Pope Francis' Christmas Message

Pope Francis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

Why Do Politicians Exaggerate? President Trump's Signing Speech

Donald Trump, WH photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nancy Pelosi

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

For example, she said:

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

Frankenstein's monster?

She also said, during the Christmas season, that:

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

Moral obscenity? 

And she said:

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

And so forth.

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

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

Here's my earlier post about this speech.

Official US Congress photo

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

Sen. Al Franken

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

Concluding, Franken pointed out how important truth is:

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

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

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


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

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

Official Senate portrait

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

Nancy Pelosi

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

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

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

and, nearing her conclusion:


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

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


At the end, Pelosi reaffirmed values:

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

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


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


Official US Congress photo

Here's my follow-up post. 

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

Donald Trump at FBI Ceremony

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

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

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

What news reports often missed were two points:

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

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

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

Ordinary People in President Donald Trump's Tax Reform Speech

Donald Trump speaking on tax reform

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

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

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

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


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

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