Trump's Speech to Law Enforcement: For Brutality? Or Not? Did He Mean What He Said?

President Donald Trump spoke to a group of law enforcement officials on July 28. Although Trump rambled a bit – which seems to happen when he doesn't have a good prepared text – his main theme was to criticize the criminal organization MS-13. Most of the speech reviewed standard talking points familiar from the conservative movement or Trump's previous public speeches: support the police, Make America Great Again, restrict immigration because immigrants are often criminals. He threw a criticism of Obamacare into the speech. No big surprises there. But did he give a dog whistle to police violence?

Here's what caused controversy in one passage, Trump appeared to endorse police brutality:

Now, we're getting them out anyway, but we'd like to get them out a lot faster.  And when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon -- you just see them thrown in, rough -- I said, please don’t be too nice.  (Laughter.)  Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over?  Like, don’t hit their head and they've just killed somebody -- don't hit their head.  I said, you can take the hand away, okay?  (Laughter and applause.)

Donald Trump, WH photo

"Please don't be too nice." "You can take the hand away, okay?" Of course, we've all seen similar incidents on fictional TV shows, have we not? Trump seemed to reject using minimal force and treating everybody, including criminal suspects, with compassion. Judging from the audience's reaction, at least some of the law enforcement officials found that amusing.


The International Association of Police Chiefs promptly published a blog post detailing the humane use of force in law-enforcement situations. This sounded like a gentle rebuke of Trump's comments. Of course, most police departments want to establish good community relationships, which are not encouraged when brutality is practiced – and then publicized by the President of the United States. The Breitbart website predictably defended Trump's speech, although their article didn't mention the business about not being too nice or taking the hand away. The conservative Cato Institute objected to Trump's speech. Although traditional media sources expressed outrage, Trump appealed to his base.

At the same time, Trump's comments were just ambiguous enough to be deniable. He didn't say, "Beat up your suspects." What made his rhetorical tactic work? First, Trump spent quite a bit of time talking about MS-13's victims. He talked about the gang's brutality and viciousness. He gave many examples of people MS-13 members had tortured and murdered. Why, he implied, do people like this deserve compassion? Of course, MS-13 is truly an unpleasant bunch, so Trump had plenty of material to work with. Trump praised MS-13's victims, condemned the criminals, and tied his entire discussion back to the need for a stricter immigration policy.

So, Trump was just clear enough to get the message across. He seemed to advocate police violence, which was, he implied, justified by the criminal's viciousness. If the criminals are really nasty, which MS-13 obviously is, why do they deserve compassion? All things considered, a classic set of rhetorical techniques.

At the same time, with my own background in debating, I much prefer speakers who say what they want people to believe outright and explicitly, and I get very frustrated when speakers use dog-whistle arguments to evade responsibility for their beliefs. Real tough guys' rhetoric, let us remember, starts with: say what you mean, and mean what you say. Not "hint at something bad and deny it later."


Update: various police chiefs condemn President Trump's remarks. 

Update 8/1/2017: Trump says he was just joking. See my post above: Trump said something that was outrageous but deniable.  

Trump's Speech To the Boy Scout Jamboree: How Not to Give a Ceremonial Speech

Donald Trump spoke to the Boy Scout Jamboree yesterday, July 24, 2017. The speech has been widely criticized as a campaign rally-style speech unsuited to the Boy Scout event. Comments include, "Everything that the BSA stands for was discredited today by the speech and the reaction from many attendees." Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, a scout leader himself, tweeted that Trump's speech was "downright icky." Criticism of the speech has been reported as far away as Australia and Great Britain.

I myself am a former Boy Scout and Assistant Scoutmaster; my son was an Eagle Boy Scout, and my

Donald Trump, WH photo

grandson is active in scouting. To be clear, I am not currently a member of any scouting organization and have no standing to speak on behalf of Boy Scouts of America.

Trump's speech was inappropriate, even shocking, in several respects. Consider, first, his introduction: "Who the hell wants to speak about politics?" Obviously, one does not curse in a speech to a group of Boy Scouts. Second, Trump repeatedly went off-script to talk about politics in the crassest fashion that can be imagined. Third, he denigrated Scouting's religious diversity. No grown man should speak to a group of children and teenagers in such a manner.

A ceremonial speaker usually praises a person, group, event, or object, and uses that praise to draw a larger lesson. It is not unusual for ceremonial speakers to talk about policy questions, but they usually do so within the context of teaching a larger value to uplift the audience. This is very much what Trump did not do.

Trump's speech did a few, very few, things right:

Admittedly, Trump did include plenty of praise for the Boy Scouts, for example:

"You are the young people of character, integrity who will serve as leaders of our communities and uphold the sacred values of our nation."

"Boy Scout values are American values. And great Boy Scouts become great, great Americans."

"Last year you gave more than 15 million hours of service to helping people in your communities. Incredible. That's an incredible start."

Trump's speech did many things very, very wrong:

Unfortunately, Trump speech's also included plenty of crude politicking. He bragged about his election victory over Hillary Clinton:

"We won and won. So when they said, there is no way to victory; there is no way to 270. You know I went to Maine four times because it's one vote, and we won. We won. One vote. I went there because I kept hearing were to 69. Then Wisconsin came in. Many, many years. Michigan came in."

"Wisconsin hadn't been won in many, many years by a Republican. But we go to Wisconsin, and we had tremendous crowds. And I'd leave these massive crowds, I'd say, why are we going to lose the state? The polls, that's also fake news. They're fake polls." 

Seeming to assume that the Boy Scouts (who are generally under 18 years of age) all voted for him, he repeated his campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" (which implies that America wasn't already great):

"So I have to tell you, what we did, in all fairness, is an unbelievable tribute to you and all of the other millions and millions of people that came out and voted for make America great again."

He spoke against the Affordable Care Act, but not in the oblique fashion that is typical of ceremonial rhetoric. Instead he spoke in partisan terms:

"Secretary Tom Price is also here today. Dr. Price still lives the Scout oath, hoping to keep millions of Americans strong and healthy as our secretary of Health and Human Services. And he's doing a great job. And hopefully he's going to gets [sic] the votes tomorrow to start a path toward killing this horrible thing known as Obamacare that's really hurting us." 

Seemingly ignorant of Scouting's policy of being religious but nonsectarian, Trump said:

"And by the way, under the Trump administration you'll be saying "Merry Christmas" again when you go shopping, believe me."

Near the end of his speech, Trump returned to the usual idea of ceremonial oratory, which was to encourage the audience toward uplifting behavior:

"Let your scouting oath guide your path from this day forward. Remember your duty, honor your history, take care of the people God put into your life, and love and cherish your great country."  

That was too little, much too late.

Why Trump was in the wrong:

Australian philosophy professor Rob McCormack comments that ceremonial rhetoric "is in fact a fundamental political discourse, a discourse intent on re-founding political discourse, a discourse intent on re-founding and renewing a sense of community." Seeking division and self-aggrandizement, Trump's speech did the opposite, by dividing us from people of our own kind.

Reactions to Trump's speech have been quite negative, and rightly so. 

Trump ignored ceremonial speaking's ancient conventions, and, while speaking about Boy Scout values, repudiated those same values by the way he spoke. That members of the audience cheered, applauded, and booed during Trump's most outrageous statements is quite disturbing, and represented the increasing and negative polarization that has poisoned our nation's rhetoric. The audience's only correct response would have been to greet Trump's hostility with stony silence.

On the larger issue, Boy Scouts have always tried to be an inclusive organization (although they have only partially overcome their struggles with the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals). Although Boy Scouts are a religiously-focused organization, they have long welcomed members of many different faiths: not just Christians who might want to say "Merry Christmas." Boy Scouts can earn religious emblems in countless faiths, including Buddhism, Islam, Zoroastrian, Baha'i, Catholicism, United Methodist, African Methodist Episcopal, and many, many others. Boy Scouts are explicitly non-political. By violating the expectations of the event, Trump politicized Boy Scouting, and I see no good coming from his speech.

It should be mentioned that Barack Obama, who was booed during Trump's speech, was a member of the Indonesian Scouting organization. Donald Trump was not a Scout.

Boy Scouts of America subsequently offered a statement: "The Boy Scouts of America is wholly non-partisan and does not promote any one position, product, service, political candidate or philosophy. The invitation for the sitting U.S. President to visit the National Jamboree is a long-standing tradition and is in no way an endorsement of any political party or specific policies. The sitting U.S. President serves as the BSA's honorary president. It is our long-standing custom to invite the U.S. President to the National Jamboree."

That statement is a beginning. The world eagerly awaits hearing Boy Scouts of America deliver a more vigorous, value-driven response to Trump's outrageous speech.

Update: See additional Boy Scouts of America response. 

Update 8/2/2017: Did Trump receive a congratulatory phone call from a BSA leader? Fake news? Fake phone calls?   

Update 8/2/2017 WH spokesperson admits Trump did not get a congratulatory phone call from BSA as he claimed, says "I wouldn't say it was a lie."  Was it just an "alternative fact?"  

John Mackey Talks about Amazon Merger: A Lively Business Speech

John Mackey of Whole Foods gave an interesting speech at a town hall with the Whole Foods community. He talked about Whole Foods recent merger with Amazon. Mackey's speech got favorable press. The merger between Whole Foods and Amazon has already created controversy. (Since I'm not a businessperson, I have no comment as to whether the merger is or is not good.) Fortunately for those of us who like to study speeches, the SEC filing included a complete transcript of Mackey's speech. Let's take a look.

We all love food!

First, Mackey obviously gave his speech extemporaneously. Unlike many of the boring speeches that we hear from less dynamic business people (not to mention boring politicians), Mackey gave the impression that he wanted to interact openly and enthusiastically. This is obvious from his casual, conversational speaking style. For example: "But without a doubt, this is utterly amazing. We will look back on this day, a few years from now. And we will be— I hope, as excited as— as I am today. And that’s the first emotion I kinda wanna communicate to you. I am, like, super, super excited. (APPLAUSE)." This is not the kind of statement that comes from a prepared transcript read from a Teleprompter. What the speaker lacked in polish, he gained by interacting. This made him sound much more sincere.

Second, the speaker made an interesting an analogy between the merger and a marriage! This helped him to explain some of the intricacies of the merger process, but it also put the merger in a positive light. Marriage sounds good, whereas talking about collusion, business trusts, or monopolies might sound bad. Words matter, and Mackey chose words very well."It was actually mutual friends set us up on a blind date. (LAUGHTER)," he said by way of narrative. Continuing: "And — Jason Buechel and Ken Meyer and David Lannon and I flew up to Seattle a little over six weeks ago. And— it— we just fell in love. It was truly love at first sight. (LAUGHTER)." This was not elegant speech. It was, instead, effective speech.

"This was a whirlwind courtship," he said. He continued to refer to the initial contacts as "blind date" followed by an engagement. Explaining that there is still more work to do before the merger could conclude, he continued the analogy to marriage: "But like an old traditional marriage, where there are all kinds of rules and chaperones, we can’t consummate the marriage, (LAUGHTER) until we’re actually officially hooked up."  All of this sounded light-hearted, familiar, positive, and proper.

Third, he offered reassurance. Change is disturbing, and a merger could make employees feel very uncomfortable.He took time to reassure the Whole Foods workers about the future. He said that he would continue as CEO. He discussed the consultants who will assist with the project, and talked about how the merger was "gonna be such a good thing for customers." He praised Amazon for long-term thinking, which, as we know, can be in short supply in the business community. He reassured the employees that, "as the companies are integrated, there'll be opportunities for many of you, if you are interested in them." And he finally asked the audience to "trust me." Near the end of the talk, he said, "So dreams are powerful things."

So: enthusiasm; extemporaneous, conversational style; and an interesting, positive analogy.

Department of Agriculture photo, via Wikimedia

Trump at the Faith and Freedom Coalition's Road to Majority Conference, Part 2

I'm a bit slow getting back to this, but I promised to say more about the link between conservative Christianity and conservative politics. This came up (again) during President Donald Trump's speech at the 2017 Faith and Freedom Coalition's Road to Majority Conference. Trump pointed out that he received 81% of the votes from White Evangelical Christians. He jokingly asked, "I want to know, who are the 19 percent?  Who are they?  (Laughter.)  Where do they come from?" Apparently, he half-expected all of them to support him!

Donald Trump, WH photo

It is a complicated question why conservative Christians often support conservative political issues. It is not a necessary link; Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are just two examples of conservative Protestant Christians who support more liberal policies. Presumably, those former presidents were part of the 19% that Trump joked about. Furthermore, African-American and Hispanic Evangelical Christians did not generally support Mr. Trump during the 2016 election. In part, I suppose, if you are conservative in one way, it makes sense to be conservative in another.

An obvious link, however, is that President Trump supported Christianity by attacking radical Islam. Also, he strongly supported conservative Christians' place in the political arena: "As long as I'm President, no one is going to stop you from practicing your faith or from preaching what is in your heart and from preaching -- and really, this is so important -- from the bottom of my heart -- from preaching from the people that you most want to hear and that you so respect.  So we have taken a very, very strong position, and you picked a winner.  (Applause.)" Mr. Trump also brought up traditional Christian social morality: "We recite today the words of Isaiah Chapter 1, Verse 17:  “Learn to do right; seek justice.  Defend the oppressed.  Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow."

Then there is the simple issue of juxtaposition, a common rhetorical technique. Put two things side-by-side, and they seem to go to together. Although Mr. Trump did talk about religious issues, many of which are central to conservative Christian churches, he mixed these with standard conservative talking points such as suppressing immigration, eliminating government regulations, and appointing conservative Supreme Court justices. None of these issues bore any immediate or obvious connection to Christianity. But they were sprinkled in among points that Christians often care about, making his entire issues package seem like an endorsement of his audience's religious views.

The connection between religion and politics gets complicated, however, and I'm still trying to learn more about it.

Mark Twain's 1886 Fourth of July Speech

Happy birthday, United States of America! It is once again time for us to talk about ceremonial speeches.

Samuel Clemens (also known as Mark Twain) gave a Fourth of July speech in Keokuk, Iowa in 1886. Well, the actual celebration in Keokuk was on July 3, but who's being picky?

Unfortunately, since President Donald Trump's Fourth of July speech this year was a disappointing partisan screed, we need to look to the past. Samuel Clemens is on record for a couple of interesting Fourth of July speeches. They were both witty, inspiring, and a tiny bit whimsical. But they were not cynical in the nasty way that people get cynical today. (Ironically, the nation was actually much more polarized in 1886 – only 13 years after the Civil War – but people seemed to be able to put this aside on Independence Day.)

Samuel Clemens

Clemens made the short trip from Missouri to Keokuk to visit relatives. The celebration began with ringing bells and a 13-gun salute at sunrise. A parade marched across town just before noon. Fireworks went off at about lunchtime. A local Union Army veteran, Congressional Representative Thomas Hedge, Jr., delivered the main address, which lasted about 30 minutes. Clemens then gave his short presentation. He spoke in his usual tongue-in-cheek style: "I little thought that when the boys woke me with their noise this morning that I should be called upon to add to their noise." I assume that the noise came from the bells and cannon. Clemens praised the Declaration of Independence "with its majestic ending, which is worthy to live forever."

Clemens' praise of our nation's founding did not conclude his praise of the nation. Unlike many patriots, who only look to the past, Clemens also praised the nation's magnificent progress: "I have not heard much mention made of the progress of these last few years – of the telegraph, telephone, phonograph, and other great inventions." Indeed, Clemens said, "There is more done in one year now than Methuselah ever saw in all his life." 

Clemens being Clemens, he included a bit of humor, mentioning that "old King George the III" was "a fossilized monarch . . . Who has been dead these many years." He praised Hedge's speech for his "eloquent language" and commented that the celebration marked "a successful day." It was worth everybody's while to take a full day to celebrate the nation and remember its virtues. That made for a "successful day."

After Clemens' speech, the Keokuk Military band played a final selection. Good for them! We need more live music today! The newspaper account says that the audience received Clemens' speech with laughter and applause.

What was wonderful about Clemens' speech? The event was a celebration. The nation's values were reinforced. The speaker looked to the future. Everybody was optimistic. They had less to be optimistic about than we do today in our richer but more cynical times, but optimism prevailed above all.

In the past – not too long in the past – everybody expected to hear a Fourth of July speech during  patriotic celebrations. When my family went to see fireworks in Fairfax, Virginia in the 1960s, we always heard a Fourth of July speech, given by the mayor or a local war hero who talked about the nation's founding values, the importance of self-sacrifice. They always quoted Thomas Jefferson (we were in Virginia, after all!). Today, our patriotic celebrations go directly from barbecue to the fireworks, omitting the substance. What is the holiday really about? That is pretty much forgotten, or lost in partisanship. What a shame.

Declaration of Independence

Ceremonial speeches are not fluff. Ceremonial speeches like the one that Clemens gave in Keokuk reinforce our common values and remind us how we should live our personal and political lives. Ceremonial speeches help to create and preserve our common heritage.


PS: Clemens mentioned the Declaration of Independence's "majestic ending." Just to be reminded, here is that majestic ending, which pledged group loyalty toward a common goal: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."


Image of Samuel Clemens via Wikimedia. Image of Declaration of Independence from National Archives.

President Trump's Weekly Address, June 30, 2017

Following his predecessors' practice, President Donald Trump has been giving a weekly address that is typically broadcast on the radio. This is the new media age, so the speeches are also posted on the White House website and YouTube.

Donald Trump's weekly address, 6/30/17

Mr. Trump's June 30, 2017 Weekly Address discussed steps that Congress was starting to take to prevent crime by illegal immigrants. The first was Kate's law, which, if adopted, will criminalize the practice of reentering the country illegally and repeatedly. Currently, entering the country without documentation is usually treated as a civil, not a criminal, offense. Trump's argument was that some of these undocumented immigrants are committing violent crimes, and they need to be stopped. In Reaganesque fashion, Trump supported this law with an atypical but very emotional example: "The first bill, Kate’s Law," he said,  "is named for Kate Steinle, who was killed by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times."

The second, much more controversial, bill that Mr. Trump advocated is entitled the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (NSCA); it would terminate federal grants to local governments that offer sanctuary to what Trump called in his speech "dangerous criminal aliens." The NSCA is more controversial because it appears to interfere with states' rights, which conservatives have historically held dear. It also causes controversy because many more liberal Christian churches support the biblical concept of sanctuary, which this bill would appear to threaten.

Near the end of the speech, Mr. Trump made a call to action: "I now call on the Senate to take up these bills and send them back to my desk for signature – as soon as possible.  We need security.  We need safety in our country." Every good salesperson knows that it is not enough to persuade people; you must also close the deal. That is why a call to action is so important.

Let us talk for just a moment about how Mr. Trump delivered this Weekly Address. Judging from the video, he probably read the speech right off a Teleprompter or similar device. His oral presentation matched the published text quite precisely. Although he was reading the speech – a practice that I always discourage with my students – he spoke in a conversational and expressive manner: pausing to let words sink in, giving vocal emphasis to words that he really wanted people to remember, speaking slowly and with variety. He spoke calmly and sounded "presidential." Mr. Trump's speech delivery has, in general, been much underestimated. Also, the speech was short and to-the-point. Mr. Trump's Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, might watch his boss and learn the lesson.

Donald Trump, WH photo

How does the speech fit into our national discourse? A massive political divide afflicts our nation. Judging from the polls, a great many Americans strongly disapprove of Mr. Trump's performance as president. A large minority, however, remains loyal to him. This is, in part, no doubt, because of media choices: Mr. Trump's supporters tend to get their news from talk radio and Fox News, which often under-emphasize Mr. Trump's mistakes and policy failures.

But this is not the entire story. The issue of nationalism and isolationism, on the one hand, and cultural openness on the other hand, is one of America's most enduring conflicts. Henry Clay's famous 1832 speech about "The American System" examined similar issues. The dramatic cultural and religious changes that are sweeping across the nation continue to discomfort many Americans. They worry, not entirely without justification, that these changes might benefit a great many people while leaving them behind, or, worse, harming them and disrupting their lives. Mr. Trump articulated these concerns during his campaign, not elegantly, but pointedly. In the 2017 Weekly Address, he presented anti-immigration ideas clearly and articulately.

Politically, Mr. Trump is fulfilling a fundamental premise of his 2016 presidential campaign. Throughout the campaign, Mr. Trump maintained that illegal immigration was taking American jobs and endangering American citizens. Economists and political scientists debate about whether this was true, but the message resounded with Mr. Trump's voting base. 

So, when 30% or so of the American public thinks that Mr. Trump is doing a good job, they are thinking exactly about the kinds of issues that he talked about in the June 30, 2017 weekly address. Mr. Trump's well-documented problems staffing and running the federal government mean much less to them than to Mr. Trump's opponents. The controversy about Russian involvement in the election will mean less to people who fear immigrants more than they fear the Russians. Mr. Trump is doing something about what they think is the serious problem of undocumented immigration.

What about real life? Statistics show that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. I am the grandchild of immigrants; no one in my family has been a criminal. The fact remains that some immigrants commit some crimes, and this alone is enough to arouse anger against them. So, although I cannot agree with Mr. Trump's policies, which I think are overreacting to a real but overblown problem, Mr. Trump's weekly address fulfilled a promise he had had made to his base voters. He is doing what they elected him to do.

What about the weekly address in general? Does anyone actually listen to these weekly addresses? Does anyone care about them? What difference do they make, if any? I discussed that in an earlier blog post.