main point. On the other hand, Trump used this speech to set the agenda, to refocus public attention on economic issues. Mr. Trump was having a difficult week. The Comey controversy was not going to go away but, still, it was not a bad idea for Mr. Trump to bring up a positive vision.

Donald Trump Speaks to the NRA: Polarizing the Audience

Every public speaking textbook tells speakers to adapt to their audience. President Donald Trump did just that in his April 28, 2017 Atlanta speech to the National Rifle Association Leadership Forum. He used the well-known speech method of polarization, as explained by radical organizer Saul Alinsky.  This tactic has served Mr. Trump well so far. Why should he change now?

Trump understood his audience, and addressed their ideas, fears, and solutions directly. That is, Mr. Trump said things that his audience loved to hear, and which were part and parcel of standard pro-gun rights doctrine. For example, he tied all gun control efforts to tyranny and accused gun control advocates of trying to destroy the Second Amendment: "Every day, we are up against those who would take away our freedoms, restrict our liberties, and even those who want to abolish the Second Amendment.  We must be vigilant." Vigilance is, of course, a standard conservative value.

Donald Trump at NRA, WH video

Trump's audience would consider his frightening warning to be familiar and true. A 2013 Fairleigh Dickinson poll found that 44% of Republicans felt that an armed revolution might be necessary to protect American freedom, and that over 30% of Republicans felt the government was hiding information about the Sandy Hook shootings. Democrats were much less likely to hold such beliefs. Many liberals would consider these views to be absurd. This gives the polarizing speaker an opportunity. Trump was not talking to liberals: he was polarizing. That is, he was only talking to the believers. His method was to unite his very friendly  audience against threats that worried them. Liberals are probably only vaguely aware that most conservatives consider guns to be basic to liberty. To the right wing, guns are essential.

During his speech, Mr. Trump talked about the ride of Paul Revere. He tied American Revolutionary history to gun rights: "Since the first generation of Americans stood strong at Concord, each generation to follow has answered the call to defend freedom in their time. That is why we are here today: To defend freedom for our children. To defend the liberty of all Americans. And to defend the right of a free and sovereign people to keep and bear arms." This is absolutely standard right-wing, pro-gun rhetoric. The audience had heard all of this before, loved it when Trump said it, and responded enthusiastically to it. Mr. Trump's position is debatable historically, but many NRA conventioneers would take his view as gospel truth. The audience's pre-existing attitudes almost guaranteed that Trump's rambling speech would be a great success with them.

Trump promised to end the "eight-year assault on the 2nd Amendment, which many NRA members attribute to former President Obama.  For example, in 2011, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre had written that "the Obama administration . . . hatched a political conspiracy to deceive Americans and hide its true agenda to dismantle the Second Amendment and our freedom."  To people who agree with Mr. LaPierre--and millions of Americans do--Mr. Trump's speech promised to end a threat and to restore a secure social and political order.

The idea of polarization, as discussed, for example, in John Waite Bowers, Donovan Ochs, Richard J. Jensen, and David P. Schulz' important book, The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, is to divide public opinion sharply. A polarizing speaker gets people out of the middle: listeners either love the speaker's ideas or hate them. Polarizing rhetoric offends most people and drives them away. However, the minority of people who agree with the polarizing speaker become more active and more committed to the cause. People who disagreed with Mr. Trump probably thought that his NRA speech was utterly unhinged. A column in the liberal Huffington Post said that "The truth is that Trump came to the NRA meeting, talked for 28 minutes and didn’t say anything at all" and that Trump "babbled." This is what happens when a speaker is polarizing: the speech mobilizes supporters, while offending everyone else. PolitiFact found that Trump quite misrepresented Paul Revere's experience, but who cares? Facts weren't the point.

Polarizing rhetoric appeals only to a vocal minority. Why does it work so well for Mr. Trump, who used polarizing rhetoric to come to power and continues to use it to pursue his agenda? How can an appeal to the minority viewpoint gain power in a republic? It obviously did. I'll talk more about that in the future.

P.S.: for some background info, see my article about Washington, Jefferson, and gun rights.