Wayne LaPierre's Speech Opposes Gun Control with a Dark Vision

We've been hearing a lot from the Parkland Students, site of a terrible mass shooting that took 17 innocent lives and injured 17 other victims at Marjory Douglas Stoneman school. A group of Parkland students have given many stunning speeches about gun control, often blaming the National Rifle Association for opposing all forms of gun control. I blogged about one of their speeches a few days ago. A program of "March for Our Lives" has spread across the nation and gained enormous media attention. But the anti-gun control advocates have not been silent, and we should listen to them, too. 

Bulgarian rifle, ATF photo

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association, spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor Maryland a week after the shooting. Going well beyond gun control, he painted a dark picture of wide-ranging evil forces that sought to destroy American freedom. In his speech, guns were the last resort to preserve freedom. To LaPierre, gun control was an enslavement plot, and gun freedom was an absolute right. By the time he was finished, the cheering crowd had heard him describe a nation gone amok, with socialist forces determined to crush the country's life. LaPierre reduced guns to a small part of a massive evil vision--should we call it a vast conspiracy?--to crush freedom.

His hard-hitting speech complained that the NRA had been slandered by liberal politicians--he named Democrat Nancy Pelosi--and the national news media. He accused them of evil motives:

"They hate the NRA. They hate the Second Amendment. They hate individual freedom. In the rush of calls for more government, they've also revealed their true selves." He said that the anti-gun forces "care not one whit for America's school system and school children. If they truly cared, what they would do is they would protect them." 


What LaPierre implied was that liberals were using the school shooting to justify a general assault on American freedom. Unwilling to acknowledge that gun control advocates might be motivated to keep guns away from criminals, he instead felt that the school shooting was merely an excuse to attack personal freedoms. He neither considered nor refuted any idea that gun laws might prevent school shootings. This was, of course, the whole point of the March for Our Lives agenda. Instead, he implied that evil forces, such as Nancy Pelosi and national news media such as the New York Times had formed a previous desire to attack freedom, with the school shooting giving them an excuse to do so. He construed this as a desire to destroy the entire Bill of Rights, as he clearly explained:


"They care more about control...their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our  firearms freedoms so they can eradicate all individual freedom. What they want are more restrictions on the law-abiding. Think about that. Their solution is to make you, all of you, less free. They want to sweep right under the carpet the failure of school security, the failure of families, the failure of our mental health care system, the unbelievable failure of the FBI."

That latter comment referred to the FBI's failure to act on warnings that the shooter, Nikoas Cruz, had been exhibiting threatening behavior. In general, many conservatives believe that the Second Amendment's purpose is to protect them against tyranny, a view that I discussed in an article a couple years ago. From that standpoint, removing the Second Amendment would erode all other freedoms, which many conservatives believe to be under threat. A slide down the slippery slope could not be stopped.

"So many existing laws were ignored," LaPierre continued, allowing illegal criminal to cross borders, gang violence, and drug crime to flourish. He mentioned Chicago (which seems to be conservatives' favorite target) and said that every major American community faced problems due to opiods and "Chinese fentanyl." This was a different twist, implying that society was falling into chaos and people needed extensive capabilities to defend themselves: "No wonder law-abiding Americans all over this country revere their Second Amendment to protect themselves more than ever." He warned that gun restrictions were part of a trend to exert "more control over people."

Not without solutions, as we will see in a moment, LaPierre insisted that "The NRA does care." He did, however, warn that background checks on gun purchasers could could cause mental health records used for gun checks to be added to a government list. He warned that veterans who told their doctors that they had trouble sleeping might be unable to buy firearms. What if people needed to be interviewed to buy firearms? Who would interview them? He warned of the danger that law-abiding gun owners could be falsely accused. Were these likely? LaPierre didn't say. His point is that they were possible if the attack on freedom were to continue.

The dark vision grew: in LaPierre's speech, there was an organized enemy: "socialists" who opposed "all of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights. They don't like free speech any more than they like the Second Amendment."  He complained about college free speech zones: "Try going to Berkeley and speak out in favor of conservative causes." He warned that in a controlling, socialist state, the government would "squeeze" information out of children, such as what their parents fed them, what TV shows they watched, and their gun ownership, so that the controlling government could collect lists. By this point, he had gone far beyond complaining about background checks or concealed carry classes.

Nearing his conclusion, LaPierre's dark vision warned of greater depravity: "It's just a short hop to the destruction of our most basic freedoms." He warned of risk to free market economy. He took a brief moment to assure the audience that he did not advocate armed rebellion. He complained that national media were hiding the truth and spreading falsehoods. What falsehoods? He didn't say. He did, however, mention that firearms were the "one freedom that protects us all in this country."

Solutions? LaPierre urged the arming of school personnel. He warned that schools were "soft targets" that deserved the same protection as banks and jewelry stores.

LaPierre ended by repeating the slogan: "To stop a bad guy with a gun it takes a good guy with a gun." The NRA and their supporters have always been about slogans, so, fine.  "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." "Criminals don't obey gun laws." And so forth. Slogans are much easier than analytical thought.

Overall, LaPierre's speech was full of speculation and dark threats, and very short on proof. Nevertheless, he had a sympathetic audience. Many conservatives are convinced that freedom is in danger, and oppose any further interposition against their rights. While liberals feel that reasonable gun restrictions might reduce violence, conservatives often feel that the slightest encroachment can only lead to a downward slide. Thus, while liberals might find LaPierre's vision implausible, if not outrageous, many conservatives would take his perspective to be obvious truth. 

I reviewed yesterday how the Founders deliberately wrote an ambiguity into the Second Amendment. I quoted the Founders at length. This got me some angry pushback on Twitter, with one poster accusing me of attacking the entire concept of freedom while harboring a desire to destroy the Bill of Rights and opposing free enterprise. LaPierre might have felt the same way, in that the NRA has, in recent years, advocated absolute, unrestricted gun rights and has sold much of the nation on the view that that the Second Amendment allows no restriction on gun ownership. As my post yesterday explained, they may be right. Or not.

P.S.: Given LaPierre's conspiratorial view, readers might want to look at my old post about how to evaluate conspiracy theories that appear in speeches.

Why Does the Second Amendment's Ambiguous Wording Cause So Much Confusion?

Bill of Rights, National Archives

We're hearing lots of speeches this month about the Second Amendment, which many quite responsible people believe underlies America freedom. Although the problems with gun rights in the 18th Century differed from those of today, there was still a big gap between the absolutists and the conservatives. (Although, as we'll see in a moment, many 18th Century conservatives took a position that would be considered liberal today, and vice versa.) 

The problem is that the Second Amendment is a prime example of what we could call creative ambiguity. When a statement is ambiguous, this means that it carries two different meanings. LiteraryDevices.com gives an example: "He gave her cat food." Does this mean that he fed his cat, or that he fed a woman some cat food? The sentence is ambiguous because it might carry either meaning. So, let's look at the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is a classic political statement, written by politicians (for the Founding Fathers were, most certainly, politicians) who needed to get something passed, had trouble agreeing, and wrote up a compromise that made little sense. Does the Second Amendment call for regulation, or not? Frankly, I don't think they intended it to be clear. Let's look at what they could have said if they wanted to be clear:

1. The Founders could have chosen to be thoroughgoing libertarians along the NRA's lines. 

If the Founders anticipated and shared the views of the National Rifle Association, they could have written this. (For consistency, I'll imitate 18th Century style):

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms in defense of the state or themselves, and for sporting purposes, in their Homes, places of Commerce, and about their persons, shall not be infringed."

That would be simple and clear, would it not? But they did not write that, did they? Actually, however, some of them thought about writing about something very similar! For example, during the debate about ratifying the Constitution, before the Bill of Rights was written, the proto-libertarian delegates known as the Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists proposed this amendment:

"The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil powers."

The NRA would be reasonably happy with that, I would think. And we would hear much less debate as to whether the Second Amendment authorized individuals to own firearms. Nevertheless, even this very libertarian statement proposed disarming citizens who were dangerous.

2. The Founders could have chosen to side with traditionalists like George Washington.

If the Founders wanted to establish a strictly controlled armed citizenry, they could have written a Second Amendment like this:

"The several States shall be empowered to maintain, and discipline a citizen Militia, and this right shall not be infringed."

That would also make sense, but it would say something different. Again, surprisingly enough, some of the Founders thought about writing something quite similar. When they ratified the U.S. Constitution, the Virginia legislature proposed this amendment:

"Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power."

That is very clear. Virginia's proposal placed the bearing of arms under "strict subordination" to the state governments as an alternative to a federal army. Note that their phrase, "well regulated Militia," made it into the amendment's final version, but their comments about "body of people trained to arms," "strict subordination" or "governed by the Civil power" did not.

By the way, here is what President George Washington said in his First Annual Address to Congress, which was the predecessor of today's State of the Union Speech:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which and a uniform and well digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest required that they should promote such manufacturies as tended to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
 
"The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it [,] it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with the due regard to economy."

As you can see, Washington sided with the Federalists, placing the armed citizenry under government control and training. He gave this speech in January 1790, almost two years before the Bill of Rights were adopted in December 1791.

Now, as fate has it, ratification of the Bill of Rights and support for the Constitution required at least some support from both the Federalists (who wanted strict government) and Anti-Federalists (who were more libertarian.) No version of the bearing arms amendment that made sense was likely to satisfy both groups. So, we ended up with a creative answer, a Second Amendment that prohibits infringement on gun rights, with a preamble that, due to being grammatically incorrect, either by our standards or the standards of the 18th Century, satisfied the Federalists without offending the Anti-Federalists. 

3. So, here we are today, faced with an ambiguous amendment. 

Modern handgun, from ATF webpage

Both sides could read their own opinions into our Second Amendment in its final form. Both sides still do. Anyone who follows Twitter or blog comments repeatedly sees this libertarian catch phrase:  "What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?" Liberals invariably respond, "What part of well regulated militia do you not understand?" I have used that latter phrase myself, but who knows which interpretation is right?

Placing emphasis on personal gun rights, a recent conservative newsletter gives a libertarian interpretation:

"The Second Amendment also states that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The word 'infringed' is perhaps the most powerful word in the Amendment, as well as the word we discuss the least – an unfortunate combination."

In contrast, Mark Moe writes this: "However, unless you believe that the Founders’ knowledge of grammar and sentence structure was suspect (and what right-thinking person would think that?), the Second amendment, though it does employ a peculiar and sometimes awkward construction called an 'absolute,' is actually a very straightforward call for the establishment of an armed militia when necessary. It has nothing to do with individual gun 'rights' except in that context." So, he sides with the Federalists. 

Sorry, Mr. Moe, although I think that the Founders understood grammar perfectly well, it is obvious that they chose to ignore grammar for political reasons. As a result, we find ourselves today struggling between two different, and equally plausible, interpretations of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was created as a political expediency, and we today are left with its political echoes. Under the Constitution, does the government have a right to regulate or discipline firearms users? Do individual citizens have gun rights independent of state control? Or not? Goodness gracious, who knows?

In upcoming posts, I'll look at some recent gun rights speeches on both sides, and relate them to the Second Amendment's creative ambiguity.

P.S.: If you visit Washington DC, my hometown, be sure to visit the National Archives and look at the original Bill of Rights, which is on public display in the lobby, next to the nation's other founding documents. Very inspiring. 

Emma González at the "March for Our Lives" Rally and the Rhetoric of Silence: Six Minutes and About 20 Seconds

Marjory Stoneman Douglas student Emma González gave a brief, powerful speech in Washington DC, my home town, as part of the pro-gun control, anti-school violence movement “March for Our Lives.” She used silence to great effect.  Her theme was that people don’t understand, and she wanted people to understand.

“Six minutes and about 20 seconds,” she said as she began to speak in a clear, powerful voice that belied her years. She continued: “In a little over 6 minutes, 17 of our friends were taken from us 15 were injured, and everyone, absolutely everyone, in the Douglas community was forever altered.”

She continued: “Everyone who was there understands. Everyone has been touched by the cold grip of gun violence understands. No one could believe that there were bodies in that building waiting to be ID’d for over a day. No one knew that the people who were missing had stopped breathing long before any of us had even known that a code red had been called.” She talked about the shooting’s “devastating aftermath.”

Many people use logical arguments and statistics to support or oppose gun control. That has made no difference, has it? González instead looked at the human side: “For those who still can’t comprehend because they refuse to, I’ll tell you where it went.” Crying, struggling to breathe, she listed her friends and classmates and their favorite activities that they would never again be able to do. The human side is what gun rights advocates never want to talk about. She forced the issue.

She then stopped talking for a few minutes. She used silence to fill the gap until 6 minutes and 20 seconds had passed. Such a short time. Silence is uncomfortable, is it not? The crowd listened quietly for a while, and then chanted “never again” while they waited for her to continue. Resuming, a bit more quietly, González noted that the shooter shot for only a short time. Her speech, carefully coordinated with the actual time that the shooter used, illustrated exactly how short a time it was.

Communication professor Robert L. Scott introduced the idea of the “Rhetoric of Silence.” If there is a time for speech, he explained, there is also a time for silence. We often offer the deceased a moment of silence as a tribute, recognizing that they will never speak again. We might offer silence to show non-violence. We offer silence to show that we are voiceless. Chapter 7 of my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Presidential Campaign, points out how it means something when we fail to talk about something that cannot be ignored.

Instead of using silence in those ways, González used silence as a marker. She and her beeping cell phone were timekeepers. She showed how short the shooting was. She showed how uncomfortable its brevity was. She didn’t just say that the time was short; she exemplified it.

Let’s return to something that González said at the outset: “No one knew that the people who were missing had stopped breathing long before any of us had even known that a code red had been called.” The NRA famously says that gun control is no answer, that the only answer is a “good guy with a gun.” But the shooting was so short that, even if the school’s resource officer and other law enforcement personnel had done their jobs, the shooter would have had plenty of time to kill and maim plenty of students before they got to him. Her period of silence showed, to some extent, the uselessness of gun advocates’ strategy.

González’ earlier outspoken comments had previously led Maine politician Leslie Gibson, a Republican, to call her a “skinhead lesbian.”  He soon withdrew his candidacy. He later apologized. Too late, unless he uses the opportunity to reform his life. The Stoneman Douglas protestors are, contrary to every principle of modern-day politics, avoiding the smear tactics that have wrecked American political discourse. And smears don't work against people who are obviously, undeniably sincere.

Earlier school shootings met with outrage and calls for change. They have gone nowhere. Will this time be different? The Marjory Stoneman Douglas students don’t seem eager to go away.

Vice President Mike Pence Helped Trump Reset the Agenda on Taxes. Or Did He Just Change the Subject?

As I remarked in an earlier post, debates are won by the side that sets the agenda. The side that debates on its own ground earns a big advantage. President Donald Trump's opponents are focusing on the growing Russia investigation, the Stormy Daniels controversy, and White House turmoil. These are all real issues, and the mainstream press has been reporting them, along with Mr. Trump's accomplishments. The press is also busy with the student gun control movement, Our Lives Matter. However, no good can come to Mr. Trump by wasting too much time talking about Russia, Stormy Daniels, or White House turmoil. Those are not his issues. Gun control is not the Republicans' issue. Mr. Trump simply issues a few implausible Twitter posts to deny these controversies, and moves on.

VP Mike Pence, WH photo

So, Vice President Mike Pence's speech in Atlanta yesterday, an event billed as the Tax Cuts to Put America First Event, helped out the administration's cause by ignoring the controversies, and instead drawing the public's attention to the Republican tax cuts. Tax cuts are always popular, and, although the tax cut bill mostly helps the rich, talking about tax cuts still seems like a good political move.

After a lengthy collection of pleasantries, Mr. Pence bragged about the Trump Administration's success: "it’s been a year of action; it’s been a year of results. In a word, it’s been a year of promises made and promises kept. (Applause.)"  He praised the spending bill that Congress passed at the last minute to avoid a government shutdown saying that "we saw the promises of this administration kept, one after another."  He did complain that government "is still too big and still spends too much," but simultaneously, somewhat contradictorily, boasted that the spending bill increased the military budget to "rebuild our military and restore the arsenal of democracy." (Curiously, the phrase "arsenal of democracy" traces back to Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt's interventionist strategy prior to United States entry into World War II, which would seem to contradict Mr. Trump's "America First" slogan. Well, no one ever expects politicians to be consistent.)

Mr. Pence also talked about increased funding for school security and fighting opiod addiction.  He highlighted "another $21 billion to rebuild our infrastructure." None of that sounds like reducing the size of government, does it? People want the government to do things, so Mr. Pence talked about some popular and necessary (but quite expensive) things that the government was doing.

Still, this was an anti-tax meeting, so Mr. Pence needed to talk about reducing government spending, not increasing it. He therefore called upon Congress to give President Trump authority to issue line-item vetoes. Of course, people informed about the issue, a group that seemingly does not include the President and Vice-President, knows that the Supreme Court of the United States already ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional, in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

Well, never mind.The point about the line-item veto is that it is a way to reduce government spending without asking Congress to reduce spending. This makes the line-item veto popular among anti-tax advocates. The fact that Congress can't implement it means little to those advocates, as long as the possibility intrigues the low-tax crowd.

Halfway through the speech, however, Mr. Pence did take time to highlight the Republican tax cuts:

"And finally, what brought us all here today on a Friday afternoon, taking a break from watching basketball — (laughter) — is that this President promised to cut taxes across the board for working families and businesses and family farms. And three months ago yesterday, with the strong support of these great leaders in the Congress, and with the support of every Georgia Republican in the House of Representatives, President Donald Trump signed the largest tax cuts and tax reform in American history. That’s promises made and promises kept. (Applause.)"

Well, Mr. Pence did need to talk about taxes, since this was an anti-tax meeting. He then rambled on, however, as politicians will do, to talk about what he said was the administration's success in reducing illegal immigration, "cracking down on drug dealers," and opposing sanctuary cities.

In other words, this speech was about the Trump administration's agenda. The Vice-President talked enough about low taxes to satisfy his audience, but he used the opportunity to highlight successes that were important to Republican core voters. By keeping those items on the agenda, the Vice-President gave his supporters something positive to think about, while he absolutely ignored the controversies that otherwise seem to swirl around President Trump's administration.

People who underestimate the importance of setting an agenda are making a mistake. The President and Vice-President have tremendous power to get the public thinking about the issues that they want people to talk about. That is what this speech was doing.

This was a very bad speech if you are concerned about proof and logic: as a rule, more spending doesn't lead to lower taxes, the line-item veto is unconstitutional, and immigration has little to do with tax rates. But it was a very good speech for the millions of people who support President Trump's agenda, and who are no doubt pleased to see it implemented. Mr. Pence moved the debate to his own ground.

Still, Russia, Our Lives Matter, and White House staff turnover haven't gone away. So, who, in the long run, will really control the agenda? Time will tell.

Just Like Regular Politicians, Donald Trump Committed Straw Person Fallacies

Donald Trump, official portrait

President Donald Trump's recent fundraising speech to the Republican National Congressional Committee was packed with Straw Person fallacies, that is, he attacked his opponents for things they neither said nor believed. This made his opponents seem worse than they were, and made his own position seem morally righteous. I wrote yesterday about how this speech did a very good job of setting a positive agenda. Today, we will look at its problems. A fallacy is an unsound argument, especially an unsound argument that sounds better than it really is.

This is the Twenty-First Century, so let's call it the Straw Person fallacy, not the Straw Man fallacy.  People commit this fallacy in a debate when they ignore the good arguments that the other side makes, and instead invent a silly argument, pretend that the other side made the silly argument, and refute it. This prevents a direct clash between the two sides. It is very common, especially in politics. Fallacy expert Douglas Walton thinks that the Straw Person's first discussion was in a book by Stuart Chase, although people have been committing this fallacy for centuries. A speaker commits the Straw Person fallacy by misinterpreting, exaggerating, or underestimating the point that the other side makes.

This fallacy is the politician's stock in trade. For example, committing PolitiFact's 2010 "Lie of the Year," Republicans pretended that Obamacare was a "government takeover of healthcare." This greatly overstated the case, and made it possible for Republicans to attack Obamacare for things that it did not actually do. Not to be outdone, President Barack Obama once said, “We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.” Since few, if any, Republicans advocate such a position, he was arguing against something they neither said or believed.

Here are some Straw Person fallacies that Mr. Trump committed during his RNCC speech:

Mr. Trump accused the Democrats of wanting to raise working people's taxes:

"Every single Democrat in Congress opposed our middle class tax cuts.  And if Democrats were to gain control of the House, the first thing they would do is raise your taxes.  They would raise your taxes.  They would take away what we’ve done and raise your taxes."

That misrepresented and distorted what the Democrats were saying. Tax cuts are popular, but the Republican tax cuts were, as an article in Fortune points out, skewed toward the very rich and corporations, while Democrats typically want to raise marginal tax rates, putting more burden on the rich, not the working people. To maintain that the Democrats were trying to attack middle-class and working people by raising their taxes misrepresents their opinions. At best, Mr. Trump oversimplified and distorted a complex question about taxes. His argument was powerful, as no one likes to pay taxes, but it did not accurately represent what the Democrats were saying.

 Mr. Trump also accused Democrats of apologizing for America:

"For the last eight years, Democrats apologized for America.  Republicans, on the other hand, are standing up for America.  (Applause.)  Right?  We’ve seen a lot of apologies." 

I have never actually understood what is so bad about apologizing when you do something wrong. Although "apologizing for America" has become quite the talking point, I have never seen any actual evidence that the Democrats have done much of this. For example, FactCheck.org carefully examined President Barack Obama's speeches and found no evidence that he had actually engaged in an apology tour, as his opponents had accused him of doing. Alas! When people repeat false charges over and over again, it becomes easy to believe them. But Mr. Trump was accusing the Democrats of something that they had not actually done.

Similarly, Mr. Trump repeated his campaign theme that Democrats were in favor of "open borders."

"Nowhere in the Democrats’ extremism — and nowhere can you see anything displayed more clearly than on immigration.  A vote for House Democrats is truly a vote for open borders — people pouring into our country, pouring in.  We have no idea who they are.  They’re coming in — open borders.  You look at sanctuary cities, where criminals are protected."

Let us be clear. Open borders might resemble the situation in the European Union, where citizens of one Union country can travel easily to another. Democrats have not advocated such a policy. Democrats typically do advocate some type of earned amnesty for Dreamers and the accommodation of carefully-screened refugees. Many Republicans oppose these policies, which they are entitled to do, but those policies are not "open borders," which is an outrageous exaggeration.

I do not particularly mean to pick on Mr. Trump, since many politicians misrepresent their opponents' position. They have been doing that ever since politicians came into being. Still, when Straw Person fallacies originate, we public speaking, communication, and debate people must point them out and complain about them. It is hard to engage in open dialogue if we pretend that our opponents are saying stupid things that they are not actually saying.

A great republic can make better policies if we talk about real issues, instead of pretending that our opponents have said something silly. When our opponents actually do say something silly, we can and should complain about it, but when they say something reasonable, we should cope with their real arguments. Make-believe does not solve our nation's problems.

Did Donald Trump Change the Subject and Set the Agenda at the RNCC Fundraiser?

Donald Trump, WH photo

Much commentary about President Donald Trump's speech at the Republican National Congressional Committee fundraiser the other day. CNN headlined a story by Chris Cillizza featuring "The 35 Most Startling Lines from Donald Trump's Speech at a Big Republican Fundraiser." That kind of negative coverage, in a story that emphasized unreasonable or exaggerated statements that Mr. Trump made during the speech, might well stimulate Mr. Trump to talk again about the mainstream media as "fake news."

You win a debate by picking your strongest points and harping on them. You lose a debate by getting excessively defensive. Mr. Trump used this speech to set the agenda.

On the one hand, Cillizza's headline is right. Mr. Trump did make some startling statements, and he surely overstated a number of points. He promised that he would never apologize: "We don't apologize," he said in the speech. Why not? If you're wrong, admit it like an adult!

He said that he hated his own catch phrase "Drain the Swamp," but said that he used it because "Every time I said it, I'd get the biggest applause." He said something he did not like because people cheered? How bizarre! It is entirely proper for journalists to point that kind of thing out to their readers and listeners.

But does Cillizza's criticism not miss the point?  He overlooks how Mr. Trump set the agenda. It wasn't how Mr. Trump talked about things, it was what he talked about. Let us imagine that politics in the United States takes the form of a gigantic debate, with thousands of debaters nationwide arguing in many different places, and that people think of this debate as having only two sides: liberal and conservative. Who is winning the debate? We will not know for sure until the next election cycle, will we? Did Mr. Trump use a good debate strategy? That depends!

OK, sure, in an ideal world, debaters would stick to the facts, prove their points, and give reasons against their opponents' points. In any case, that is what I was taught when I was in high school and college (thank you, Barbara Sue Carter, Patrick Micken, Donald McConkey, and my other debate teachers!). Would it not be nice if people used accurate facts in their debates?

The other point about winning a debate, however, is that the winner of the debate is the side that sets the agenda. The side that decides which issues will be discussed and which ones will not becomes the side that decides which points are important. That is usually the side that wins the debate. If you are always on the defensive – if you are always refuting your opponents' points – you are losing the debate. Set the ground, win the battle!

In this speech, Donald Trump was setting the agenda. That was the real point, and critics like Cillizza missed it.

What is on his opponents' agenda? No secret there: Russia, the Mueller investigation, and an impending government shutdown. Awful stuff. That is what his opponents want to talk about. If the agenda stays on those issues, Mr. Trump will be in trouble.

But Mr. Trump had a different agenda: he focused on successes. Consider this introductory point:

"Our Republican majority is one of the most successful in the history of the United States Congress.  Now, we must work to keep our majority so we can keep up the fight for American workers, American security, and the American values enshrined in our glorious Constitution and in our great American flag.  (Applause.)"

Overstated? Of course. Congress has not passed legislation anywhere near as comprehensive as, for example, the New Deal or the Great Society. Still, Mr. Trump's statement covered just about everything except Mom and chocolate chip cookies. People love a winner, and here are some specific examples of winning that Mr. Trump talked about: 

• Job creation 

"We’ve created more than 3 million new jobs since the election.  And if we would have said that number prior to the election, nobody would have believed it possible.  Jobless claims are at — think of it — jobless claims are at a nearly 50-year low.  Fifty years.  (Applause.)  That’s an amazing statistic."

Did that claim overstate the economy a bit? Well, yes. But the economy is in pretty good shape right now, and people usually credit the president for that, so he shifted the agenda away from, for example, Russia, and toward job creation. He avoided the criticisms, and focused on the positive: not defending himself, but instead asserting a positive agenda.

• Wage growth

"Wages are rising at the fastest pace in more than a decade, and I’ve been talking on the campaign trail for so long that wages have been stagnant for 18, 20, and even 21 years."


Again, that overstates things, since wage growth is still very weak, but it was a positive message and there is some truth to it.

• And on the attack about taxes!

IRS 1040

Also, Mr. Trump went on the attack against his Democratic opponents:


"Every single Democrat in Congress opposed our middle class tax cuts.  And if Democrats were to gain control of the House, the first thing they would do is raise your taxes.  They would raise your taxes.  They would take away what we’ve done and raise your taxes.  And actually, I’ve seen some of the numbers — very substantially raise your taxes."

That, again, is a little questionable, since most of the tax cuts are going to the very wealthy, but it is still a positive message, and he showed the Democrats to be against it. Since it is hard to put tax increases in a positive light, Mr. Trump's strategy here is clever. 

• Attacking some more!

According to Mr. Trump's speech, Democrats did other bad things: 

"A vote for House Democrats is truly a vote for open borders — people pouring into our country, pouring in.  We have no idea who they are.  They’re coming in — open borders.  You look at sanctuary cities, where criminals are protected."

In general, Mr. Trump's opponents consistently underestimate him. but this was a very persuasive speech, and it touched on points that greatly interest his voters and core supporters. He did not waste time defending himself against criticisms of foreign involvement, personal corruption, or inefficient administration. Even if he made good arguments on those points, those are his opponents' points, and it could do him little good to focus on them.

Instead, Mr. Trump focused on accomplishments, attacking against his opponents and raising the key issues of taxes and immigration. The speech was an attempt to reset the agenda. Although the mainstream press, such as CNN, largely missed the point, I am sure that his supporters did not.

This speech did commit what we used to call a "straw man" fallacy. I'll talk more about that later.

William McKinley versus Donald Trump: Does Mr. Trump Really Need to Be So Nasty?

Interesting CNN article by John Kirby about William McKinley and tariffs. With President Donald Trump taking an anti-free trade stance, conservatives are now beginning to think that free trade is bad after all. They're probably wrong, but that's a story for another time.

For most of his career, President McKinley favored protection, which was a code name for high tariffs imposed on imported goods. McKinley attributed the Depression of 1893 to low tariffs. Modern economists would attribute the Depression of 1893 to a bank panic combined with excessively tight monetary policy.

Kirby interviewed conservative author Robert Merry. Merry took the attitude that protection is not always harmful and that free trade isn't always good. Merry isn't actually an economist, but, then, neither am I.

I wrote about William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan's public speaking during their 1896 presidential campaign. (See link at left.) Both men were far more powerful orators than Trump because they appealed to the voters' better natures, just as Trump appeals to people's fears and ignorance. 

So, instead of hassling about the tariff, let's compare and contrast McKinley's rhetorical approach with Trump's. McKinley was unifying; Trump is divisive. To be blunt, McKinley was a far more positive politician than Trump.

Trump is divisive on purpose. It's his main appeal. Consider his recent (inaccurate) claim that the USA has a trade deficit with Canada:

That tweet implied, probably wrongly, that the EU is harming the United States and that the trade deals are grossly unfair.

These statements persuade by sowing division, by making the United States out to be a victim.

Consider McKinley's unifying approach to foreign trade. During his 1896 campaign, he called his candidacy: “this great fight of 1896 for a protective tariff, for a good currency, for peace and law and order, and the triumph of right and justice.” That didn't necessarily make any more sense than what Trump said, but it was a positive, not hostile message. 

In another campaign speech that year, he said, according to a report in the Canton Repository:

"Nothing is more vital to the standing and progress of a country than the preservation of its credit and financial honor. (Applause and cries of 'that’s right.') Nothing is more vital to the standing and progress of a country than that the currency of the country shall be so honest that it can cheat nobody. (Great cheering.) Nothing is of greater moment to the welfare of the country than the adoption of a policy which will give to labor and capital constant employment with fair returns. (Applause and cries of 'good.')."

See the difference? McKinley argued that everyone shared the same interests. He did not directly criticize his famous opponent, William Jennings Bryan. He put capital and labor on an equal footing, pledging to respect both, and putting neither at odds with the other. Unlike Trump, McKinley at least made an effort to bring people together.

And, guess what? With this unifying style, full of positive message, McKinley won the presidency.

Do candidates today need to be nasty to win? I think not. It's just that the nasty ones have won some elections in the past, and people now think it's the only way to go.

Here's the problem: to be an effective leader, Mr. Trump needs to inspire enough Americans to accomplish his goals. But his consistently nasty rhetoric offends at least as many people as it inspires, and, then, the people he has offended don't want to implement his policies. Divisive rhetoric is overrated.