Responses to Jeff Flake's Retirement Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Jeff Flake's Retirement Announcement: Appealing to Tradition

Jeff Flake's Retirement Speech

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my follow-up, as promised.


Image from www.flake.senate.gov

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

Mike Pence, White House Photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Pence speaking at Marine Barracks

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

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

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

John Kelly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons about Public Speaking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

  Photo: Department of Homeland Security

George W. Bush and the American Vision, Part 2

George W. Bush

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see my earlier post about conspiracy rhetoric.

Department of Defense photo

George W. Bush and the American Vision

George W. Bush

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________

Follow-up post:  

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

John McCain's Speech about "Spurious Nationalism"

Sen. John McCain, US Senate photo

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

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


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


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



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

Pearl Harbor Memorial, US Navy photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton speaking about women and girls

Singer Pink and the Power of Pearls

President Trump Awards a Medal of Honor

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

A movement pulled in two directions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Bannon, WH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Bannon: What Kind of Values Voter?

Steve Bannon

Steve Bannon was a featured speaker at the 2017 Values Voters Summit in Washington DC. This is mostly a conservative Christian group. Following up on my earlier post, I find myself wondering what values Bannon advocated. I’ll base this post on Bannon’s comment, in his Values Voters Summit Speech, that, “Right now, it’s a season of war against a GOP establishment.” He called fellow Republican Sen. Bob Corker “a real piece of work” for criticizing President Trump. He threatened Mitch McConnell’s job. Since Bannon talked about his values very little, other than vaguely endorsing “Judeo-Christian” values, I have some pointed questions and comments. Let’s call this “values clarification,” just like in the 1960’s, because we can’t talk values until we know which Judeo-Christian values we are talking about. Can we? 

1.  Bannon repeatedly used foul language during the speech. This was really a speech to values voters? Why did values voters applaud and cheer a speech loaded with profane language? My church-going parents would have been horrified to hear such language on the street, let alone at a Values Voters Summit. Would it not be good for conservative Christians to talk like conservative Christians? For credibility's sake?

2.  Bannon repeatedly praised his audience as good people, carefully not saying what was good about them. That was slippery, but smart. As soon as he got specific, he might have lost some of them. Being vague about his values let his audience assume (probably wrongly) that he shared their values. 

3. Unlike, say, Richard Spencer, Bannon insisted in this speech that he favored “economic nationalism,” not ethnic nationalism. Part of the alt-right’s idea is to repackage offensive ideas under a technical-sounding name, thus making them sound less awful. Still, although Bannon insisted that the alt-right is not about racism, this lacks credibility. Bannon made his lack of credibility clear when he took time to attack the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “hate group.” Maybe he was upset that they had called the alt-right a hate group. Let us remember the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2017 resolution about the alt-right: 


WHEREAS, Racism and white supremacy are, sadly, not extinct but present all over the world in various white supremacist movements, sometimes known as 'white nationalism' or 'alt-right'; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 13–14, 2017, decry every form of racism, including alt-right white supremacy, as antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  


The convention passed their resolution, but is the evangelical flock listening?

4. Let me propose a hypothetical Christian values voters summit based on the Sermon on the Mount: blessed are the poor, love your neighbor as yourself, bless those who persecute you, and so forth. Instead of blessing those people who Bannon thought were persecuting him, he attacked people (like Corker and McConnell) who supported his views, but not strongly enough to please him. In his speech, Bannon seemed more interested in fighting people with whom he disagreed than in uniting the nation. He was even fighting with people who mostly agreed with him, Still, that kind of polarization is typical of radical speakers. I would encourage Mr. Bannon to make his values clear, and to show how he believes they are consistent with the Judeo-Christian values that he mentioned but neglected to explain.

Soon, I will deliver my promised post about polarization. 

White House photo

Follow-up: here is the promised post discussing polarization.