McKinley's 1896 Speeches Made the Tariff Sound Patriotic - Just Like Trump!

William McKinley, Library of Congress

William McKinley ran for president in 1896 on a pro-tariff platform. Just like Donald Trump after him, McKinley made tariffs sound patriotic. To support American industries, which McKinley claimed to be a patriotic policy, he said that we need to stop overseas competition. In 1896, the United States was still reeling from the Depression of 1893. The depression’s true cause had nothing to do with tariffs or free trade, and was due to poor monetary policy or, more exactly, the nation’s lack of monetary policy.

McKinley proposed the gold standard and the protective tariff to alleviate the depression. Economically, these ideas were popular but foolish. McKinley argued that the nation needed to turn inward to face its economic catastrophe. This natural but unwise reaction was similar to the reactions that people had after the great recession of 2007. Let’s talk about a few short speeches that McKinley gave about the tariff.

During his 1896 campaign, McKinley mostly stayed at home while delegations of Republican voters marched to his home in Canton, Ohio to hear and give brief speeches. In September 1896, during a speech to a group of Pennsylvania steelworkers, McKinley said that, “Nor do I think that it is economy to buy goods cheaply abroad if thereby it enforces idleness at home.” In a speech to workers from Homestead, Pennsylvania, McKinley said: “Gentlemen, I have always been, as you know, in favor of a protective tariff. (Loud and continuous applause).” He called the tariff a “great principle” and emphasized “the laboring man of the United States.” He came close to saying that abolishing the tariff was part of a conspiracy to help the rich to oppress the poor.

On October 10, a group of Cleveland steelworkers came to hear McKinley speak. He told them that: “we should look after our own people (great applause and cries of ‘That’s the stuff,’) before we look after the people of other lands.” He continued that: “I hope and fervently pray that we will enter upon an era of prosperity.” Hope was his only choice, since his policies certainly would do no good.  Later that same day, a delegation of Republican voters came from Pittsburgh and McKinley made his point even more forcefully: “This is a year when partyism counts for but little and when patriotism counts for everything.” Since the tariff protects American industry from foreign competition, it is easy for politicians to make-believe that the tariff is patriotic. Pro-tariff people often still think that way. Several years ago I made a presentation about parliamentary procedure to a group of Ohio autoworkers. The union hall parking lot’s sign clearly said that only American-made cars were welcome. Lucky for me, I was driving a Chevy.

Like Donald Trump after him, McKinley made no effort at all to explain tariff policy. He did not delve into economic theories to the slightest degree. The brief quotations that I gave above represent the entire depth of his ideas, and McKinley’s many pro-tariff speeches simply repeated the same talking point over and over in slightly different words. Wave the flag, protect American industry, set up the tariff, watch out for the old world.

A while back, I wrote about Henry Clay’s tariff speech, which, in some ways, sounded much like Trump’s tariff speeches. McKinley also ran on the tariff, and, as we can see, his ideas were very similar to Trump’s. Just as Trump made tariffs central to his “America First” slogan, so McKinley made tariffs out to be the only choice that patriots could make. Tariffs are always popular, even though they are always a bad idea. Politicians can easily make bad ideas sound good, and good ideas sound bad. 

______________________________

For more information: I talk about William McKinley’s campaign speeches in my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan In the 1896 Presidential Campaign. The book is available in paperback and can be found in most university libraries. In his last speech, given in Buffalo, New York, the day before he was murdered, McKinley came out in favor of free trade. I talk about that speech in a chapter in Before the Rhetorical Presidency, edited by Martin J. Medhurst.

William McKinley’s speeches can be hard to find. Various Northeastern Ohio newspapers published texts of them in 1896, especially the Canton Repository. Northeastern Ohio university libraries, such as the University of Akron, John Carroll University, and Youngstown State University, might be able to find copies for you. You might look at the Western Reserve Historical Society in Cleveland. There is a published book of McKinley’s campaign speeches, but it is out-of-print and very hard to find. Major university library databases nationwide probably also have newspaper copies of his speeches available; the librarians can help you find them. If you ever visit Canton, Ohio, be sure to see the McKinley Museum where you can learn more about McKinley and visit his monument.

Why Have Conservatives Forgotten about Tradition and Turned to Name-Calling? Or, How Can Conservatives Argue Like Conservatives?

Okay, sure, I know that liberals call people names all the time. Hillary Clinton said that half of Donald Trump’s supporters were in a “basket of deplorables.“ That was an awful thing to say. Anyone who would say such a thing probably deserved to lose an election. Still, calling people names seems to have become central to conservative talk.

President Donald Trump has mastered childish name-calling. Think about the phrases that he has added to our political lexicon: “Lyin’, lyin’ Ted,” “Little Marco,” and “Crooked Hillary.” “Rocket Man” is in a class of its own. Trump did not, of course, invent this hideous discourse; he just heard what conservatives were saying every day and outdid them. Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh’s show of November 21 referred to “modern-day feminazis and their wuss male supporters.” Two radio hosts referred to a Sikh politician as “turban man.” (They were suspended.)

Now, name-calling is political talk’s lowest form. The ideal of republican government is for us to debate about issues and character. Name-calling does not advance that agenda. How do you debate someone who only wants to call you names?

Why is this happening? I can only speculate. Here are some academic-type hypotheses:

1. Maybe people call each other names because they don’t know how to make rational arguments. This is an important conclusion of research conducted by my friend and colleague Andrew Rancer and his co-authors. They define an “argumentativeness trait” as a personal inclination to give reasons and evidence for your points, whereas a “verbal aggressiveness” trait is an inclination to engage in personal attacks instead of making arguments. They concluded that people become verbally aggressive because they lack debating skill. People who receive simple instruction to learn how to prove a point use less verbal aggression. All things being equal, training people in argumentation, debate, philosophy, and related humanities fields might help them to argue more constructively.

2. Here’s a more speculative answer. Conservatives don’t need to make policy arguments. That’s because people don’t always know where their traditions come from. Liberals always want to plan new things and examine cause and effect, as the conservative theorist Richard Weaver pointed out in his wonderful book The Ethics of Rhetoric. In contrast, conservatives argue from definitions, broad principles, or the simple weight of tradition. We often forget where our traditions come from, which means that we can’t always explain them. Scientists Robert Boyd and Peter J. Richerson explain this in Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Unfortunately, when they are unable to articulate their traditions, traditionalists might respond to disagreement, not by talking about long-forgotten lessons, but instead by calling people names.

Tradition can be good. Generations pass something of what is learned to the next generation. That is called tradition. We don’t have to figure things out from scratch; we can learn from people who came before us. Liberals often overestimate how skillfully they can solve problems or create new social ideas. Oddly, conservatives don’t always appreciate how important tradition is, which is why they sometimes call people names.

So:

3. Calling people names is a low form of talk. Insecure people get a burst of sick joy when they run someone else down, but they don’t advance their argument and will never convince neutral observers.

4. If you are a conservative, you don’t need to resort to name-calling. Just say that you believe such-and-such because it is a tradition. To prove your argument, show that it is a real tradition that has served us well for many years. Explain that to change something that works is risky. Don’t try to beat the liberals at point-by-point analysis; that’s their game, not yours.

5. Yes, many traditions are long-forgotten, and traditionalists do not always know the reasons that we do things the old ways. That’s why we call it “tradition.” That’s OK. What traditionalists can do is to study history.

P.S.: Years ago, I published an article about how the argument from tradition can be valuable. To read it, go to scholar.google.com and use Harpine + tradition as your search words.

P.P.S.: It’s good for Americans to learn their traditions. Some of the most satisfying years of my youth were spent reading hundreds – no, thousands – of pages of the writings of our nation’s founders. If you want to know our traditions, there is no substitute for going to the source. Instead of calling people names, our noble conservative friends might click on these links:

https://founders.archives.gov/

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1404/1404-h/1404-h.htm

P.P.S.: Finally, readers who want to read Trump’s despicable “Rocket Man” speech can find it here. And here is the debate transcript of one of the many times he called Senator Ted Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.”

Harrison Ford's September 2018 Climate Speech: Wow, He Used Language and Voice Skillfully

NASA Global Warming Graph

Let’s look back at Harrison Ford’s September 2018 speech, “Thriving Planet – A New Hope for the Next Generation,” at the Global Climate Summit. The title is a clever twist on the first Star Wars film. Ford serves as Vice-Chair of Conservation International. As wildfires ravage California, it is a good time to think about climate change. Ford’s speech did not just get attention because he is famous, but also because of his powerful vocal delivery and language use.

Ford appeared on stage to much applause, wearing a quite distinguished-looking beard, and laid out the issues forcefully and persuasively. His speech garnered attention in the news. This was partly because he is a celebrity, but also because he spoke so forcefully. He never yelled but he projected clearly; he spoke slowly; he sounded confident. He used language with effect.

In his introduction, Ford identified with his audience: “You’re here, I’m here, because we care.” He warned of “global climate catastrophe,” a startling statement that gains attention. Wasting no time, Ford hit his first point, that carbon emissions are only part of the problem. “And I beg of you, don’t forget nature,” he insisted, for “today the destruction of nature accounts for more global emissions than all the cars and trucks in the world.” So much attention focuses, rightly, on fossil fuels, that we sometimes forget about the climate’s need for green vegetation. Ford’s forceful language (“I beg of you”) encouraged the audience to notice that point.

Using the rhetorical technique of parallel language, Ford said:

“As long as Sumatra burns, we will have failed; so long as the Amazon’s great forests are slashed and burned, so long as the protected lands of tribal people indigenous people are allowed to be encroached upon, so long as wetlands and bogs are destroyed, our climate goals will remain out of reach.”

The parallel language (“As long as,” “so long as”) gave his language cumulative power. The phrases add to a total that exceeds the parts.

To protect nature, Ford suggested that we should “empower indigenous communities to use their knowledge, their history, their imagination, our science to save their heritage and their land. Respect and ensure their rights.” The rhetorical technique here is a tricolon (“their knowledge, their history, their imagination”). People love to hear things in threes, which balances Ford’s point.

Ford used his voice to emphasize key points. People often want easy, modest solutions. Too often, however, we need more difficult solutions. To convey urgency, Ford said: “Set a goal to cut costs and increase scale dramatically.” He said “dramatically” loudly, emphasizing the point. He didn’t yell; he just projected his voice. Little solutions wouldn’t work, and he implied this just by how he used his voice.

As a solution, Ford said that the world needs to “Educate and elect leaders who believe in science and understand the importance of protecting nature.” He continued: “Stop giving power to people who don’t believe in science or worse than that pretend they don’t believe in science for their own self-interest. They know who they are. We know who they are.” He spoke the phrases that I put into boldface loudly and firmly and said “we” even more forcefully. This conveyed his moral condemnation of people who misrepresent the truth.

Specific language always shows more power than passive language. Ford brought up the human side of climate change, for example, “It’s the mother in the Philippines who worries that the next big storm is going to rip her infant out of her arms.” That was vivid and specific. It was a powerful statement. Once you hear that, you need to think about the image that Ford creates in our minds.  You can’t help it.

Ford gave this speech almost two months before the horrible Camp Fire and Woolsey Fire that swept through California. Presciently, Ford mentioned California: “It’s the people in California who are fleeing from unprecedented fires.”

Ford challenged human arrogance using the rhetorical technique of thesis and antithesis: “Nature doesn’t need people. People need nature.” True enough, and obvious when he phrases it that way. Ending, he called us to action: “Kick this monster.”

NASA chart of historical CO2 levels

Ford is, of course, not a scientist. I would never quote him as an expert source. He is, instead, a celebrity who uses his fame to speak for an important cause. His goal is advocacy, not science. We must, however, remember that the debate about climate change is no longer occurring in the scientific community. Qualified climate scientists have long since almost unanimously agreed that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming, and that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is its main cause. As Naomi Oreskes pointed out in Science several years ago, “there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.” Or, as NASA’s Earth Science Communications Team explained just this month, carbon dioxide has reached record atmospheric levels. This has led to shrinking polar ice sheets, sea level rise, and warming oceans.

The point is, based on extensive data, scientists have reached near-universal agreement that human activity is causing serious climate change. Nevertheless, powerful economic and political forces are unwilling to admit the obvious, and instead launched massive propaganda efforts to protect their wealth and fame. The problem is not whether climate change is real; the problem is how to get the American population to discredit right-wing propaganda and recognize the truth. So, Ford was not speaking as a researcher, but as a communicator, a publicist for his cause.

Good communication is worth a lot. If you can’t communicate, you can’t persuade people. Ford’s rhetorical methods brought light and publicity to an important issue.

P.S.: A note to my fellow communication folks. Communication studies today look at social issues, hermeneutics, and insights from continental philosophers. That’s all good. But language and delivery still lie behind much rhetorical excellence. These are the two rhetorical canons that we have underestimated ever since Peter Ramus’ regrettable attempt to reform rhetorical studies. Let’s stop making that mistake.

P.P.S.: Readers are invited to browse through my blog, where I often comment on Donald Trump’s superior delivery and presentational skills. Here’s a good place to start. 

Images from NASA

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015