Trump's Twitter Speech: Lots of Talking Points, No Content

President Donald Trump is nothing if not a master at spreading conspiracy theories on social media. A couple days ago, he gave a nearly breathless 30-second speech on Twitter. In classic Trump style, he dealt with the impeachment inquiry not by answering the accusations against him but by lashing out at the Democrats. The Democrats’ position is that a recent whistleblower complaint, closely corroborated by what is called a rough (but official) transcript of a phone call that Trump had with Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky. During that call, Trump repeatedly asked Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of his likely 2020 election opponent, Joseph Biden. In this speech, Trump tried to shift attention away from his own conduct and toward what he claimed to be his administration’s positive accomplishments. Magicians call this misdirection. It works for magicians, and it is working for Trump, at least a little bit.

Here’s my transcript of Trump’s short Twitter speech: 

“What's going on now is the single greatest scam in the history of American politics. The Democrats want to take away your guns; they want to take away your healthcare: they want to take away your vote: they want to take away your freedom; they want to take away your judges; they want to take away everything. We can never let this happen. We’re fighting to drain the swamp and that's exactly what I'm doing and you see why we have to do it, because our country is at stake like never before. It's all very simple:  they’re trying to stop me because I'm fighting for you and I'll never let that happen.” 

That’s it. That’s the whole thing. 

Let’s start with what the speech does not say. (Often, what we don’t say is more important than what we do say.) 

What Did Trump’s Twitter Speech Not Do?

Trump’s speech did not deny that he asked President Zelensky for help investigating Biden. The speech did not explain why he asked Zelensky to investigate Biden alone, as opposed to the piles of white-collar criminals who infest his country. This speech did not justify asking a foreign power to intervene in the upcoming presidential election. In fact, Trump’s speech offered no defense whatsoever, except in the sense that the best defense is a good offense.

Well, Then, What Did Trump’s Twitter Speech Do? 

What did Trump do in this speech? First, he shifted the argument away from him and toward his critics. The Democrats, according to Trump, are not engaged in their constitutional function of conducting an impeachment inquiry; they are conducting “the single greatest scam in the history of American politics.” One might expect Trump to give proof that it was a scam. Or he might offer evidence and reasons that the charges against him are wrong. But he said nothing of the kind! He just called the investigation a scam.

Second, Trump brought up standard Republican talking points: “Democrats want to take away your guns.” Democrats “want to take away your freedom.” Democrats “want to take away your judges.” But the impeachment inquiry is not about judges already appointed, is it? Instead, Trump presumably meant Democrats were trying to stop the appointment of more conservative judges. What freedoms did the Democrats threaten to take away? Trump didn’t say, did he? 

Third, Trump went back to his campaign promise to “drain the swamp.” Draining the swamp suggests that he was ending corruption. Is the swamp a conspiracy theory? Or was Trump ending real corruption? His speech didn’t give any details either way, did it? 

Fourth, what about taking away our healthcare? Expanding healthcare coverage is a traditional Democratic policy point and Republicans have yet to propose an alternative to the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act. Other than making a wild accusation, what did Trump have to offer about healthcare?

Fifth, Trump raised the ante: “our country is at stake like never before.” He didn’t say that our system of checks and balances was at risk, instead, he meant that his removal would become the swamp’s revenge on him. The fight to remove him became, in this speech, a vast conspiracy: “they’re trying to stop me because I'm fighting for you and I'll never let that happen.” 

But Trump Packed the Speech with Talking Points

Trump only spoke for 30 seconds. Could he give any details in only 30 seconds? Of course not, but he could repeat standard Republican talking points. And, in only 30 seconds, he spewed out many, many talking points. Furthermore, by giving the speech, he could emphasize a set of talking points that his supporters could repeat whenever they got the chance. As his party’s leader, he used the speech to set a tone for his defense. Never overestimate the power of logic! Trump certainly does not.

So, this speech presented an amazing number of ideas combined with feeble content. How much content could Trump give in 30 seconds? Not much. But that leads us to wonder about American political discourse, which is increasingly broken down into short soundbites, devoid of reason and content. I’ll blog about that later.

P.S.: I’ve blogged about how politicians rely on talking points, which they parrot mindlessly even though they don’t understand a word of what’s coming out of their own mouths. I call this “talking points disease.” Trump’s Twitter speech may be the ultimate example.

 

Greta Thunberg at the U.N. Climate Change Summit, Part Two

Denali melting

Persuasion comes down to audiences: how do audiences react to a message? So far, Greta Thunberg’s dramatic speech at the United Nations Climate Action Summit has gotten two opposite reactions from two kinds of audiences. The Climate Action Summit itself made minimal decisions. But Greta Thunberg has shoved climate change to the front row. Liberals think Thunberg was inspiring; conservatives found her disgusting. No middle ground. Look at some samples:

Conservative reactions were negative and very, very nasty

Conservative Michael Knowles called Thunberg “a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left.” That was a nice little dog-whistle to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories; that’s what bigots mean when they say “international left.” Fox News later apologized for letting Knowles say such a thing on their network. National Review Editor Rich Lowry, who, sadly, is one of the more responsible conservative commentators, tweeted that “This is the voice of fanaticism, not a science.” The Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra’s tweeted that “This speech by far-left activist Greta Thunberg is absolute madness.” Writing in the conservative Spectator USA, Matilda Olofsson composed an imaginary letter to Thunberg’s fans: “Dear idiots. You have been moved to tears by Greta’s stupid words because none of you are intelligent enough to realize that she is merely a puppet.”

Social media take us even farther down. A YouTube viewer named Givadanger commented that “Getting a lecture from a 16 year old girl is a lot like dealing with a childs [sic] tantrum. They want the whole cake, but they'll settle for a cheap cookie.” Another YouTube viewer tied Thunberg’s speech to a  popular conspiracy theory: “This is so vulgar to even watch... they could turn this sad little girl into a Hitler type Eco-Nazi... that's how much hate is here... this is the direction the LEFT wants to take, not just the United States, the New Global Order...” 

Lots of personal attacks. Plenty of vague conspiracy theories. No attempt to cope with the evidence.

Liberal reactions were enthusiastic

Writing in the liberal online magazine Slate, climate scientist Christina Cauterucci said that Thunberg gave “an unsparing address.” Jen Psaki, a former Obama official, wrote that Thunberg “made the starkest argument yet for why addressing climate change is not just an issue millennials vote on, presidential candidates should debate on or elected officials need to have a box checking plan on.” The French network France24 headlined that Thunberg’s speech ”earns worldwide praise.” Then there was Kenzie Bryant in Vanity Fair: “Anyway, listen: Greta Thunberg can run me over with her rage and compost my body. It would be an honor.” A bit over the top, but, well, fine, whatever. 

Editorials are already appearing. The Everett, Washington Herald commented that “In expressing her fear and horror that the world is not acting with enough urgency to confront the coming ecological disaster of climate change, Greta Thunberg is earnest and emotional.” They deplored that “During her campaign, Thunberg has been met with derision and condescension, even dismissal that she could be ignored because she lives with Asperger’s syndrome.” The Herald is right that her critics put their intellectual bankruptcy on display when they have little else to say about her speech. Commenting about the Summit, The Guardian said that Thunberg’s speech can have left “no doubt” about the “challenge to governments around the world” face about climate change. 

Partisan reactions, all. 

Where do we go from here?

Liberals will say that the science is crystal clear – but what does the science say? Most people don't know. Some conservatives say that the science is unclear. Why it is unclear? They have no idea. Other conservatives think climate change is a conspiracy, but why would they think that? In any case, the media commentators don’t always tell us much about the science.

Several communication problems face us. First, many Americans revere science and technology despite knowing little about science. Science education in the US is not a strong point. The Sputnik scare gave us a major flurry of science education in the 1950s and 1960s, but that seems to have fizzled out, and most Americans just don’t know enough about science to read and evaluate the evidence. Second, if you seek out good sources about climate change, you can easily find them. But you need to make an effort. NASA has a very good website with lots of information, and I encourage people to read it before the Trump administration finishes scrubbing it. More serious readers might take a look at The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate by Andrew E. Dessler and Edward A. Parson. The complete book is for sale from Amazon and other booksellers, and many large libraries will have it on their shelves. But how many people seek information out? Not many, I’m afraid.

But back to Thunberg and her audiences. On the one hand, polarization can be useful. If Thunberg activates more voters who are concerned about climate change, she can help truth-tellers win elections and maybe help prevent catastrophe. At the same time, as she angers her opponents, she might motivate them as well. Which group will be motivated in larger numbers? Only time will tell.

On the other hand, however, we still need to hear more about the evidence. Conservatives, who tend to be suspicious of everyone and everything, and who often place the greatest trust in people who are spectacularly unworthy of trust, are simply not going to believe that “the science is settled” unless someone proves it to them. Even if someone proves it, they might not believe it. After all, many conservatives still think that President Obama forged his birth certificate, despite conclusive proof otherwise. Don’t overestimate logic! We have reached the troubling point that common truths and proven science are considered to be liberal conspiracies.

Still, logic and proof are what we have left. Thunberg has done everything that can be done with emotional argument. What is the next step? Can logic and proof convince people? That’s a surprisingly tough question. Research about persuasion will give us some ideas, but no conclusive answers. I’ll be writing about that, off and on, for the next several weeks.

Image: National Park Service