Rhetoric and Setting the Tone: Christine Blasey Ford Was Calm; Brett Kavanaugh Got Angry. Why?

Christine Blasey Ford

I’ll let the FBI investigate the facts of the Kavanaugh-Ford sexual assault controversy. They are detectives, and I’m not. I’m a public speaking and debate specialist. So, let us chat for a moment about the tone that Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford took in their opening statements during Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Viewed as a persuasive public speaking event, there is a lot more to their tone than meets the ear.

Ford had accused Kavanaugh of assaulting her with apparent attempt to rape during an unsupervised party when they were students at prestigious private high schools. Kavanaugh categorically denied the charge. Each of the two witnesses tried to establish credibility by projecting a certain persona, a kind of character. But they were establishing character in different ways to different audiences. Ford appealed to liberal thought patterns; Kavanaugh appealed to conservative thought patterns. So, they talked past one another.

Kavanaugh being sworn in

Ford tried very hard to stay calm; she expressed a certain amount of diffidence, laid out the facts as she understood them, and expressed respect to the committee. Liberal and mainstream commentators reacted favorably and found her testimony convincing. Conservative commentators felt that she projected the image of being an obvious liar manipulated by the Democratic Party. In contrast, Kavanaugh came out swinging. He was loud and boisterous. He was quite vague about facts. His contradicted himself once in a while. He launched personal attacks against the press and the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Democrats.

Dr. Ford read her statement quietly from a prepared typescript, which she said she wrote herself. Her tone seemed deferential, even self-effacing. She confessed to being “terrified.” She emphasized that “I have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I am a fiercely independent person and I am no one’s pawn.”

She said that, after the alleged attack, “For a very long time, I was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone the details. I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys. I tried to convince myself that because Brett did not rape me, I should be able to move on and just pretend that it had never happened.” She explained that, years later, “I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so that those considering his potential nomination would know about the assault.”

Later, when asked questions, she continued to speak clearly but quietly. She noted that the Republican majority had appointed a “professional prosecutor” to question her but said that she hoped “to be able to engage directly with each of you.” She welcomed any questions.

Kavanaugh read his prepared remarks, which he also said he had written himself, in a clear, firm tone. As his statement continued, he became louder and louder. He complained about the 10-day delay before the hearing was scheduled.  He protested that “Since my nomination in July there's been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation.” (Despite the histrionic language, he was clearly right that most Democrats opposed him from the start.) He cited witnesses who claimed to have no memory of the alleged attack. He denied attending the party at which the attack supposedly took place.

His protests continued: “Since my nomination in July there's been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated the Democratic senate leader said he would, quote, oppose me with everything he's got.” He said that “When I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed.” He reviewed his political and legal career in detail, including a discussion of his work with President Bush. “This has destroyed my family and my good name.” He said that the “two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit.” When Democrats asked him questions, he often interrupted and changed the subject.

A column in USA Today notes, correctly, that Kavanaugh made sweeping statements while Ford was careful to say when she was sure of her facts and when she was not. Both witnesses have been accused of having memory gaps, and their opponents have freely called both of them liars. The FBI is now investigating, and maybe they will give us more certainty as to the facts. Social media comments about both witnesses have been many and vicious.

In the 1950’s, the great conservative theorist Richard Weaver noted that liberals tend to argue from premises about specific facts and circumstances, while conservatives work from definitions and categories. On a different tack, cognitive scientist George Lakoff shows that conservatives value strong leadership (he calls it a “strong father metaphor”), while liberals value compassionate leadership (Lakoff calls this the “nurturing mother metaphor.”) Exactly so. Ford was calm, reasonable, and interactive. She expressed concern for the committee members on both sides. She spoke carefully and quietly, as if to persuade by reason. In other words, she spoke in a way that liberals find persuasive, and liberals endorsed her statement. Yet conservatives seemed to think that her calmness and diffidence reflected weakness, a weakness that would make her easy for politicians to manipulate; a weakness that would make her an easy target for them to attack. 

In contrast, Kavanaugh spoke in sweeping generalities, made wild, implausible accusations, and spewed out unproven conspiracy theories. He gave at least as many facts as Ford, but many of those facts, such as his church-going habits and his weightlifting schedule, had little to do with the immediate question. Conservatives loved it: he looked strong. He sounded strong. His anger showed conservatives that he was strong. Conservatives felt that his anger reflected his justified indignation at the injustices that Democrats were wreaking upon him. Of course, to liberals, his anger showed that he was becoming unhinged.

Who was right? I think we’ll know more once the FBI finishes its work next week. At the same time, temporarily putting aside the evidence, angry diatribes have never convinced me. During my long career as a university professor, I occasionally encountered outraged students. Few of them even made sense as they raged at me. A student turns in a paper. I look on the Internet and quickly find that the student copied chunks of the writing. Plagiarism like that is, unlike a long-ago sexual assault accusation, an open-and-shut case. The student’s guilt is absolute. Here is the paper; here is the source. They are the same, and what else could be relevant? Yet some students flew into a rage: “I’m a Christian, and Christians don’t cheat, so how dare you accuse me?” Or, “I never copied anything; this is nonsense; I’m going to appeal.” Kavanaugh’s response reminded me of that kind of exchange. He raged about things of which he was not even accused. Then, again, we university professors are trained to think in terms of circumstance and cause and effect, and we pride ourselves on being nurturing, so how would you expect me to react?

The point is, Ford and Kavanaugh both spoke in styles that their supporters would like, but which would predictably enrage their opponents. 

Kavanaugh photo: US Senate Judiciary Committee website

Ford photo: US Congress, via Wikimedia 

 

Chuck Grassley Called for Civility in the Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing, but, Sadly, Civility Vanished

Sen. Grassley and Judge Kavanaugh share a Civil Moment

Even when political people today try to be civil, they don’t always pull it off. I’m beginning to wonder, quite seriously, whether some of the Senators and witnesses in today’s Senate Judiciary Committee would behave the same way if their grandmothers were watching.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a lovely state that I once proudly called home, chaired today’s hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning an allegation of sexual assault that Professor Christine Blasey Ford made against Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Ford said in writing, and repeated in the hearing under oath, that Kavanaugh attacked her and tried to rape her when they were both teenagers attending prestigious Catholic high schools. Ford made a quietly emotional statement in which she delineated her accusations, while Kavanaugh responded with righteous indignation. So far, audience responses to Ford and Kavanaugh’s statements have followed predictable partisan lines.

But let me talk for a minute about Grassley’s opening speech. For the most part, Grassley gave a partisan, and, to my way of thinking, weak defense of his committee’s refusal to call additional witnesses or gather additional facts about Kavanaugh’s alleged misconduct. That was foreseeable. But let’s look favorably upon his calls for civility.

First, Grassley noted that “Both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have been through a terrible couple of weeks. They and their families have received vile threats. What they have endured ought to be considered by all of us as unacceptable and a poor reflection on the state of civility in our democracy.”

Grassley then apologized to both witnesses “for the way you’ve been treated, and I intend hopefully for today’s hearing to be safe, comfortable, and dignified for both of our witnesses. I hope my colleagues will join me in that effort of a show of civility.” He then went on an extended narrative of the committee’s work, most of which defended the committee’s investigation while expressing umbrage that Democrats had not respected the committee’s procedures.

Then, as he concluded his introductory comments, recognizing that the hearing would delve into intimate personal issues, Grassley assured the witnesses that “they have the right under Senate Rule 26.5 to ask that committee go into closed session with a question requires an answer that is a clear invasion of their right to privacy. If either Doctor Ford or Judge Kavanaugh feels that Rule 26.5 is to be involved they should simply say so.” (As fate had it, both witnesses chose to speak publicly.)

Grassley’s noble goal of civility was not fully accomplished. Senator Grassley himself was soon publicly criticized for repeatedly interrupting female Democratic Senators. (None of the Republican senators on the committee was a woman.) At times, Kavanaugh practically shouted during his testimony, and he interrupted questions that he did not want to answer, such as a question by Senator Patrick Leahy, who made a reference to Kavanaugh’s yearbook boasts about his youthful sexual and inebriating triumphs. South Carolina’s usually unflappable Senator Lindsey Graham cursed and turned red in the face while yelling about what he contended was the Democrats’ perfidy. This was most regrettable, and not the kind of behavior that the people should accept from their governmental leaders. If he wanted to follow through on his calls for civility, Grassley could and should have asked people to calm down and show more respect.

At least, however, Grassley knew that the committee should try to be civil. In these partisan times, with so much mindless anger fueled by talk radio and cable news, not to mention Twitter posts, with the two political parties increasingly unable and unwilling to compromise about the simplest things, with facts taking second seat to anger, with group loyalty ruling over common sense, it was wonderful that he at least tried to advocate civility.

Maybe, we can hope, the next time a Senate Committee Chair calls for civility, the committee members and witnesses will heed the advice.

Image: Chuck Grassley's US Senate website 

Tariffs Are Nothing New under the Sun: Trump's Tariffs versus Henry Clay's "American System"

Henry Clay, US Senate

Protective tariffs are almost always bad ideas, and yet the public almost always loves them. President Donald Trump’s “America First” campaign philosophy blamed some of America’s problems on international trade deals. He complained that the United States of America’s previous leaders adopted the Transpacific Partnership (NAFTA) and North American Free Trade Agreement because they were weak.

In 1824, Kentucky’s Henry Clay, Speaker of the House of Representatives, gave a three-day (!) speech in the House called "In Defense of the American System." Clay’s admirable goal was to stimulate American industry and commerce. The young nation needed some of the policies that his speech proposed: he wanted to see the federal government develop interstate commerce, especially by financing a canal and river network. He proposed a central bank, a National Bank, which a sovereign nation obviously needed. He didn’t know enough about economics to establish a national bank free from corruption, but that’s a story for another day.

Then, as now, the economic needs of the industrial and agricultural regions collided. Industry was exploding across the northern states, while the South’s agricultural economy largely used cheap slave labor. The South’s farmers thrived on exports, so a trade war would surely hurt them. Northerners believed that the protective tariff would shield their young industries from foreign competition.

Southerners loudly protested against tariffs, and Clay’s speech spent hours defending the tariff against Southerners' argument; for example, he said:

"The loss of the tonnage of Charleston, which has been dwelt on, does not proceed from the tariff; it never had a very large amount, and it has not been able to retain what it had, in consequence of the operation of the principle of free trade on its navigation. Its tonnage has gone to the more enterprising and adventurous tars of the Northern States."

Sometimes, Clay implied that anti-tariff people were just plain stupid:

"Practical men understand very well this state of the case, whether they do or do not comprehend the causes which produce it."

Other than his obvious misogyny (surely women could understand things just as well as men), Clay’s attitude sounds familiar today: he implied that Southerners were foolish, lazy, and unwise. Hillary Clinton made similar disparaging comments during her 2016 campaign, did she not? For example, she put many Trump supporters in a “basket of deplorables.” Clay was saying that more strength and vigor would overcome economic problems, denying that tariffs caused problems. That sounds very much like Donald Trump saying that the United States' trade deals were "weak."

Yet, unlike most political speakers today, Clay disgorged hundreds of facts and figures to support his ideas. Here is one particularly dense example:

"During the first term, commencing with 1817, and ending in the year of the passage of the tariff of 1824, the amount of the value of real estate was, the first year, $57,799,435, and, after various fluctuations in the intermediate period, it settled down at $52,019,730, exhibiting a decrease, in seven years, of $5,779,705. During the first year of 1825, after the passage of the tariff, it rose, and, gradually ascending throughout the whole of the latter period of seven years, it finally, in 1831, reached the astonishing height of $95,710,485!"

I see no reason to think that Clay understood his argument's implications, but, unlike 21^st-century politicians, he at least tried to prove his points. 

Nothing new under the sun! Clay made exhaustive arguments to support an incorrect position. He made fun of conservatives who disagreed with them, implying that they were sluggish, ill-informed and stupid. He pretended that the interests of one part of the country were the same as the interests of another part of the country. He met legitimate disagreements with a combination of factual argument and tasteful but real ridicule.

Still, Clay offered careful factual research and reasoned argument. He tried to show that the country's interests were the same nationwide. That is admirable, in a sense, even if it was probably untrue. To his credit, Clay, although a slaveowner himself, did complain about the institution of slavery, which his speech said would contributed to "aristocracy."

Although slavery was the Civil War’s main cause, southern opposition to tariffs contributed to the South’s feeling that Northerners did not understand their economic needs. In any case, the protective tariff was the United States government’s main revenue source until well into the 20^th century.

Donald Trump, WH portrait

We see a switch today, as a conservative president, Donald Trump, started a trade war that is already hurting the agricultural states that put him in the White House. Will farmers, who depend on exports today just as they did 200 years ago, continue to support him? Or will their economic interests force them to turn against Mr. Trump? Time will tell.

And, of course, the protective tariff continues to be popular, even though it is still almost always a bad idea. Tariff policy often seems boring, but causes lasting controversies.

In an upcoming post, we shall look at two of President William McKinley’s tariff speeches. Stay tuned!

Quotation for the day: conservative economist Greg Mankiw writes, "The tariffs just imposed by President Trump are, of course, terrible policy. Mr. Trump deserves the first line of blame for making decisions that no sensible economist would advocate."