President Trump's Tax Reform Speech: Who is the Real Donald Trump?

President Trump spoke yesterday in Missouri to present his tax reform program. The tax program is intended to be pro-business, and Trump delivered his speech at a medium-size business, the Loren Cook Company in Springfield, a manufacturer of ventilation equipment. I visited Springfield many years ago, and enjoyed my stay immensely. The speech was not open to the public, although it was recorded and posted on the Internet.

Donald Trump Giving His Tax Reform Speech

People often comment – I have commented – that there seem to be two Presidents Trump. One President Trump gives dignified speeches from a Teleprompter; the other President Trump gives wild, controversial speeches off-the-cuff. Which is the real President Trump? I think both are. I will give my reasons at the end.

Mr. Trump started the Missouri speech by thanking his hosts at the Loren Cook Company, and he then welcomed the distinguished guests, who included members of his administration and representatives from Congress. Interestingly, he did not name-check Gary Cohn, his economic advisor, who earlier criticized Mr. Trump's comments about the alt-right. That was an odd omission in a tax reform speech. Mr. Trump took time to discuss the heroism and selflessness demonstrated by the people of Texas in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. He made some humorous comments, praised Route 66, which he described as the corridor of American economic activity, and said "This is the place where the "Main Street of America” got its start, and this is where America’s main street will begin its big, beautiful comeback that – you are seeing it right now. This is a comeback of historic proportions. You're seeing it happen right now. (Applause.) Right? You're seeing it." This was all vintage Trump, the conversational Trump using standard Trump phrases. Was he being himself at the beginning? It seems so.

He then began to read a prepared text. He promised that the way to encourage job growth was tax reform. He promised to work on a bipartisan plan that would be "pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-worker – and pro-American." So far, so good. He complained that economic growth was lacking below 3% until he became president and talked about the number of jobs that would be created.

The speech was long on goals, but short on content, which many news media pointed out. He wanted a tax code that was "simple, fair, and easy to understand," that would help "loyal, hard-working Americans and their families," be competitive on the world market, and so forth. He praised the Ronald Reagan tax reform, as a result of which, he said, "the middle class thrived in median family income increase." He complained that the Democrats were trying to "obstruct tax cuts and tax reform, just like they obstructed so many other things." He wanted to reduce the corporate tax rate, which he said would bring jobs back to the United States.

Of course, when we talk about tax reform, it's all about the details. And Trump provided no details. What would be the percentages of tax cuts for ordinary Americans? Which loopholes would be closed? And so forth. On a larger point: Trump campaigned as a populist who would support the "forgotten American." His tax plan, so far, sounded just like standard Republican plans of the last 40 years. While campaigning, he promised something different. Is he going to deliver? We won't know until we see the details of the plan.

Back to my first question: who is the real Donald Trump? The populist who knows how to work a crowd is a real Donald Trump. That Donald Trump expresses what the man really thinks and feels. But people also care about policies, and, when he reads from a Teleprompter, Mr. Trump generally presents hard-right Republican policies right out of the Reagan playbook. In the long run, which Donald Trump will win?


Was Trump right that the Reagan tax cuts brought unprecedented prosperity? That's actually controversial among economists. I'll think about that and post something about Reagan, the man and the myth, later on.

Update: FactCheck, the Annenberg School of Communication service, found that Trump generally got his numbers right in this speech, but put a lot of spin on them. The lesson is for listeners to get information from more than one source before forming an opinion about the issues. We expect politicians to spin things, don't we?

President Trump's Hurricane Harvey Speeches: Liberal Comfort or Conservative Strength?

President Donald Trump gave a few very brief, apparently impromptu speeches when he visited south Texas after Hurricane Harvey. The hurricane had caused terrible flooding. I have family in the area, and the disaster has been quite frightening. Let's look at how different audiences could perceive two of these speeches differently.

Pres. Trump Briefing, Corpus Christi

Trump gave some brief remarks at Annaville Fire Station 5 in Corpus Christi, Texas. Texas Governor Greg Abbott gave some brief remarks thanking the president for his help. Trump praised Texas and Texas' elected leaders: "And I can tell you that my folks were just telling me how great your representatives have been in working together.  It's a real team, and we want to do it better than ever before.  We want to be looked at in five years, in ten years from now as this is the way to do it." Trump commented that the hurricane "was of epic proportions. Nobody has ever seen anything like this." He then thanked the Governor and state officials for their work: "We won't say congratulations.  We don't want to do that.  We don't want to congratulate.  We'll congratulate each other when it's all finished.  But you have been terrific.  Really terrific.  It's a great honor.  And you've been my friend, too, for a long time."

Some of President Trump's critics complained that he didn't say anything to comfort the victims, that he was simply congratulating his political allies. In this respect, he fell short of some of the speeches that we've heard during times of disaster from other presidents. These criticisms are true, in one sense, but they may also miss a distinction between the way conservative and liberal audiences perceive things. Trump is a conservative president. Trump actually opened his speech with this comment: "This is a very special place in a special state." That is, he praised the state of Texas and its people. The critics may be right that he spent more time praising his own people than praising the population, which was still struggling under terrible hardships. Still, Texans like to think of themselves as fighters, do they not?

Trump, Corpus Christi Fire Station

A short time later, Trump gave a second speech outside the same locale with a somewhat different focus. He reassured the audience of first responders: "I just wanted to say, we love you, you are special.  We're here to take care of you." He then said, "It's going well," which it obviously was not. He thanked Governor Abbott for doing "a fantastic job." He then praised Texans again: "I will tell you, this is historic, it's epic, what happened.  But you know what, it happened in Texas, and Texas can handle anything." While a liberal speaker would want to give comforting words, Trump offered something more like fighting words: Harvey had thrown Texas a big punch, and the people of Texas were counterpunching. So, maybe he didn't quite do the job that some people expected, but, then again, maybe understood his audience better than his critics did.

Another point: maybe sympathy can wait. Trump gave people hope that their leaders were doing their jobs and would struggle to save them. That's what they cared about.

There is history here: when President George W. Bush flew over Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, he told his inept Homeland Security Secretary: "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." That out-of-touch statement gave Bush's prestige a nasty hit. It's great to praise people, but you don't want to praise people who are obviously messing up. Are Texas officials doing their jobs? Honestly, it's too soon for anyone to pass judgment. Maybe Trump should have been more careful, maybe not. Who knows? Time will tell.

In the meantime, we are all hoping that the disaster doesn't get any worse, and that South Texas and Louisiana will recover stronger than ever.

James Mattis: "Understanding Each Other and Showing It"

James Mattis, DoD photo

Secretary of Defense James Mattis gave an impromptu pep talk to a small group of American soldiers, sailors, and marines somewhere overseas. His message was simple and inspiring: "Hold the line until our country gets back to understanding and respecting each other and showing it." He continued:  "We're so doggone lucky to be Americans. And we got two powers: the power of inspiration, and if you don't get the power of inspiration back, you've got the power of intimidation." He reminded them to listen to their NCO's. Good advice.

So, yes, Americans have become divided, and Mattis wants the military to hold things together until the country is unified again. Optimism is grand. A simple, terrific speech. An example of what my former professor Charles Larson called the "unifying style." 

Janet Yellen's Speech at Jackson Hole: Do We Need a Stable Financial System?

Janet Yellen, Fed Reserve photo

Federal Reserve Chair Janet L. Yellen spoke yesterday at Jackson Hole to talk about "Financial Stability a Decade after the Onset of the Crisis." The financial world expected her to talk about future Fed policy; instead, she talked about general government financial policies. Her theme, which should not be controversial but is, was that a secure financial system requires regulatory safeguards. Her speech was highly controversial, and yet she delivered it in a very scholarly, serious tone.

To understand her speech, we need to understand its controversial political and social context. This has been well understood since the days of Adam Smith, but the finance industry has a lot of political and media power, and many of its representatives do not want to be regulated. Conservative and libertarian politicians had long blamed the financial crisis on government regulation, which never made any sense, but which appealed to them ideologically. Their argument, which was factually false, was that the government required lenders to finance home-building by minority families who could not afford it. Much of what we hear in public discourse on this topic has been vitriolic, angry, and totally uninformed. I suppose I should write a future post about the influential rantings of popular Libertarian politician Ron Paul, who seems to have quite a following of people who would, apparently, love to lose bunches of their money by investing in risky commodities.

Anyway, let's take a quick look at Yellen's speech. She reminded her audience that it is been 10 years since the global financial crisis, "that resulted in the most severe financial panic and largest contraction in economic activity in the United States since the Great Depression." She pointed out that: "A resilient financial system is critical to a dynamic global economy." She also reminded the audience that borrowing and debt are essential to our economic system, as they enable people to purchase things like cars, houses, and businesses that they need to have successful lives.

Yellen reviewed the dramatic steps that the government took to resolve the financial crisis, which she admitted were helpful but insufficient. She then explained the various new government policies that have greatly strengthen the financial system in which prevented a second crisis. She also reminded the audience that all of the lessons that the finance industry learned after the financial crisis were lessons that had been learned before, but which they then forgot. She cited considerable evidence: "The evidence shows that reforms since the crisis have made the financial system substantially safer." The prepared text of her remarks included 27 footnotes citing technical and statistical sources to support her opinion. Yet, do policymakers care? Policymakers tend to respond to political donors and to the public opinion, neither of which is reliable with financial decisions. Political donors have their own best interests at heart, not the public's, and public opinion is, as our Founding Fathers worried many centuries ago, easily swayed by polemics.

Do we need more sober, scholarly, serious, well-informed speakers like Janet Yellen? The answer, obviously, is yes. But with respect to economic opinion, I greatly fear that people are more swayed by cable news commentators, Wall Street Journal editorials (what a shame! The Wall Street Journal used to offer accurate conservative opinions not too many years ago), and the angry ravings of talk radio hosts. From what I have seen in public commentary, a surprising number of people are more upset about Yellen's Jewish heritage than about the financial crisis from which he helped rescue us; a surprising number of right-wing commentators disparage the very idea of fiat money. The main problem is that economics is a technical subject, and yet, although everyone handles money, many people do not make the effort to understand it. Maybe they would be happy trading Krugerrands with Ron Paul.

With President Trump and the Republicans in Congress making noise about deregulating the financial industry further, many pundits seem to think that Yellen was laying down the gauntlet. She was more interested in telling the truth to powerful people than she was in getting another term as Fed chair. Good for her! It's about time that public leaders began to show some courage, giving their real opinion even when the truth is unpopular. Wall Street banker Gary Cohn was slated to replace Yellen, until he made the political mistake of criticizing racist demonstrators, which, apparently, put him at odds with President Donald Trump. So, now, who knows?

Aristotle said that persuasion was due to logical, emotional, and credibility appeals. He felt that credibility was the most powerful. Yellen, instead, relied on logical appeals, the kind of appeals that Aristotle said were most important and reasonable. But are enough people listening?

Trump's Afghanistan Speech, Part 2: Was He Presidential?

Pres. Trump's Afghanistan Speech, Aug. 21, 2017

To be presidential probably doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. To a mainstream-type reporter, being presidential means that the president is dignified, concerned, and unifying. In that sense, Trump's speech yesterday was presidential. He did not rant and rave. He did not pointedly insult anyone, and he did not talk about "fake news." That was all good. To a political scientist or policy expert, being presidential probably means checking one's facts, and making sober, responsible decisions. In that sense, Trump also did pretty well last night. For example, his speech did well on PolitiFact's fact checking. That may be a first-ever for a major Trump speech.

At the same time, Trump gave very few details. How many troops would he commit to Afghanistan? If we are to set Afghanistan policy according to results and goals, not according to a timeline, exactly what are the goals? When will we know that we have been successful? Let us keep in mind that Afghanistan is a very big country, and killing all of the terrorists is a terribly unrealistic goal. There will always be more terrorists. Trump's vagueness may also seem presidential. The president has a national security advisor, a Secretary of Defense, and various generals who can explain policy details. He does not need to do that himself. Still, successful foreign policy comes from the details. A group of uninformed teenagers can sit around a college residence hall and talk about general policies. I did that kind of thing myself when I was young. So what? Generalities do not always mean very much.

Before talking about Afghanistan, Trump talked about the evils of bigotry and hatred. This seemed to be something of a retreat from the belligerent remarks that he made in Trump Tower after the violent Charlottesville demonstrations. Yet, instead of giving details, he spoke in general, unifying terms. That, again, could be presidential.

Can Trump maintain his presidential air? At other times, Trump gave speeches like this during his campaign – dignified and scripted – only to undo his ethos with a couple of tweets from his Twitter account. We will have to wait and see, but he may well return to form.

Which Trump is the real Trump? The belligerent Donald Trump in Trump Tower? Or the dignified Donald Trump last night? Actually both were real. Donald Trump is quite capable of reasoned decision-making. He is also quite capable of going over the top. People who are waiting for the "real" Trump to emerge will have a long wait: people are more complicated than that.

In the meantime, Afghanistan has suffered from decades of war. Surely the country needs some stability, and its people need peace.

Here is the first part of my commentary about Trump's Afghanistan speech.

Here are my comments about Trump's very un-presidential Charlottesville press conference. 


Image: White House Briefing Room 

President Trump's Speech about Afghanistan, Part 1

President Donald J. Trump delivered a television address tonight about military policy in Afghanistan.

Let us look at the historical context. Afghanistan had provided training sites for the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. President George W. Bush ordered

Donald Trump, WH photo

United States military forces to attack Afghanistan for the purpose of neutralizing Al Qaeda. This was done bloodily but efficiently; however,  ultra right-wing Muslim fundamentalist groups under the Taliban banner offered consistent resistance to the democratic government that the United States installed. At no time did the American supported government control the entire country. Afghanistan has proven to be a tough battle: difficult mountainous terrain, harsh weather, and a determined enemy have all offered resistance, while allegations of corruption and incompetence in the American-supported government continue.

Setting: Ever the master of staging, Trump delivered the speech to an audience of service personnel at historic Joint Base Myer, formerly Fort Myer, in Northern Virginia. Joint Base Myer is adjacent to Arlington cemetery, which Trump mentioned during his speech.  (Our father, a WWII veteran, often took my brother and me to the old Fort Myer to see the sights.) A respectful crowd was guaranteed, and Trump usually responds well to a live audience.

President Trump approached the speech with diminished expectations. Recent events, including the violence in Charlottesville and Trump's inconsistent reaction to that violence, have caused many people to wonder whether he is up to the job. At the same time, history shows that there's nothing like a good war to divert attention from domestic problems. Let us look at what Trump proposed, and what persuasive methods he used.

Trump began by reviewing and complimenting the service members' contributions to the nation's freedom and security. (Praising the audience is always a good move.)

Black Hawk over Afghanistan, US Army photo

Responding to the recent domestic  controversies, Trump offered a call for unity: "When one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together." He continued: "There is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, no room for hate." He transitioned to the War in Afghanistan, which he called the longest war in American history. He rejected the policy of rebuilding countries "in our own image," instead of making American security paramount. This reinforced his "America First" campaign theme.

A buildup in Afghanistan, however contradicted Trump's previous policies. He directly admitted that he had changed his mind after careful study. He reminded the audience that the terrorist attack in Barcelona showed terrorists' heartless evil. He called the enemy in Afghanistan "thugs," which was forceful, and "losers," which was classic Trump. Inappropriate, but it was the real him.

Afghanistan has been known as the place where empires go to die. First, he announced that instead of setting deadlines, the United States' policy would aim at goals. Consistent with his campaign statements, he emphasized surprise attacks. He acknowledged that a political settlement might include Taliban elements, which is a dramatic policy option. Second, rejecting nation-building, he said that the United States would not impose a government on Afghanistan. Third, he promised to provide the military with the resources they needed. He offered veiled criticism of Obama administration policies. Trump also addressed partnership with Pakistan, who he accused of harboring terrorists. This was much bolder and riskier than it appears, as Pakistan is geographically necessary for the war in Afghanistan.

Trump was at his best, speaking with energy and emphasis, pausing appropriately, never raising his voice, and gesturing with a sense of style.

Were Trump's policies realistic? I am no foreign policy expert, but time will tell. His proposed plans were multi-faceted, and involved many changes other than troops. They were also very vague. The proof could be in the details.

Was Trump presidential? We always have to ask! He hasn't been consistent! The Afghanistan speech was tough in tone, and belligerent at times, but much more in line with the image that the United States expects a conservative president to project. One impressive aspect is that he admitted that he had changed his mind as a result of careful study and consultation. Since he is often accused of being rigid and uninformed, this seemed like a big step.

I'll post a follow-up after we see some reactions. Stay tuned!

Here it is: Trump's Afghanistan Speech, Part 2

Rex W. Tillerson's Speech about Hatred

Rex Tillerson, DoS image

In what some people thought was a break from President Trump's remarks about the Charlottesville demonstrations, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson talked on August 18, 2017 about race relations and diversity to the State Department Student Programs and Fellowship participants. After an introduction expressing sympathy for the terrorist attacks in Spain, he addressed racism: "we all know hate is not an American value." He continued that "Racism is evil; it is antithetical to America's values. It's antithetical to the American idea."

In a clever rhetorical move, Tillerson cited a letter that George Washington sent to the Newport, Rhode Island synagogue, in which Washington advocated "a government which to bigotry gives no sanction; to persecution, no assistance." Why was this clever? Right-wing speakers routinely cite the Founding Fathers and say that they want to return to the Founders' values. My experience is that, most of the time, extreme right wingers have no idea what the Founders actually believed, and Tillerson's move - to cite our first president - struck directly at white supremacists' major talking point. What made Tillerson's point even more powerful is that the Charlottesville demonstrators were shouting anti-Semitic slogans. Tillerson contradicted the demonstrators without mentioning them, but everyone knew what he was talking about. He turned the tables on racists with great gentleness.

Tillerson also said that "hate speech" should not be tolerated and that "those who embrace it poison our public discourse and they damage the very country that they claim to love." With a nice flourish - for rhetoric students, he used a tricolon - he said that "Racism is evil; it is antithetical to America's values. It's antithetical to the American idea." 

Continuing, Tillerson discussed steps the State Department was taking to create a more diverse Foreign Service. He insisted that whenever an ambassadorship was open, one of the candidates must be from a minority. He also wanted to recruit from beyond the Ivy League campuses. He reviewed in detail the statistics on the low representation of ethnic minorities and women in the Foreign Service.

Tillerson further emphasized that the future leaders whom he was addressing needed to place personal integrity first. He praised the students and fellows for their accomplishments. He promised that they would be outstanding leaders.

Reactions were mixed. Roger Clegg's column in the conservative National Review called Tillerson's speech "appalling," Clegg opposed "race-based hiring" as "unfair" and "identity politics."  CNN's Nicole Gaouette and Elise Labott called the speech "a powerful condemnation Friday of both hate and those who 'protect or accept hate speech.'"

Tillerson's speech was admirable, but should not have been controversial. He addressed values; he tied his values to the United States' founding values. Given Tillerson's reputation as a conservative, this was no surprise. However, for him to cite George Washington against bigotry was brilliant. He used tradition to advocate change. Also, Tillerson proved that conservatism does not require racism; indeed, he contended the opposite: that conservative values prohibit bigotry.

P.S.: I have read hundreds and hundreds of pages of the Founding Fathers' writings. I enjoy reading what they wrote. They had many good ideas. I recommend their works to all Americans.  It is important to know their real ideas, not the invented interpretations that we hear on talk radio and cable news.

Speakers Need Research, It Happened Again! The Case of Trump and the Parade Permits

In his now-famous impromptu news conference in Trump Tower, President Trump said that the white supremacists had a permit and the counter-protestors did not. It turns out that the counter-protestors did have a permit, and that they could have legally attended without one. Strike one, strike two.

Lessons:

1. Speakers need research, and for two reasons: (a) So the speaker doesn't waste the audience's time with nonsense and (b) So the speaker doesn't lose credibility.

2. Politically-motivated media (talk radio, cable news commentators, political websites, etc.) are not the best places to get accurate information.

Q. E. D.

The Rhetoric of Silence, Part 3: The Missing Republicans

Interesting article by Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer. Yes, many Republican leaders have condemned President Trump or, at least, criticized him obliquely, for his remarks about the Nazi and KKK demonstration in Charlottesville, which resulted in the death of a counter-demonstrator. But most have said nothing.

John F. Kennedy, WH photo

The obvious explanation for their silence is political. Although, according to a recent poll, Mr. Trump's support among the general public has collapsed, he still, as of the latest poll, retains support from more than three-quarters of Republican voters. Republicans don't want to face primary challenges from candidates who are even more conservative than they are, and they know that Mr. Trump's ideas resonate across large parts of the country. Thus, even when Mr. Trump says something that is appalling, as he did yesterday, they lack the courage to speak out.

I refer readers to John Kennedy's best-selling book, Profiles in Courage, which told the stories of several senators who risked their political careers to do what they thought was the right thing. Do any Republicans in the Senate have that kind of courage today? Or is getting reelected their only goal in life?

Silence always means something. If I asked my students whether they had completed the day's reading assignment, and they sat silently in their desks, their silence meant they had not read the textbook, and they were ashamed of themselves. But they were never sufficiently ashamed of themselves to admit their failures out loud. The same, on a much greater and more important scale, is true of politicians who have not yet condemned President Trump's remarks, which expressed far too much sympathy for the alt-right demonstrators. Silence speaks volumes.

Update: for example, Kennedy praised Senator Thomas Hart Benton, who, although a slaveowner himself, voted against the spread of slavery to new territories. He thought, rightly, that this would divide the union. His vote cost him his career; history has vindicated him.

President Trump: Are Neo-Nazis "Fine People?"

Yesterday, President Donald Trump held a press conference to talk about infrastructure. He seemed surprised that the press instead asked questions about the August 13, 2017 violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. What did he expect? He belligerently responded that the questions were coming from "fake news," as if the events in Charlottesville did not really happen.

Trump 8/15/17 News Conference, WH

President Trump has employed ambiguous phrases throughout his election campaign and presidency. This time, it did not work. At some point, a speaker needs to take a stand.

Here is my personal bias: my father and father-in-law both served in the military during World War II, and my uncle, Pfc. Peter Feduska, died at the age of 19 during the Battle of the Bulge. I do not think highly of Nazis. With respect to unreformed Confederates, I did grow up in Virginia, and, many, many years ago, two Harpines served in the Confederate Army. I know that they fought on the wrong side.

Neo-Nazi protesters in Charlottesville chanted Nazi slogans like "blood and soil."  A Neo-Nazi supporter made the Nazi salute while wearing a hat with the emblem of the 82nd Airborne Division, the unit that air-dropped into Normandy to end Nazi tyranny. Members of the Ku Klux Klan marched openly, carrying the Confederate flag.

Right after the demonstration and subsequent violence, President Trump had issued a statement that blamed "both sides." Although there indeed was some violence on both sides, his statement tried to establish a degree of moral equivalence: he compared Nazis and white supremacists with the people who protested them. Yielding to public pressure, he subsequently read a prepared statement denouncing the white nationalists.

At yesterday's press conference, Mr. Trump reverted to moral equivalence. He did, indeed, criticize the White nationalists and Nazis, but defended other members of the same group in a statement that tried to have things both ways:

"The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people - neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know - I don't know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit."

He reiterated that "I think there's blame on both sides." He said that the marchers included "some very bad people," but also "people that were very fine people on both sides." Seemingly unhappy at the removal of Charlottesville's statue of Robert E. Lee, Trump pointed out that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. Was the the country on a slippery slope to take down their statues, he wanted to know. He then evaded a question as to when he would reach out to the Charlottesville victim's mother.

Rhetoric always depends on cultural and historical context. The Nazis, the KKK, and other right-wing extremists have a long, ugly history, and they have never lacked supporters. When speakers talk about them, they must remember the history.

Yes, Trump did condemn the white supremacists and the Nazis, and no, the press did not adequately recognize his condemnation. Yes, some of the counter-protesters became violent, and it was right to criticize them. At the same time, Trump tried to establish moral equivalence between the racist extremists and those who protested them. This, many members of the public and of the press refused to accept. Trump even lost a Fox News analyst. Although Trump has never clearly endorsed white supremacy during his campaign, white supremacists consistently supported him. That is why he has been walking on a rhetorical tightrope and, during yesterday's press conference, he fell off. When you start talking about Nazis in the United States of America, the country that defeated Nazis in the 1940s at great cost in lives and treasure, there can be no middle ground. Mr. Trump tried to find the middle ground anyway, and it wasn't there.

Update: Mr. Trump was in error. The counter-protesters did have a permit. 

Rhetoric of Silence: What You Don't Say Matters – The Charlottesville Incident, Part 2

I posted a while back that President Trump's silence about the Minnesota mosque bombing meant something: this was an event that could not be ignored, and yet Mr. Trump ignored it.

Donald Trump, WH

Mr. Trump repeats himself – silently. The white supremacist demonstration and anti-white supremacist counter-demonstration in Charlottesville led to violence, and it was an event that could not be ignored. Mr. Trump did not exactly ignore it, but he certainly evaded it. He started with this non-controversial tweet: "We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!" He obviously didn't proofread, but no one is perfect. Then, talking to reporters, Mr. Trump appeared to blame both sides: "We condemn in strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence — on many sides." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham criticized the president, saying that he "missed an opportunity to be very explicit here. These groups seem to believe they have a friend in Donald Trump in the White House."

Lindsey Graham

Mr. Trump truly faces a difficult rhetorical problem. On the one hand, he received strong support from extreme right-wingers and white supremacists. If he offends them, what will happen to his support base? If, on the other hand, he expresses sympathy for them, he loses the great majority of decent Americans. Most of the Republicans who voted for Trump in the 2016 election were not white supremacists. The best solution apparently seemed to him to be to evade the issue. Unfortunately, this was an issue that he could evade. A media firestorm resulted.

The White House did issue an unsigned statement that "of course" President Trump opposed white supremacy. The public has, so far, not heard this from his own lips, much less from his famous Twitter account.

So, as usual, silence becomes a form of speech.

The larger question is this: have Mr. Trump's mainstream Republican supporters come to grips with Mr. Trump's relationship to the Alt-Right white supremacist or white nationalist movement? I suspect that they have not. Take a look at my earlier posts about Richard Spencer's "End of History" speech.

http://harpine.blogspot.com/2017/08/richard-spencers-end-of-history-speech.html

http://harpine.blogspot.com/2017/08/richard-spencers-end-of-history-speech_14.html


Interestingly, Mr. Trump's non-response to Charlottesville's events cost him the support of Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier.  It seems that silence only gets you so far, and, at some point, speakers need to take a stand.

Update: Two days later, Trump finally condemned white supremacy and the Charlottesville attackers. Late, but welcome.  Still, timing matters.

Richard Spencer's "End of History" Speech: Are Trump's Supporters Fooling Themselves? Part 2

Should we listen to the Alt-Right? Or ignore them? Or suppress them?  

I think we need to know what they are saying. I suspect that too few of Mr. Trump's supporters understand what the Alt-Right is really like, because they haven't listened. Liberals don't appreciate the danger that the Alt-Right poses to our republic, because they haven't listened.

 

The Alt-Right Wants Your Pity

Although Richard Spencer’s “End of History” speech ended with an exaggerated metaphor of doom and hope, it began with the self-pitying complaint that social media hosts were refusing to sponsor Alt-Right information; he complained about "social networks that are suppressing free expression.” This brings up a larger question of free speech. Is our Republic strong enough to tolerate wrong opinions, even opinions that are as mistaken and evil as Spencer’s? In the wake of the Charlottesville demonstrations, which directly resulted death, allegedly at the hands of a neo-Nazi sympathizer, GoDaddy.com threatened to delete the Daily Stormer’s website. Furthermore, a private agency hacked the Daily Stormer; it is now (speciously) headlined “The World’s Most Genocidal Republican Website.” So, yes, people really are trying to suppress their free expression.

Thomas Jefferson, LOC

Mr. Jefferson’s Opinion

In his First Inaugural Address, President Thomas Jefferson said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” His words are much-needed now. A great many Americans, who now call themselves the Alt-Right, have made it clear that they wish to alter our form of government, an alteration that they justify by specious appeals to the Constitution, but whose real purpose is to subvert Americans’ rights. So, yes, the Nazis, the KKK, Richard Spencer, and any other persons or groups should be allowed to abuse the First Amendment by spewing out falsehood and hate to their hearts’ content. (There is an argument that privately-owned organizations like GoDaddy have a right, subject to their contractual obligations, to decide what they will broadcast. Personally, I want to know what the Alt-Right, the Nazis, and so forth have to say.)

We Need to Hear Both Sides, Even if One Side Is Really Bad

Decent people around the world reject the Alt-Right and its philosophy. Nevertheless, in a larger sense, as I have said before, it is important for people who are learning things to be exposed to both sides of controversial issues. Tens of millions of Americans sympathize with white nationalism. The best way to defeat them, is, following Jefferson’s wisdom, to point out their errors. This can only be done if people recognize what they stand for. The sanitized term "Alt-Right" makes it easy to miss the point. The only way to understand the depth of their wrongness is for us to fully understand their message.

Here's the Proof: The Case of the Southern Baptist Convention

Let us, for example, consider the recent controversy at the Southern Baptist Convention. The Convention’s Resolutions Committee rejected a proposition criticizing the Alt-Right, saying that it was “inflammatory.” This was a difficult question for them, for White Evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for Trump in the 2016 election, and the Alt-Right supports Trump.

An attempt to gain reconsideration of the motion failed. The resulting controversy, however, quickly led the convention to consider a revised resolution. One factor is that, according to Pastor Charles Hedman, extremist right-wing groups had been passing out racist information in the convention center’s vicinity. Liberty Baptist University professor Karen Swallow Prior tweeted: “#SBC17: if you don’t think Christians ought to condemn the Alt-Right, then you need to see their disgusting emails that fill my inbox.” Yes, that’s right, one reason that the Southern Baptist Convention finally did the right thing is that the right-wing groups used their First Amendment rights to promulgate their opinions specifically and clearly; this caused the good people at the Convention to wake up and realize the threat that they faced. If the Alt-Right had been suppressed, the Convention might not have understood how evil its philosophy really was. Previously, they had pretended to themselves that the Alt-Right wasn’t so bad. 

When all was said and done, the Southern Baptist Convention ultimately passed an even more inflammatory motion, whose key passage was:

RESOLVED, That we denounce and repudiate white supremacy and every form of racial and ethnic hatred as of the devil.

Be sure to read the full text.

Richard Spencer's "End of History" Speech: An Alt-Right Philosophy, Part 1

Are members of the white race victims because they are white? I am white myself, and I don't think so. Let us look deeply into darkness' cold heart and examine Richard Spencer's June 2017 "End of History" speech: a calm, eloquent, powerful, and philosophical justification for evil.

Why is this speech important? This morning's news reports yesterday's demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia, the usually peaceful home of "Mr. Jefferson's University," which resulted in violent confrontations and the death of one demonstrator. A group of white supremacists demonstrated in favor of the town's statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee, which the city planned to remove. Their opponents marched against them. Many people of the left and right wing alike condemned the white supremacists, President Trump and Vice President Pence apparently being exceptions.

Lincoln Memorial, NPS photo

The Nazi movement always placed great importance on the spoken word, and let us trace the rise of the alt-right (the new term for the old idea of white supremacy) to the words of a talented writer and speaker, Richard Spencer. At the end of June 2017, Spencer stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, near the spot from which Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, and delivered a powerful presentation to a few hundred alt-right supporters. He laid out a philosophy of the alt-right movement with power and eloquence. His speech was chilling in its reasonableness. Spencer presented his ideas - which I condemn as unspeakably foul - calmly, with humor, passion, warmth, and confidence.  Many years ago, the great rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke wrote a powerful essay to reveal Hitler's persuasive techniques. Burke's purpose was to ensure that the next time someone spoke or wrote in such a manner, the public would be equipped to recognize the evil and not be fooled. I cannot write like Kenneth Burke, but, still, let us look at Spencer's speech to understand why seemingly decent people would eagerly absorb his wicked message.

More than anything, Spencer gave his audience a sense that they participated in a higher cause, that they were working for something more important and more noble than their own lives. His speech was polarizing: white supremacy was good; the forces against them represented evil. As he began his speech, he said "There's been a change in our hearts and minds." He scapegoated the alt-right's opponents, calling them "losers and freaks," and said that the people opposing the alt-right were "liars." He praised the young people in his audience: "Young people are not caught in the thought prison of their parents." 

Advocating free speech, Spencer talked at length about social media platforms and other platforms that suppress the alt-right's message. But he took this a step further: "Free speech means nothing if one has nothing to say." We all know that President Donald Trump has protested against the doctrine that conservatives call "political correctness," which prohibits them from saying racist things that they believe to be true. Spencer protested political correctness even more explicitly: "We have a black cloud that hangs over us. This sense of guilt. This sense that we cannot be truthful even when we are talking to ourselves." 

Spencer praised whiteness, with the idea that white people had somehow become society's victims: "The most radical thing for anyone to say is, 'I am white. My life has meaning. My life has dignity I am part of a family I will fight for my children’s future.' That is what they want to suppress." Spencer proposed a solution, which was to develop a moral foundation of strength to overcome the victimhood: "We need to find a way out of this sense of helplessness. The alt-right is the first step to believing in ourselves."

Spencer ended his speech by talking about "the end of history." He seemed to mean this in two different senses. First, he seemed to believe that the traditional liberal moral order was facing the end of its history. The liberal order defined itself, he said, by opposing totalitarian dictatorship during the Cold War; with the end of the Cold War, liberals lost their moral focus. He tied this, however, to the need for the alt-right: the "end of history means end of meaning." With the end of history, Spencer warned, "You have no history. You have no future." He explained what the alt-right was fighting for: "We are fighting for freedom. We are fighting for the Constitution." He continued: "We are fundamentally fighting for meaning in our lives." This message appealed to values beyond the individual, beyond the self-centeredness that marks the conventional conservatism of Ayn Rand or Paul Ryan.

He then pointed the audience toward the August 12, 2017 Charlottesville rally that, as we know, ended  in violence: At that rally, he promised, "We are going to start history all over again." Was he right?

Like many modern-day ultra-conservative speakers, Spencer was extremely calm. He did not rant and rave like Adolf Hitler or Rudolph Hess. He smiled. He looked relaxed. He seemed friendly. If he had not dropped out of graduate school, he could have been a charismatic professor charming a massive lecture hall full of students who swarmed to his classes. He spoke extemporaneously with many balanced phrases, a few of which I quoted above. He competed effectively with the noise of the jet aircraft that flew overhead.

A philosophical foundation helps evil to spread beyond mindless rage and incoherent hate. A philosophical foundation gives evil a focus. Hitler inspired people to die for a higher cause, and he died for that cause himself. His supporters completely overlooked that his cause was evil, violent, dangerous, and doomed. Into what abyss do Spencer's supporters plan to cast themselves? 

A word to my fellow citizens and fellow communication scholars: it is never enough to disagree with someone like Spencer. It is necessary for us to understand him, his message, and his followers. Also, let us not make the mistake of thinking that the alt-right is a mere fringe that good people can ignore. It is far, far larger than a fringe. The alt-right has become a major part of America.

Upcoming post: as soon as time allows, I'll talk about free speech and the alt-right. That was one of Spencer's themes, was it not?

Here's Part 2 about Spencer's "End of History"

Collytte Cederstrom at APA 2017

Our former student, USC Aiken's very own Collytte Cederstrom, made a successful presentation at the 2017 APA Convention. She reported her research about the Reading Orienteering Club, founded by Dr. Elaine Clanton Harpine. Dr. Adam Pazda mentored her research project, for which she has received a USC Magellan Award for 2017-2018. An APA presentation is an impressive accomplishment for any behavioral scientist, and especially for an undergraduate student.

Here she is chatting in front of her APA poster with her Reading Orienteering Club colleague, Sara Puckett. Congratulations, Collytte!

Collytte Cederstrom and Sara Puckett at APA

Rhetoric of Silence: What You Don't Say Matters – The Minnesota Mosque Bombing

What we do not say can be as important as what we do say. If a wife tells her husband, "I love you," and the husband says nothing, the nothingness means something. What it means is unclear. But it means something. My blog is mostly about speeches, but, today, we'll look at non-speech.

A few days ago, a bomb tore apart a Minnesota mosque, the Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center, causing considerable damage. Fortunately, no injuries were reported. As of this writing, the morning of August 10, 2017, the Trump White House has issued no condemnation of the bombing and has expressed no support for the Islamic Center. The silence means something. President Trump has found time to tweet about fake news, congressional leadership, and his popularity rankings, but nothing about the mosque. Why not? What does his silence mean?
 
Communication scholars have, from time to time, written about "the rhetoric of silence," which examines what it means when people are silent at times when speech seems necessary. For example, Chapter 7 of my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Presidential Campaign, talks about future President William McKinley's speech to the Homestead workers. Homestead, Pennsylvania had, a few years earlier, been the target of extreme anti-labor-union violence. Yet, in his speech to Homestead factory workers, McKinley said not one word about the Homestead massacre. McKinley's speech ignored something that could not possibly be ignored. McKinley was not literally silent – his speech talked about many things – but he was silent about the massacre, which was Homestead's defining moment. His silence meant something, and my chapter talks about the different things that it meant.

Why is Trump silent about the mosque bombing? We can only speculate. During his 2016 election campaign, Trump made a big deal of his opposition to Islamic terrorism. The governor of Minnesota has already called the mosque bombing an act of terrorism. 

Donald Trump, WH photo

Yet, if Trump condemned the bombing, how would this play with his voting base? First, I have seen countless endorsements of the bombing on social media. It is quite surprising, and troubling, that many people think that the bombing was a good thing. Second, a conspiracy theory is spreading that Muslim terrorists actually did this to gain sympathy for themselves. I suppose that is remotely possible, but so far absolutely no evidence for that accusation has emerged. Conspiracy theories should be believed only if positive evidence establishes them. Disturbingly, a White House official appears to have endorsed the conspiracy theory. Second, one of Mr. Trump's campaign themes was to establish a registry of all Muslims in the United States. Since that would be obviously unconstitutional, he later backtracked. Did Mr. Trump believe that prejudice against or anger toward Muslims would help his election campaign? Or help him maintain his popularity today?

For Mr. Trump to condemn the bombing might damage his standing with his base voters, especially those who believe the mosque bombing was a good thing or a false flag operation. For him to support the bombing would damage his standing with the rest of the nation. Was silence his best political option? Let us keep in mind that, even if law enforcement has not determined who caused the bombing, the fact that the bombing was evil seems indisputable – no matter who did it or why it was done. Surely the president, in his role of  chief of state, could find something to say. He has not, and this may be part of a cynical political strategy of some kind. Silence, however, as always, is ambiguous. Its meaning is never totally clear. Will time clarify Mr. Trump's views?

Fake News: A Dangerous Rhetorical Meme

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, noted for hard-line policies, recently said that what he called "left-wing" Israeli media outlets in Israel of encouraging law enforcement officials to charge him with various crimes. During a speech at a political rally, Netanyahu called this "fake news," echoing President Donald Trump's frequent use of the phrase. "Their purpose," Netanyahu said, "is a governmental coup." Pretty harsh words, no?

Netanyahu & Trump at WH

The term "fake news" has become a rhetorical meme, and dangerous one. There is such a thing as fake news, but the term is now being misused by anyone who dislikes a news story. To a communication specialist, such as me, fake news is a very particular phenomenon. Fake news, which is usually spread on the Internet, comes from agencies and individuals who mimic the appearance and content of real news sites, but which have no news-gathering capabilities at all. A fake news site simply invents stories out of thin air, going to great lengths to make them look like the products of a real news agency. They include headlines, photos, and quotations. The quotations are typically fabricated. Photos are usually unrelated to the actual story. If you look at a fake news site carefully, there is usually a note saying that it is satire and should not be taken seriously.

Ben Franklin, fake news editor

Really bad news reporting is nothing new. Our great founding father, Benjamin Franklin, was regrettably known to publish entirely fabricated stories. I do not recommend following his example in that respect.

There are other kinds of bad news other than fake news. Some news agencies, such as, for example, BBC News and The New York Times, employ professional reporters, carefully fact check what they publish, and withdraw any stories that are discovered to be inaccurate. Some of the supermarket tabloids are, unfortunately, despite their large circulation, sometimes less scrupulous. That does not make them fake news; it simply makes them not as good. They still employ reporters, editors, and so forth, and make at least some effort to get information. That does not mean that readers should believe their stories; it means that they are not fake news. And there are other kinds of bad news stories other than the ones that fake news sites produce.

Nothing should be said in defense of careless news reporting, whether it is fake news or not. For example, Fox News recently published what appears to have been a fabricated story about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. They withdrew the story after several days. That does not make Fox News a fake news site. It means that they made a bad mistake, published a poorly-researched story, and were slow about correcting it. That was a very poor job of journalism, but it was not fake news. Fox News is a real news agency with reporters, editors, and publishers, who, in this case, did a poor job and published an inaccurate story. A fake news site, in contrast, does not engage in reporting or fact checking, ever. I have never heard of a fake news site withdrawing an inaccurate story. If they withdrew their inaccurate stories, they might have no stories at all.

I want to make it clear that I have no idea whether the news stories about Mr. Netanyahu are correct, nor do I intend to express any opinion about Israeli politics. I do urge audiences, however, to be careful when they hear a speaker use the term "fake news." I also urge speakers to use the term "fake news" more carefully, to avoid misleading the public.

What can the public do? Your best protection is to get news from multiple sources that take multiple viewpoints. People who live in a media bubble will end up believing many silly things.

Official White House Photo by Leslie N. Emory, via Wikimedia 

 Joseph Duplessis - metmuseum.org, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12154958

Speakers Need to Prepare: Follow-up

"Hello, use your brains!" is Tomi Lahren's battle cry. Lahren is noted for ripping the Affordable Care Act--Obamacare--as a harmful program.

Yet, during a Politicon forum with Chelsea Handler, Tomi Lahren was asked whether she had insurance. She said she didn't need it because she was only 24 years old and covered by her parents' insurance. The audience yelled, "Obamacare!" Was Lahren unaware that the provision allowing parents to cover children under 26 on their insurance was part of the ACA? She backtracked quickly, admitting that some ACA provisions were helpful. Sigh.

NY Public Library: Books are good

Lesson for speakers: do use your brains--your reasoning ability--but also do your research. I taught public speaking for years, and my most odious requirement was that students needed to use four good sources. They got extra points for using the library instead of junk from the Internet. No requirement aroused so much resistance from my students. The fact remains that speakers need to have information. If you're going to use even a few minutes of your audience's time, you owe it to them to have information that is accurate. Simply having the usual liberal or conservative talking points is not enough. You need actual, in-depth information to share. Otherwise, you are failing in your most important obligation as a public speaker.

The Affordable Care Act is often discussed but little understood. When someone goes on stage to discuss it, it is important to know what the act does, and what its actual strengths and weaknesses are.

Research is the key to good speaking. It is possible to be effective without having actual knowledge, but it is never possible for an uninformed speaker to be a good speaker.

Update: Tomi Lahren protests that the media distorted her words. I don't think so. Only if her backtracking occurred before she was called out--not after.

PS: I don't object to backtracking, but admit you're doing it. 

President Trump Awards Medal of Honor: An Epideictic Speech

Pres. Trump & James McCloughan

OK, I've been a bit hard on President Trump recently, but here's a speech that he gave correctly. During the Vietnam War, an Army medic, Specialist Five James McCloughan, heroically saved the lives of ten of his comrades under fire, despite having been severely wounded himself during a battle against a much larger enemy force. Recommended for the Distinguished Service Medal, his recognition was unjustly downgraded to a Bronze Star with Valor. Many years later, his former platoon leader revived his medal recommendation, and the Secretary of Defense ultimately upgraded the award to the Medal of Honor.

Granting the award during a White Health ceremony, President Trump covered all the usual points of a good ceremonial or epideictic speech. He began by reviewing the awardee's youthful character, which included athletic excellence. He emphasized that Specialist Five's father taught him never to give up. Trump then reviewed McCloughan's heroic and selfless actions, during which McCloughan refused evacuation because he was unwilling to leave his comrades in battle without a medic. He told the story that McCloughan wanted to return home so he could tell his father he loved him. Trump continued: "Today, I’d venture to say his dad is the proudest father in heaven." The speech not only honored McCloughan, but taught an important lesson about family life.

Trump then discussed the reason for the military's service, which was to fight for important values: "our brave men and women in uniform have overcome tyranny, fascism, communism, and every threat to our freedom."

A good ceremonial speech always reaches out to higher values. Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechs-Tyteca pointed out that epideictic speech is never mere ceremony. In this case, the speaker reached out to teach important lessons to the audience.

Eisenhower: Education Is Essential for National Security

President Dwight Eisenhower's Message to Congress about education galvanized the United States' educational efforts. The support that he (and John Kennedy after him) gave to our educational system was vital to America's prosperity and world power. Ike's message was brief, specific, pointed, value-laden, and very wise.

Many conservatives today seem to oppose public education, apparently for no reason except to save taxpayer money or support private schools. The costs of that non-policy could be terrifying. Education rests at national security's heart. An educated citizenry is a strong citizenry. Ike knew that.

Ike's message started with values:

Dwight Eisenhower

Education best fulfills its high purpose when responsibility for education is kept close to the people it serves--when it is rooted in the home, nurtured in the community, and sustained by a rich variety of public, private, and individual resources.

He emphasized science education, an area where our nation is still sadly weak:

But if we are to maintain our position of leadership, we must see to it that today's young people are prepared to contribute the maximum to our future progress. Because of the growing importance of science and technology, we must necessarily give special--but by no means exclusive--attention to education in science and engineering.  

Eisenhower's team put together a program to improve education at all levels, including graduate fellowships. He encouraged people to be college teachers. He also wisely recognized the human side of education:

Matching grants to the States to encourage the strengthening of local counseling and guidance services, so that more able students will be encouraged to stay in high school, to put more effort into their academic work, and to prepare for higher education. The program also would provide for grants of funds to colleges and universities to permit them to establish training institutes to improve the qualifications of counseling and guidance personnel.   

Eisenhower's message, which inspired a generation, was packed with wisdom. He thought big. He thought long-term. Not resorting to the anger and small-minded thinking of today's conservative movement, Ike represented conservatism at its best. 

WH Photo, via Wikimedia