Donald Trump's Quick Speech in Illinois after the Pittsburgh Massacre: A Difficult Rhetorical Situation

Donald Trump Speaking in Illinois, October 27, 2018

Before his October 27, 2018 political rally in Illinois, President Donald Trump delivered a brief, seemingly impromptu statement about the mass shooting in a Pittsburgh synagogue, during which a right-wing bigot armed with a powerful large-magazine rifle killed 11 innocent people and wounded several others, including four armed police officers. President Trump faced a difficult rhetorical challenge: to express sympathy and horror without offending his right-wing base voters. Did he get the job done? Not really. I’m not sure that any speaker in his situation could have done better. It's better not to get into situations like that. I’ll explain why at the end.

Here’s the heart of his statement:

“As President, it’s a level of terribleness and horror that you can’t even believe.  It’s hard to believe.  It’s just — you stand as President and you do what people say is a good job.  What I say — you just do the absolute best.  You say something like this and you see something like this, and you say, ‘How can it happen?’

“As President, as bad as you felt before, you feel worse.  And I just — I just find it hard to believe.  You know what’s going on; it’s at least 11 people are dead.  Police officers were very badly wounded.  Three and probably four very, very badly wounded.  But sounds like they’ll be okay.

“They were unbelievable.  The law enforcement was unbelievable.  And we’ll be getting a full report in about an hour from now.

“So we’re in Illinois, and we will make the best of it.  Thank you all very much.”
 

That was all fine, of course. Mr. Trump certainly did not express the level of deep sympathy that, Barack Obama did in Charleston after the awful church massacre there.  

But how could he? Mr. Obama’s thesis was to unify the nation, end divisions, and establish modest gun-control measures. President Trump couldn’t say any of that, not really, because his political and rhetorical approaches have taken him in different directions for years. After the Charlottesville rally, which pitted neo-Nazis against peace demonstrators, he said that there were "very fine people on both sides." He criticized a Hispanic judge: "Now this judge is of Mexican heritage, I'm building a wall." It's a little late for Mr. Trump to speak in a unifying style.

It was also obvious that even the armed response that conservatives often advocate would not have been quite enough, since the shooter took down four armed officers before he was disabled.

First, what did Mr. Trump do right? First, he expressed horror about the event. I’m sure that he was sincere. Anyone who wasn’t a hateful murderer would be horrified. He praised the police officers, who showed great bravery in the face of the killer’s superior firepower. They deserved his praise.

Second, what did he not say? He didn’t call for gun control; he has long since backed off from his 2017 advocacy of modest gun controls. His conservative base would never tolerate such a move. He didn’t condemn anti-Semitism in dramatic, explicit terms. That was awkward. His beloved daughter Ivanka is a faithful Jew. There is some objective evidence that America’s right-wing voters continue to harbor anti-Semitic impulses. Those groups, unfortunately, continue to offer Mr. Trump considerable support, which he will need if Republicans are to flourish in next week's Congressional elections. Politically, did Mr. Trump feel that he was walking a tightrope between his own feelings, on the one hand, and the need to placate his base, on the other? It’s hard to say.

So, Mr. Trump’s brief statement was fine but weak. He said nothing morally wrong or inappropriate. (He did make a factual error in his introduction when he implied that the New York Stock Exchange reopened the day after the 9/11 attacks; it did not.)

 

But Mr. Trump’s brief statement didn’t really accomplish much, either. He needed to say more. I think he knew that he needed to say more, but maybe he wasn’t sure what to say. At best, all he could hope for was to avoid digging himself into a deeper hole than he was already in. He did come to Pittsburgh on October 30, where he made a solemn but rather awkward appearance.

 

Shortly after his Illinois speech, Mr. Trump created a brilliant distraction by threatening to end birthright citizenship by executive order. That was ridiculous, but he partially changed the national dialogue, distracting us from thinking about the hate crimes. That wasn’t admirable, but it seemed to alter the week’s news stories, as various knowledgeable people occupied much TV news time and newspaper column inches pointing out how silly it was to try to change the 14th Amendment by executive order. Oddly, even one of his advisor’s spouses wrote an article pointing out how wrong Trump was. Embarrassing though that was, it took people’s minds away from the hate crimes.

Could another speaker in that situation have done better? Probably not. It’s better not to get yourself in situations like that to begin with. Mr. Trump's rhetoric is sometimes, shall we say, very aggressive. Did his previous rhetoric contribute to the attack? That is still being debated. Some Republicans falsely blamed Jewish billionaire George Soros for financing a refugee caravan heading through Mexico, and anti-Semitism motivated the attacker. So, it is possible. 

Mr. Trump's previous rhetoric put him into a hole. If Mr. Trump finds a way to back down from his more inflammatory speech, he might be better able to heal the nation during times of horror and crisis. Is it too late? Or can he still do that? 

If you are digging yourself into a hole, stop digging. If you are already in a hole, dig yourself out. If you can't dig yourself out, call for someone to rescue you. If no one can rescue you, you are in trouble. 

Rhetorical scholars have all read Lloyd Bitzer's famous article The Rhetorical Situation, which explains how speakers adapt to the needs (he calls them "exigences") that a given situation creates. Mr. Trump found himself in an awkward rhetorical situation. He wandered around the key issue, and then he dropped back 10 and punted. Some days go like that. 

Image: White House YouTube channel

Donald Trump, Birthright Citizenship, and the Art of Distraction

Donald Trump

Magicians know that the key to creating illusions is to distract the audience from what is really going on. If you’re palming a card in your left hand, get the audience to look at your right hand. If you want to hide a ball, get the audience to glance at your attractive assistant. Simple enough. Apparently, this technique also works in political speech.

The big news issues during the past week have dealt with hate crimes. A bigoted right-wing assassin murdered 11 people in a Jewish synagogue in Pittsburgh. Another right-winger sent letter bombs (fortunately, badly-made letter bombs) to various leading Democrats. In Kentucky, a white man shot two black men in the grocery store for no obvious reason. President Trump and the White House found it necessary to deny that President Trump’s sometimes-inflammatory speech contributed to these horrors. It was politically inopportune that the issue even came up. What president wants to be accused of such a thing to start with?

But maybe denial wasn’t enough? Maybe a good diversion was in order. And so the diversion came.

14th Amendment

In a brief statement to Axios on cable TV, President Donald Trump threatened to end birthright citizenship by executive order: “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't.” He then claimed that he could end birthright citizenship by executive order.

By way of context:

1. Many conservative politicians and media pundits have long claimed that the children of immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, should not be entitled to automatic US citizenship just because they are born in the United States. They often argue (falsely) that other nations do not generally offer birthright citizenship. This issue is very much a cause célèbre among hardline conservatives.

2. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which often makes many conservatives uncomfortable, says, among other things: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” I really do not see how that could be clearer.

3. Constitutional scholars are in almost universal agreement that to change birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment. For example, Trump supporter Alan Dershowitz explains this clearly.

The president cannot change the United States Constitution with an executive order. Mr. Trump claimed that “they” told him that he could. But that is ridiculous. If he had had an actual source he would not have said “they.” In any case, the 14th Amendment’s text is quite plain.

Right-wing media have been loudly digging around for some excuse to justify Mr. Trump’s outrageous statement. Predictably, radio host Rush Limbaugh commented, “If the case can be made — and people believe that it can be — that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants who are under the jurisdiction of another country, then Trump can do it.” Which “people” said this, and what their qualifications might be, is something that Limbaugh did not of course, say. He obviously could not, since no qualified person said any such thing.

So, what is going on here? It seems unlikely that Donald Trump’s sharp ability to grasp the moment has failed. Presumably, he noted that the hate crime issue was a no-win situation for him and his fellow Republicans. However, fear of immigration, steeped in reports of a migrant caravan coming up from Central America, is a major issue for Trump’s base voters.

Once we understand the audience-related issues, Mr. Trump’s diversion makes perfect sense. The hate crime issue dominated the news, to Mr. Trump’s detriment. He wasn’t going to win that one. The best he could hope for was to break even. Nor is it possible for Mr. Trump to change the Constitution by signing a piece of paper. He may think he can do it, but he can’t. No chance at all.

What he could do, however, was reset the national dialogue. For at least a couple of new cycles, he flipped the issue to something that his base cared about. He reestablished his credibility as anti-immigrant, which is what his base wants. Will he change the 14th Amendment? Of course not. He cannot do that any more than he can get Mexico to pay for the border wall. What he could do, however, was to reset the agenda. Social media is on fire with heated arguments pro and con the 14th Amendment issue. While we are talking about that, Mr. Trump and the Republicans in Congress are free to go about their true agenda, whatever that happens to be. Legally, Mr. Trump’s proposal was ludicrous. Rhetorically, it was a brilliant move. Distraction. Diversion. Works every time.

As I have said before, the side that sets the agenda wins the debate. And Mr. Trump is setting the agenda.

Image: Donald Trump, White House portrait

Image: Original copy of 14th Amendment, via Wikimedia Commons

Donald Trump's Calm, Rational Speech and Consensus-Building Meeting about the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018

Signing of America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018

Amid all the confusion and horror - vitriolic rhetoric, mail bombs, murders - the United States government actually accomplished something. Congress passed the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 by a vote of 99-1. The infrastructure that enables American prosperity has been crumbling from neglect for many years: our roads, drinking water, electrical grid, and yes, waterways, need multi-trillion-dollar attention. Many people falsely think that tax cuts are the secret to pro-business government. Commerce cannot function, however, unless businesses can transport goods and services, unless reliable energy is available, unless the population has abundant safe food and water, and unless business can operate without facing flood dangers. Overall, the nation must be able to support its industry and people. Infrastructure development was one of President Donald Trump's campaign promises, and the Water Infrastructure Act partially fulfills his promise.

President Trump gave a brief signing speech in the White House that did not resemble the wild, angry speeches he gives at political rallies. His speech was calm, rational, and conciliatory. Instead of taking all the credit himself, he spread praise around the room. It was, in short, a presidential speech given in presidential tone.

After a brief introduction, President Trump praised the members of Congress who guided the bill's passage:

"I want to thank every member of Congress who helped pass this crucial legislation.  I especially want to thank Senators John Boozman, John Barrasso, Ben Cardin, Tom Carper — see, we got bipartisan on this one, folks.  Don’t be shy."

He then tied the new law back to his America First campaign theme, but acknowledged the help that Democrats had given him:

"Under this administration, we are living by two simple, but very important rules: Buy American and hire American.  After years of rebuilding other nations, we are finally rebuilding our nation.  And as far as infrastructure goes, I have a feeling that the two gentlemen on my left, two great senators — they happen to be Democrats — we’re going to be doing a lot of infrastructure together."

While I have heard many Republicans ridicule the idea of infrastructure improvements (which they often consider to be big-government boondoggles), President Trump emphasized how important this project was: "As a candidate, I called for a great rebuilding of America’s crumbling infrastructure." In this respect, President Trump veered away from Republican orthodoxy, and signed a bill that received strong bipartisan support.

Next, the President involved his audience (an excellent speech method that I often recommended to my students). In a style that the news usually overlooks, Trump had gathered quite a few of the law's leading advocates. Not only did he recognize and thank them, regardless of whether they were Republicans or Democrats, but he gave them chances to talk briefly: "So with that, again, I’d like to thank you all.  And maybe I’ll ask a few of you to say a few words." He called first on Republican Senator John Barrasso:

"Well, yes.  Thank you very much, Mr. President, for your leadership on this.  You’ve called for this in the State of the Union.  We have delivered it in a big bipartisan way — the House and the Senate working together for infrastructure."

Mr. Trump next called on Senator John Boozman, a conservative Republican from Arkansas, who echoed Barrasso's sentiments. He then recognized Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, a Democrat who represents a state that depends heavily on beach tourism and port traffic. Carper commented, in part:

"I’m from a little state, Mr. President — Delaware.  And, for us, and for Delmarva, where Ben and I are from, we have great concerns for the quality of our drinking water.  This legislation goes a long ways toward a partnership — furthering a partnership between the state and the federal government to provide more clean drinking water for people to drink."

Clean drinking water is, of course, a major liberal talking point. Several other members of Congress then spoke, as well as the Corps of Engineers' Lietuenant General Semonite.

The entire event displayed a cordial, positive tone. No one called anyone else names. No one raised a voice. No one spread weird conspiracy theories. This is exactly the kind of presentation that a president should give.

Spreading around the credit probably strikes many Democrats as non-Trump-like. But anyone who has been following President Trump's routine presentations should know that he is a proficient leader of business-type meetings and can use these meetings to build consensus and success.

The questions still come up: who is the real Donald Trump? Is the real Donald Trump the crazed lunatic who spouts off bizarre conspiracy theories and wild accusations during political rallies? Or is the real Donald Trump the calm, charming, consensus-building business executive? Those are false questions, and it is a false dilemma. Life is complicated. Both Donald Trumps are real.

Random comments:

1. If President Obama put forward an infrastructure project would Republicans have supported it? (Answer: he did, and Republicans did not.)

2. Is this law as good as it appears? No, of course not. In the fine print, most of the funding has to come from state governments, many of whom have very stretched budgets. That means that the richer blue states will probably get more benefits than the lower-income red states that put Mr. Trump in office. C'est la vie. 

3. Democrats and the mainstream media often have trouble figuring out why Trump gets so much support. One reason, obviously, is that many people respond to Trump's fear appeals and conspiracy theories. Another reason, easily overlooked, is that Trump can turn on the charm and get things done. He hasn't gotten as much done as he promised, and he hasn't gotten as much done as he claims to have done, but readers of my blog (here, for example) should know that this skillfully-run meeting was typical of many of Trump's public appearances.

Image: from Senator John Barrasso's Senate website.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Speech about Jamal Khashoggi's Murder: Just the Facts...

Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan presented a powerful speech about the recent death of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and legal United States resident who wrote for the Washington Post. It seems that he died in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Preliminary reports are that he was tortured and butchered to death by Saudi intelligence personnel. The Saudi government has issued contradictory explanations of his death, finally admitting that he died while in their custody. President Donald Trump, who does business in Saudi Arabia, has waffled in his reaction. He first seemed to accept the Saudi government's denials in the face of obvious evidence, and is still hedging on reprisals or reactions. In a rare break with their president, several usually obsequious Republican members of Congress protested Mr. Trump's weak response.

Now, I do not hold Erdoğan or his government in high esteem. His speech however, accomplished exactly what he needed to do:

First, he expressed outrage: "All evidence gathered shows that Jamal Khashoggi was the victim of a savage murder. To cover up such savagery would hurt the human conscience." The murder was horrifying, and a strong emotional response was appropriate.

Second, he stated the facts as they were known, being careful not to overstate what the evidence proved. For example, he explained this:

"It appears, on the eve of the murder, 15 Saudi security personnel, intelligence officials and a forensics expert arrived in our country. It has been ascertained that six of them left on Oct. 2 evening at 18:30 and seven of them at 22:50 on two planes. It has also been determined that another person who has been made to look similar to Jamal Khashoggi with his clothes, glasses and beard and another person left for Riyadh on a scheduled flight. On the day of the event, the employees of the consulate were gathered in a room on the excuse of an audit, and employees in the residency given leave for the same reason."

That was an excellent approach, for Erdoğan gave enough information to establish what happened, carefully not overstating the evidence, together with details that his investigative services provided. This makes for a more convincing presentation than someone who gives vague, inconsistent, or overstated information.

Third, Erdoğan refuted some of the legalistic arguments that have been made in defense of the Saudi's actions. Here is an example:

"This murder may have taken place inside a consulate building that is considered Saudi Arabian land but it cannot be forgotten that international laws do not allow that the investigation do not allow that this is within the Turkish Republic's borders." 

Further pressing on the legalistic issue, he insisted that: "The Vienna convention or other international laws do not allow that the investigation of  such a savage murder be hidden underneath the armor of diplomatic community." 

Fourth, Erdoğan rejected any argument that underlings could have committed an act like this without supervision or permission from higher authorities.

Fifth, like most good persuasive speakers, Erdoğan ended with a call for action. He insisted that the Saudi government should investigate the matter, and that the perpetrators be tried in Turkey:

"In fact I'm making a call from here today. My call is to the top administration of Saudi Arabia, starting with the King, The Custodian of the Two Holy Cities. The location where the event happened is Istanbul. Therefore, I am proposing that the trial for the 18 arrested people — 15 plus three — should take place in Istanbul. The decision is theirs but this is my proposal, my demand, because this is where the event took place."

A personal reflection: most recent American political speeches are either shallow and vacuous, like what we heard in the recent debate between Beto O'Rourke and Ted Cruz, or they are laundry lists of talking points, like the typical State of the Union Address. The foul-mouthed rhetoric of certain American Senators at the recent Brett Kavanaugh hearings was appalling. In contrast, Erdoğan gave a detailed, reasoned response with a clear message. He took a stand that required a certain degree of courage and supported his points with plausible information that is consistent with the best news reports. With American political rhetoric falling apart at the seams, it should shock the conscience not only that a Turkish politician gave a much more powerful speech than anything that American leaders are giving, but also that the Turkish president was willing to take a firm stand when America's leaders are not.

See video here.

Follow-up: President Trump's statement of Oct. 23, 2018. He took a clearer stand, a little late. 


Image: US State Department photo, via Wikimedia Commons.

Prince Harry Talked about Sacrifice and Freedom at the 2018 Invictus Games

Speaking in the Sydney Opera House earlier today, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, gave the opening speech for the 2018 Invictus Games, held this year in Australia. Prince Harry, a combat veteran of the war in Afghanistan, organized the Invictus games to honor wounded and disabled veterans from several nations. The games, televised world-wide, feature such events as indoor rowing and wheelchair rugby. “Invictus” is Latin for “undefeated.” As usual, Prince Harry began the games by giving a brief inspirational speech.  Speaking in conversational style, he complimented his audience, stated the games’ purpose, and tied the events to larger values. In short, he gave an excellent, inspirational epideictic speech.

Prince Harry began by noting that his grandmother the Queen had dedicated the opera house in 1973: “Forty-five years later, to the day, it is my honour to be standing in front of this iconic symbol.” Stating the games’ purpose, he explained that “Invictus was inspired by the experiences I had alongside our service men and women from many nations. These games were created for our men and women in uniform and built not just for them, but also for the friends and families that have supported their recoveries and had their lives changed forever.”

He lamented that service personnel are often not respected: “So much has rightly been made by my grandmother’s generation who endured the horrors of the Second World War and then rebuilt a world order on freedom and tolerance.” Already, Prince Harry was talking about values, freedom and tolerance arising horrors of the war against world-white dictatorships. He continued to talk about values: “The values that define this country’s services – courage, endurance, mateship, sacrifice – are all an example to all.” He lamented that “The sacrifice and character of our troops never changed, but society’s recognition of them too often wavered.” Continuing to stress values, he said that “in today’s world being tough means being honest about how we feel – both inside and out.”

Near the conclusion, Prince Harry thanked Australia for “the welcome you have given Meghan and I over the last few days.” He made a quick reference to the impending arrival of their child.

A good ceremonial speech never talks just about the people being honored. Yes, Prince Harry spent a good bit of time thinking and honoring the veterans who competed in the Invictus Games. But he spent even more time talking about the values that the men and women had fought for. "A new world order based on freedom and tolerance," he said. Words to remember in our troubled times.