WHO's Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Spoke for Public Health in a Positive Way During His Coronavirus Briefing

Coronavirus, CDC image

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization briefed the press on August 27, 2020 about the COVID-19 (novel coronavirus) crisis. In his opening remarks, Ghebreyesus tried to reframe the touchy issue into a pure public health problem. 

We all know that the COVID-19 response has become highly politicized, to the extent that public health officials who offer basic scientific information have received death threats. Ghebreyesus reset the debate by placing the COVID-19 pandemic into the context of public health successes. Although the briefing’s topic was COVID-19, Ghebreyesus did not mention the pandemic until the latter portion of the speech.

Instead, he began by talking about polio! Here are his first three paragraphs:

“Good morning, good afternoon and good evening.

“Tuesday was a great day in global health – the certification of the eradication of wild poliovirus in Africa.

“This remarkable effort was started by Rotary International in the 1980s, and advanced by Nelson Mandela in 1996, with the launch of a campaign to 'Kick Polio Out of Africa'. At the time, polio paralyzed 75,000 children every year.”  

“Good morning, good afternoon and good evening” reminded everyone that the World Health Organization protects everyone in every time zone. That is, his first briefing item included (1) “Tuesday was a great day in global health,” and, (2) “the certification of the eradication of wild poliovirus in Africa.” That accomplished two purposes: he (1) announced a public health success, while he (2) showed that global public health efforts can, indeed, eradicate disease. But he had said nothing so far about the coronavirus.

Ghebreyesus talked for several minutes about the international cooperation that helped the world to knock polio out of Africa. This led him to the theme of solidarity:

“The end of wild poliovirus in Africa is a momentous achievement that demonstrates what’s possible when we come together in a spirit of solidarity.”

After reminding his audience that polio continued to afflict Afghanistan and Pakistan, did Ghebreyesus then move directly to talk about the coronavirus? No, he did not. Instead, he talked about victories over sleeping sickness, a terrible disease that afflicts large part of equatorial Africa:

“Polio is not the only disease against which we are making progress.

“Yesterday we also celebrated the end of sleeping sickness in Togo as a public health problem.

“I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate the people and government of Togo and their partners on this achievement.”

He continued to note that several other countries are planning to document that they have also eliminated sleeping sickness. Once again, the speaker showed that public health efforts can bring tremendous benefits to the public and the cooperation and partnership are necessary to achieve those benefits:

“This is incredible progress against the disease which was considered impossible to eliminate just 20 years ago.”

So, he started his COVID-19 briefing by talking about two unrelated public health issues. Then, and only then, Ghebreyesus turned to the coronavirus. He called for the world to adopt the same sense of partnership that had helped to bring polio and sleeping sickness under control:

“Globally, we need the same spirit of solidarity and partnership that are helping to end polio and sleeping sickness to end the COVID-19 pandemic.

“As societies open up, many are starting to see a resurgence of transmission.”  

After noting that certain kinds of gatherings often spread the coronavirus, he mentioned, on an encouraging note, that the Hajj pilgrimage had continued with social distancing, and that people were organizing sporting events and festivals. He said that this could be done safely under certain conditions:

“There are ways these events can be held safely, with a risk-based approach that takes the measures necessary to keep people safe.

“These measures should be communicated clearly and regularly.

“We humans are social beings. It’s natural and normal that we want to come together for all sorts of reasons.

“There are many ways we can be physically apart, but remain socially connected.”

 

Earlier Post: Shaktikanta Das Gave a Central Bankers' Perspective on the Coronavirus

The speaker pointed out that social separation during the pandemic caused emotional stress, which led him to discuss the mental health as a public health issue. Concluding, he announced that he was forming a group to evaluate the world-wide response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Without saying so outright, Ghebreyesus addressed the scattered, uncooperative response of many countries – including, we all know, the United States of America – as a result of which COVID-19 is causing problems far beyond what was originally forecast. His tone, however, was relentlessly positive. Instead of criticizing uncooperative nations, he praised nations that had pursued public health. He pointed out that cooperative nations working together had made great public health strides. He assured the audience that nations could reopen essential activities safely if they followed public health guidelines. He preempted the criticism of people who think the public health experts prevent them from worshiping or attending sporting events.

Uncooperative nations, especially those that have so-called populist governments, have not responded to being criticized. If anything, they and their supporters dig in their heels and become more stubborn. Instead of scolding those nations and their leaders, the Director-General emphasized the positive, hoping to inspire rather than attack. I don’t know if he will succeed – his speech was not well-publicized in the United States – but he took an interesting persuasive approach.

Let’s wish him good fortune. Our lives may depend on it.


Theoretical note: I, and several much more prominent researchers, have written that epideictic speech – speech that praises and blames – can be persuasive. Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above to see my academic publications on the topic.

Earlier Post: An Epideictic Speech by Sean Patrick O'Rourke

Donald Trump's 2020 RNC Acceptance Speech: American Carnage, Revisited?

In last night’s Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech, President Donald Trump described a political vision that he thinks will propel him to reelection. That vision had nothing to do with facts, but was something else entirely.

My two previous posts pointed out that speakers at the recently-concluded Republican National Convention said untrue things one after the other. Fact-checkers mainly complain when politicians speak falsely, and yet fact-checkers never seem to nudge public opinion. The Pulitzer-Prize winning website PolitiFact.com has so far examined 834 of Donald Trump’s statements, rating only 4% to be True, while 9% were Mostly True, 13% Half True, 20% Mostly False, 35% False (the largest category), and 15% Pants on Fire. That’s appalling.

Earlier Post: Do Republican National Convention Speakers Care About Fact Checkers?

Nevertheless, to the amazement of political pundits, Democratic voters, and many of my colleagues who study political communication, Donald Trump remains popular, and stands a reasonable chance of winning the upcoming presidential election. To understand that, we need to look at the vision that Trump presents, a vision that persuades many voters. Trump’s vision is not about facts or policy analysis. No, indeed, Trump’s vision, dark as it is, gives the United States a stark choice. He laid that vision out early in the lengthy speech:

“And this election will decide whether we will defend the American way of life or whether we will allow a radical movement to completely dismantle and destroy it. That won’t happen. At the Democrat National Convention, Joe Biden and his party repeatedly assailed America as a land of racial, economic and social injustice. So tonight, I ask you a simple question, how can the Democratic Party ask to lead our country when it spent so much time tearing down our country?”

What is going on here? 

First, the Threat of Destruction

That was a hostile paragraph. Trump said, “the Democrat National Convention,” when “Democratic National Convention” would be correct. Republicans, both on social media and in speeches, often say “Democrat Party” instead of “Democratic Party.” They presumably want to stress the “rat” sound at the end. Social media people often spell it “DemocRAT” just to make sure you get the point. Trump’s supporters would not overlook the dog whistle “Democrat National Convention.” 

But why would Trump think the Democrats are dangerous? By definition, conservatives want to keep things the same. Trump warned that, not only do Democrats want to change the nation, but they want to “dismantle and destroy it.” 

Earlier Post: Donald Trump Said That MAGA Loves Black People, But Did He Mean It? 

Trump’s vision went beyond race, however. He warned apocalyptically that Democrats intended to take people’s guns, abolish the police, and spread violence through our cities. None of that passes fact-checking, but that is not Trump’s point.


Second, the Fear of Criticism

It’s not that conservatives fear being criticized; instead conservative philosophy requires people to think about criticism in a different way than liberals. By definition, liberals find parts of society that can be improved and urge changes. Conservatives don’t want to change. If they wanted to change, they would be liberals.

Still, in the wake of several police shootings of African-Americans, Democrats are calling for increased racial justice. When they say this, however, they either say or imply that we don’t have racial justice now. That is a criticism, and if the criticism is true, all decent people should want to change. Conservatives think of themselves as decent, so what’s the problem?

That leads us to the second half of Trump’s paragraph: “At the Democrat National Convention, Joe Biden and his party repeatedly assailed America as a land of racial, economic and social injustice.” Faced with evidence of problems, the Democrats have called for the nation to do better. Trump, however, takes a different view. Democrats have – inexcusably, he thinks – criticized the United States.

In Trump’s vision, Democrats are unqualified to lead for the simple reason that they criticize the United States. So, that is why Trump’s paragraph ended this way: “how can the Democratic Party ask to lead our country when it spent so much time tearing down our country?” In Trump’s vision, no one who criticizes the United States is qualified to lead the United States. Loyalty, commitment, and devotion must be absolute and unquestioning. This creates a perfect conservative circle: liberals cannot fix our problems – cannot be allowed to fix our problems – because they say we have problems.

Trump, however, criticized the United States when he talked about “American carnage” in his 2016 Inaugural Address. Is that different? 

Earlier Post: Donald Trump’s Inaugural Address: American Carnage

 
Conclusion

Millions of Americans fear change, value stability, and mistrust minorities. Change is never easy and we can never predict its results. Better, Trump implied, is never to admit that injustices exist.

If my roof leaks, I have two choices: I can spend thousands of dollars to fix it, or I can rage against anyone who criticizes my roof. How dare they condemn my house! Spending thousands of dollars is unpleasant, and, if I ignore the leak, maybe it will go away by itself. Or not.

Many years ago, my wife took a job at a small, isolated Virginia town. As we walked around together after work, a child rode up to us on a bicycle and asked, “Are you all moving in new?” We said no. He said “good” and bicycled away. Change disturbs some people.

Seriously, there are several questions. Have the nation’s problems become so bad that we need to change? Do protesters of the right and left wings offer rightful complaints? What compromises should we make, and where should we stand firm?

By the way, I have long believed that tradition has much to offer us. Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above and you can read some of my pro-tradition research. It is, however, a terrible risk when we cling to traditions that no longer work, or that have unjust effects. It would, I think, be better if President Trump did not offer such a stark choice. We do not really face a choice between “American carnage” on the one hand, and the unchanged status quo on the other. Surely there is middle ground where everyone would be better off. Are President Trump and his supporters willing to seek that middle ground? Time will tell, but it does not look promising.

At the same time, however, no one should underestimate the powerful vision that President Trump gave us in his Acceptance Speech. The press has decried Trump’s dark vision, but they overlook how important it is that he has a vision. They ignore how compelling his vision is to many Americans. 

As before, thanks to rev.com for preparing a verbatim transcript of Trump’s speech as he delivered it.

Image: Donald Trump, White House photo

Do Republican National Convention Speakers Care About Fact Checkers?

The Guardian, a British newspaper, headlined on this morning’s website that “Republican Convention Delivers Whirlwind of Lies Great and Small.” Okay, let’s acknowledge that all politicians get sneaky with the truth. Let us not, however, pretend that what happened the last few days was normal. Let us not pretend that it was ethical public speaking. 

For example, The Guardian points out: 

Vice-President Mike Pence falsely gave President Donald from credit for a complete travel ban against China to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. In fact, as The Guardian points out, tens of thousands of people took advantage of exceptions to the travel ban to reach the United States from China. 

Kayla McEnany said that “I can tell you that this president stands by Americans with pre-existing conditions,” at the same time that his administration was suing in federal court to abolish such protections. 

Madison Cawthorn, a Republican candidate for the United States Congress, said that “James Madison was just 25 years old when he signed the Declaration of Independence.” But any high school student should be able to tell you that James Madison did not sign the Declaration of Independence. 

Cawthorn later said that his line was “add-libbed.” That may be just the problem. When important people are speaking in a national forum, should they not pay attention to the facts? That one especially irks me, since Republicans routinely claim that they are protecting our Founders’ legacy. Cawthorn, at least, knew that there was such a thing as a Declaration of Independence. I guess I should be grateful for that. 

Lara Trump, the President’s daughter-in-law, misquoted Abraham Lincoln: “Abraham Lincoln once famously said: 'America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.’” Lincoln, however, never said that, as The Independent pointed out. 

PolitiFact had a field day fact-checking theRepublican convention, finding such tarnished gems as these:

Eric Trump, the president’s son and Lara’s husband, repeated his father’s false claim that “Biden has pledged to defund the police and take away your cherished Second Amendment.” That was especially inexcusable, since only a few weeks earlier, Fox News’ Chris Wallace humiliated Donald Trump for falsely accusing Biden of wanting to defund police.  

Pence pulled not, exactly a falsehood, but certainly a sneaky deception, when he called out the memory of a recently murdered officer who died during a Black Lives Matters protest: 

“Dave Patrick Underwood was an officer of the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service, who was shot and killed during the riots in Oakland, California.”

That was particularly slippery because Republican politicians and the right-wing media have been pounding on a law and order theme, and Pence’s statement falsely implied that Black Lives Matters protesters had killed officer Underwood. In fact, however, as Vox points out, a right-wing protester was arrested for the murder. Now, since Pence surely knew that, why didn’t he point it out? For that simple bit of information changes his point completely.  

The Democrats are far from perfect. Nevertheless, although PolitiFact found that the Democrats made some statements at their convention that were a bit out of context, they didn’t find the same long line of falsehoods as in the Republicans’ convention. They did find that, although Postal Service reforms caused some harms, the Democrats overstated them.

This brings up two questions: (1) Why do politicians lie so much, and (2) why did the Republicans this week utter such a stream of outrageous falsehoods, many of which have been repeatedly discredited? 

I don’t really know, but here are some questions that might lead to answers: 

First, is it possible that Republican core voters simply don’t care about truth? That would be harsh, but I’m still waiting to hear other Republicans or the conservative media condemn the falsehoods. 

Second, could the Republicans be aiming at what they consider to be a “larger truth?” Maybe they think that the Democrats’ social and economic reforms threaten the United States’ social order. What they think is a larger truth may matter more to them than picking over facts and details. 

Third, could it just be carelessness? Cawthorn admitted that he ad-libbed his false statement about James Madison. Still, if the Democrats can be more careful about their facts, the Republicans can match them. No one stops them. 

Or, maybe, fourth, anyone who follows the conservative media, such as Fox News, Breitbart, The Gateway Pundit, or WorldNetDaily, has probably heard most of these false statements, not just once, but many times. If people have sealed themselves inside what Kathleen Hall Jamieson calls the “conservative media bubble,” they may not even be aware of what the truth is. They may think that their truth is the real truth. American politics may be living in two parallel universes, one of which is largely fictional. Tens of millions of Americans belong to each. Can we bridge the gap? 

How can Democrats counter this? Obviously, they must challenge the falsehoods at every turn. Equally, however, if they want to claim the high moral ground, they must get their facts exactly right. Yes, the Democrats at their convention were far more accurate than the Republicans were at their own. But the Democrats were not perfect. The right number of lies to tell is zero.

What do you think? Do you have answers to these questions? Feel free to post a comment below, email me, or post a note on my Twitter link above. 

Kimberly Guilfoyle, an Old-Time Political Speaker at the 2020 Republican National Convention: Bombastic, Irrational, and Maybe, Effective

Kimberly Guilfoyle, an Old-Time Political Speaker at the 2020 Republican National Convention: Bombastic, Irrational, and Maybe, Effective

At yesterday’s session of the Republican National Convention, all eyes – and ears – were on Donald, Trump, Jr.’s girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle. For about six minutes, Guilfoyle screamed incoherently about the Democrats’ socialist wickedness, which she contrasted with the alleged virtues and accomplishments of President Donald Trump.

Guilfoyle, in other words, gave a standard, predictable old-time political speech. Her speech was completely awful, but let’s talk about why awfulness is exactly her point. If her despicable speech failed politically – and I’m not sure that it did – it’s only because she didn’t adapt to the new media environment. We should all hope, however, that speeches like hers disappear forever.

Old-Time Political Speeches

The old-time political speeches were nothing to boast about. They were raucous, unreasonable, angry appeals to the audience’s preconceived opinions. Albert J. Beveridge, a Republican senator of the late 19th and early 20th century, wrote a wonderful old book about public speaking. He explained the post-Civil War speeches that he heard as a child:

“There was a Republican gathering in our Republican grove. The speaker was a well-known politician of the period and a typical post-war stump-speaker, who grew more furious at ‘the rebels’ as the war receded in time. . . .

“The speaker,... Threw off his coat and vest, tore his collar and tie from his neck, replaced them with a red bandanna handkerchief which made him look more militant than ever, ran his fingers through his mane and began:

“‘Comrades!... Who murdered our comrades? Rebels! Democrats! (Tremendous cheering....) ‘Who tried to shoot the Stars and Stripes from the heavens? Rebels! Democrats!’ So the orator in a crimson torrent raged on....’”The crowd then sang “Marching through Georgia” and, Beveridge explained, “all were as happy as they were patriotic.”

The next week, invited by a Democratic friend, he went to hear a Democratic speaker in the Democrats grove. It turned out to be the same. Beveridge explains:

“As to violent delivery, exaggerated statement, and lack of argument, the Democratic speech was identical with the Republican speech I had heard a few days earlier – always denunciation, only the thesis was reversed. We Republicans, it seemed, were rascals, scoundrels, and ought to be in jail, every last one of us. Again there was the acrobatic rage of the speaker, again the shedding of garments, again the lurid adjectives, again the senseless cheering....” 

Beveridge goes on to explain that these old-time political speeches, with their fury and invective, offered nothing of value to anyone. Indeed, he wrote his book to encourage speakers to give reasoned, productive speeches that could help people make good decisions.


Kimberly Guilfoyle, an Old-Time Political Speaker?

Let’s get one thing clear: the old-time political speakers that Beveridge described were despicable and it would be great if we could leave them in the past. However, the 2020 Republican National Convention speakers so far are busy fear-mongering, and Guilfoyle knew how to monger fear.

Her wild, irrational attacks started in her second paragraph, as she warned of the dangerous consequences of Democratic victory:

“Biden, Harris, and the rest of the Socialists will fundamentally change this nation. They want open borders, closed schools, dangerous amnesty, and will selfishly send your jobs back to China while they get rich. They will defund, dismantle, and destroy America’s law enforcement. When you are in trouble and need police, don’t count on the Democrats.” Shortly after, she continued to warn of the destruction the Democrats would cause:

“Rioters must not be allowed to destroy our cities. Human sex, drug traffickers should not be allowed to cross our border. The same socialist policies which destroyed places like Cuba and Venezuela must not take root in our cities and our schools.”After praising President Trump, she warned her audience not to let Democrats fool anyone:

“Don’t let them step on you. Don’t let them destroy your families, your lives, and your future. Don’t let them kill future generations because they told you and brainwashed you and fed you lies that you weren’t good enough.”

“Kill your future generations?” Oh, my goodness!

Those were obviously wild exaggerations. For example, when President Donald Trump tried to tell Fox News’ Chris Wallace that Joe Biden wanted to defund the police, Wallace took issue, whereupon Trump was unable to find any support for his wild accusations. Wallace chuckled at the president’s lack of knowledge and preparation.

Nevertheless, Guilfoyle screamed the same accusation straight into the camera. However, an old-time political speaker like Guilfoyle was not about to let some journalist or fact-checker interfere with her ability to spread absurd accusations with no hint of proof or argument.


Kimberly Guilfoyle’s Old-Time Nonverbal Communication

Guilfoyle’s speech was almost a parody of Beveridge’s old-time speeches.

First her entrance: with patriotic music blaring, Guilfoyle marched onto a stage festooned with American flags, wearing a bright red dress. 

Second her vocal style: she started her speech by yelling in a loud, nasal voice with an immoible smile pasted on her face. As the speech continued, she began to wave her arms and scream at the top of her lungs. Social media had a field day making fun of her frantic presentation.

Albert J. Beveridge could have predicted all of this.


Why In the World?

If you listen to the political pundits on television, or read the ever-so-somber political analyses in newspapers, you might think that the purpose of the election campaign is to help people choose the president. That’s ridiculous. Almost all voters have already picked their favorite president. The Republicans like Trump, and the Democrats are going for Biden. Few of them will change. Political communication specialists have known since the 1948 Elmira, New York election study that party loyalty is the main predictor of how people will vote. Socio-economic status and ethnicity play a small part, as well. Almost nothing the candidates can do or say will change votes from one party to another.

Consider this analogy: if you are a student at Virginia’s Oakton High School, and your team is playing the big game against Fairfax High School, is somebody going to persuade you that Fairfax is the more worthy team? Are you going to change your loyalty and root for Fairfax? Don’t be silly. People often compare politics to sports, and, well, there you go. Just as Republicans in Indiana used to have their own hickory grove for political speeches, while the Democrats had their own grove, Republicans today have Fox News and Democrats can listen to CNN.


Kimberly Guilfoyle Seemed Confused about Her Parents

Since Trump is often accused of being harsh toward immigrants, Guilfoyle countered by boasting of her family's own immigrant status:

“As a first-generation American, I know how dangerous their Socialist agenda is. My mother, Mercedes, was a special education teacher from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. My father, also an immigrant, came to this nation in pursuit of the American Dream.” Social media had a field day with that. Guilfoyle’s mother, who wase born in Puerto Rico, is a natural-born United States citizen. She did not need to go through immigration to come to the United States. She just needed to get on a boat or plane, get a job, and settle down. The speaker was most certainly not a first-generation American as she falsely claimed. Guilfoyle's supporters have been busy trying to explain what she “really” meant. Good luck with that.


Conclusion

The old-time political speaking was well-adapted to a hickory grove full of farmers who championed their one side. I’m not sure that it works in the new media age at an online convention. A delivery style that, although despicable, might have worked in the old setting seems out of place on a computer screen.

There's nothing wrong with warning voters that a political candidate or political party is dangerous. Such warnings, however, should be accompanied by credible research and reasoned argument. To make wild, irrational accusations is demagoguery, not leadership. Guilfoyle presented no facts; she just accused Democrats of doing evil things. 

Albert J. Beveridge ridiculed the old-time political speaking. He thought that America could do better. Evidently, however, Republicans think they can win the 2020 election with old-time political speaking. Maybe the old-time political speaking will work again. But the old-time political speaking, which was based on anger, hatred, and prejudice, needs to be buried in the past with its coffin nailed down tight.


Earlier Post: Did Patrick Henry Warn Us about Donald Trump?

Thank you to the good people at rev.com for, once again, quickly preparing an accurate transcript of the speaker's remarks as delivered.

"Extremism in the Defense of Liberty:" Barry Goldwater's 1964 Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech, Undone by Two Sentences?

Barry Goldwater

With the partly online 2020 Republican National Convention starting today, let’s talk about the most influential Republican Convention speech ever. On July 16, 1964, United States Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona accepted his party's nomination in a speech that was well-crafted and eloquent – except for two ill-chosen lines. After those regrettable lines, Goldwater’s campaign to be President of the United States was over except for the shouting. 

A bit of background. In 1964, the Vietnam War was cranking up to horrific proportions. The Cold War raged across the globe, the Birmingham civil rights marches led to police riots, and the Ku Klux Klan gasped for breath while losing power throughout the South. I was a middle school student; atomic weapons attack drills were as much a part of my childhood then as active shooter drills are today. 

The last thing voters wanted in 1964 was an extremist. Goldwater, one of the intellectual grandparents of today’s conservative movement, was routinely labeled as an extremist. Like most conservatives of today, he wanted to shrink the government’s social programs. He favored more funding for national defense. He supported the controversial conspiracy theorist Senator Joseph McCarthy. Goldwater did offer lukewarm support for the civil rights movement. 

It is one thing, however, when the opposition calls you an extremist. It is something else for a speaker to boast about it. For the most part, Goldwater’s speech uttered the expected platitudes about freedom and liberty. That is, until near the end, when he destroyed his own campaign with these fateful words: 

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. 

“And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

From a logical viewpoint, it’s hard to argue with what Goldwater said. Yes, we should support justice. No one wants to go to court to find that the judge is only interested in moderate justice. Logic, however, is not why people vote for presidents. Goldwater gave his critics all the fuel they needed. He rejected moderation when the nation craved moderation. 

Goldwater’s electoral doom was assured. His general election opponent, incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson, called Goldwater a “ranting, raving demagogue who wants to tear down society.” Goldwater lost in a landslide. He carried only Arizona and part of the Deep South. Johnson swept the rest of the nation.  

I mentioned last week that one striking sentence can make a great speech memorable. In Goldwater’s case, two striking sentences ended his presidential aspirations forever.

Earlier Post: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” 1896 Democratic Convention Speech

Earlier Post: We’ll Remember Julia Louis-Dreyfus at DNC for One Big Wisecrack

Image: US Senate, via Wikimedia

Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?

Patrick Henry

Okay, neither I, nor anyone alive, has a right to speak for Patrick Henry. Let’s let him speak for himself. Henry is best known for his magnificent “Liberty or Death” speech, which was (ahem) written by William Henry Wirt a generation after Patrick Henry’s death. Henry is also known for being the governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He is less well known as a keen opponent of the United States Constitution. Let’s look at one of his real speeches, which he delivered in June 1788 during the Virginia Convention to ratify the new Constitution – the Constitution by which the United States is governed today. Patrick Henry warned us about kingship, tyranny, and dynastic rule.

  

Patrick Henry Warned That the Constitution Would Lead to Tyranny

Like the libertarian that he was, Henry began by asserting majority rule: 

“This, sir, is the language of democracy—that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this!” 

Henry then warned that the Constitution would lead to an imperial government, which would defeat the system of checks and balances and impose tyranny: 

“There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?”

“Rope-dancing, chain-rattling?” He felt that Constitution’s checks for liberty were “ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances.” That is a scary warning.

Patrick Henry Warned of an Imperial Presidency

Henry complained about two institutions: the presidency and the Senate. Let’s start with the presidency, which he called a fearful institution that a determined officeholder could abuse:

“If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute!”

Henry warned that the Constitution imposed no real check on the president, for the president commanded too much power. He warned that the president could quickly become a tyrant: 

“Away with your president! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch; your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?”

 Yes, Patrick Henry warned that the president could become a king. But that wasn’t all –

 

Patrick Henry Also Warned Us about the Senate

The United States Senate, which has the power of impeachment, the power to ratify treaties, and the right to withhold its consent from presidential appointments, is the Constitution’s principal check on presidential power. 

With respect to checks and balances, Patrick Henry felt that the Senate would be unable to protect democratic rule. We will recall that every state in the union receives two senators, regardless of population. Patrick Henry noted that, in his day, “The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England.” He proudly said that Virginia, which was at the time the most populous state, might defeat the other 12 states if war came. Still, he felt it was unjust if tiny states could have the same representation in the Senate as Virginia: 

“Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed to what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue for ever unchangeably this government, altho horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies.”

Forceful, no? “Your Senate," he said. “In the hands of your enemies,” he said. Strong words. 

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

Well, again, I don’t know what Patrick Henry would say today. But let’s draw out his ideas to the present: 

First, by refusing to confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, the Republican-controlled Senate tilted the Supreme Court to the right wing. President Donald Trump won the presidency by winning a majority of the Electoral College while losing the popular vote by millions. Today, the United States Senate has a Republican majority and has been reluctant to place checks on President Trump’s power. Yet, Democrats in the Senate represent about 15 million people more than are represented by the Senate’s Republicans. California, which leans Democratic, has a population estimated at almost 40 million, while Wyoming, which is strongly Republican, has a population of less than 600,000. Yet each has two senators. A tendency toward minority rule? 

Although I can’t speak for Patrick Henry, I can point out that his 1788 speech predicted exactly this kind of problem. We have a President and United States Senate who represent a minority of the population, and yet who are striving to retain power even if they get outvoted again. 

 

Lessons for Today?

Patrick Henry did give his audience values to govern by: “The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union.” 

What got me thinking about Patrick Henry’s speech? The Democratic National Convention included some speeches by family members, including Jill Biden and Michelle Obama. The Republican National Convention just announced its upcoming speaker lineup, and several major speakers are members of President Trump’s family. Does that sound like a monarchy? Or not? Is the Republican National Convention taking the Trump family dynasty too far? Or not? Or are both the Democratic and Republican parties, to greater or lesser degrees, taking on a dynastic aura? That’s a hard question. 

I, for one, support the United States Constitution. Still, Patrick Henry had a point. 

What do you think Patrick Henry would say about the 2020 election? Someone who believes in strict democracy, like Patrick Henry, supports majority rule. The idea of the republican form of government, that is, representative democracy, is majority rule with protection for minority rights. Yet, Patrick Henry warned us that unscrupulous leaders could twist the Constitution’s checks and balances to oppress our rights. 

When we vote in 2020, what kind of America do we support? Patrick Henry’s speech asked many hard questions. We have more hard questions to ask today. Heed, then, Patrick Henry’s final warning: 

“This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy, and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American?”

Are we squinting toward monarchy? And if so, what should we do about it? Patrick Henry speaks to us across the centuries.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus's Big Wisecrack at the 2020 DNC

Pundits often compare American politics to blood sports, but, to me, the presidential election seems more and more like television entertainment. Although I’ve heard Republicans complain about all the liberal Hollywood stars, it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who elected not one but two television stars to the White House: Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. I loved Ronald Reagan’s TV show when I was a child, but I’m not sure that being good on television helps a person govern.

In one of the more bizarre moments in the Democratic Party’s online nominating convention, actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus engaged in a bit of random political banter with other virtual conventioneers. I wouldn’t exactly call it a speech, but Louis-Dreyfus' one-liner gave us one of the convention’s most memorable moments:

“Just remember, Joe Biden goes to church so regularly that he doesn’t even need tear gas and a bunch of federalized troops to help him get there.”

To refresh the reader’s memory, she was referring to a June 2020 incident in which federal forces gassed protesters, after which President Donald Trump marched across the street from the White House to wave a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church. There were no reports that he entered the church, prayed, or opened the Bible, which was apparently borrowed.

Social media went berserk tweeting and reposting her comment. Will anyone remember anything else that she said that night? I doubt it. I love sarcasm more than the next person, and I think Louis-Dreyfus made a point. Nevertheless, Trump’s assault on St. John’s failed to trouble his White evangelical base voters, so I don’t think they will care about Louis-Dreyfus’ wisecrack. 

But will we remember her wisecrack about “tear gas and a bunch of federalized troops?” Of course we will. I suspect the clips will show up every time Trump says something to show that he is on the White evangelicals' side.

Sometimes we remember a speech because of fancy language, wisdom, or deep thought. Sometimes, however, one striking sentence gets our attention. We know about, “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” What else do you remember about John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address? Not much? That’s what I thought. One great sentence! 

Now, the Republican National Convention starts on Monday. My previous post pointed out that William Jennings Bryan won the 1896 Democratic nomination with one brilliant speech, and one brilliant sentence out of that speech made the difference: “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” But at a Republican convention years ago, the nominee destroyed himself with one carelessly chosen line in his acceptance speech. I’ll try to blog about that in the next day or two, just to give you something to think about before the upcoming Republican convention. 

Earlier Post: William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold Speech

Comedians and politics? Satire can be either good or bad. 

Comment: I visited St. John’s Episcopal Church when I worked in Washington in the 1970’s, and think that it is a lovely and spiritual place.

Joe Biden's 2020 Acceptance Speech: Comforting, but Not Safe

Joe Biden

Joe Biden’s acceptance speech last night was comforting, almost parental, but he didn’t play it as safe as people thought he did. His pointed comments lay concealed under his gentle language and parental demeanor. 

Here are things he said that sounded parental

 Contrasting his character with Trump’s, Biden mildly said: 

“Character is on the ballot. Compassion is on the ballot. Decency, science, democracy.”

He expressed empathy for those who have heartache: 

“I know how it feels to lose someone you love. I know that deep black hole that opens up in your chest. That you feel your whole being is sucked into it. I know how mean and cruel and unfair life can be sometimes.”

And Biden promised to be a president for all Americans, not just his supporters, and this rather eloquent passage: 

“But while I will be a Democratic candidate, I will be an American president. I will work as hard for those who didn’t support me as I will for those who did. 

“That’s the job of a president. To represent all of us, not just our base or our party. This is not a partisan moment. This must be an American moment. 

“It’s a moment that calls for hope and light and love. Hope for our futures, light to see our way forward, and love for one another.”

  “Light and love.” Sounds good?

 

Here are things he said that did not play it safe

Despite his theme of “light and love,” which came from his opening quotation, Biden did not play it safe. Biden’s opening passage cited civil rights leader Ella Baker:

“Ella Baker, a giant of the civil rights movement, left us with this wisdom: ‘Give people light and they will find a way.’

“Give people light. 

“Those are words for our time.”

 With issues like the Voting Rights Act and George Floyd’s death in the news, civil rights have become controversial again. And that is where Biden started his speech. People notice a speech’s beginning and end. Biden began by talking about a woman civil rights leader. He quoted her about “light,” which is parental and comforting, but civil rights is an issue. His next section attacked President Trump, combined with an appeal to unity:

Only then did he speak for unity:

“Here and now, I give you my word: If you entrust me with the presidency, I will draw on the best of us not the worst. I will be an ally of the light not of the darkness. 

“It’s time for us, for We the People, to come together. 

“The current president has cloaked America in darkness for much too long. Too much anger. Too much fear. Too much division.”

Yes, that was an appeal for unity, but it had a bite: “Too much fear. Too much division.” It was attack unity, not Kum ba ya unity. 

Biden also talked about the coronavirus epidemic, pointing out that the United States has been harder hit than other major nations, attacked President Trump because he “refuses to lead,” defended the Affordable Care Act, and stated policies to make things better.

Conclusion

President Trump calls his opponent “Sleepy Joe Biden.” Last night's speech, however, was sharp and crisply delivered. Trump can continue to spew out his infantile insults, but they are now going to be less credible.

Biden reassured listeners with a calming intent, but, against expectations, he did not play it safe. From the beginning, he tried himself to traditional Democratic party coalitions, including African-Americans and women, while he attacked President Donald Trump. Still, he talked about national unity and harmony. Although he read a text, Biden spoke in a conversation style that eludes many political speakers. He projected a calm, confident manner that contrasted with Donald Trump’s in-your-face delivery style. In short, he gave the American voters a choice between two styles of presidencies. 

Image: Official VP Portrait

Kamala Harris Acceptance Speech at the Virtual DNC Convention: Breaking Ground with Caution

Kamala Harris

As much as anything, I think that Kamala Harris did not want to give a memorable speech last night. Instead, she gave a safe speech. 

Kamala Harris’ speech at the virtual Democratic National Convention broke ground because of who she was. Her presence was dramatic in itself. After all, she is the first minority woman nominated by a major party to be Vice President of the United States. Harris’ presentation was scripted, cautious, and accessible. The Democrats’ convention goal seems to be to show that they are the sober, careful party that can heal the nation and restore order. Harris reached out to all Americans, while, at the same time, touching base with the traditional Democratic Party  voters.

Harris' Theme

Harris’ theme was “equality, liberty, and justice for all.” Her point was to include everyone. The American flags arrayed behind her reinforced that she was taking heart from those Jeffersonian values. She stated that thesis right off:

“That I am here tonight is a testament to the dedication of generations before me. Women and men who believed so fiercely in the promise of equality, liberty, and justice for all.”  

She started talking about women voters, especially Black women voters. She jumped into the the 19^th  Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote: 

“This week marks the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment. And we celebrate the women who fought for that right.

"Yet so many of the Black women who helped secure that victory were still prohibited from voting, long after its ratification.

"But they were undeterred.

"Without fanfare or recognition, they organized, testified, rallied, marched, and fought—not just for their vote, but for a seat at the table. These women and the generations that followed worked to make democracy and opportunity real in the lives of all of us who followed.” 

Harris then mentioned several female heroes of the Civil Rights movement: “Mary Church Terrell and Mary McCleod Bethune. Fannie Lou Hamer and Diane Nash. Constance Baker Motley and Shirley Chisholm.”

Harris told inspiring family stories and mentioned her South Asian heritage. This was important in two ways: first, she noted the historic fact of her nomination, while, at the same time, she headed off the ongoing racist smears about her ethnic background. 

Continuing the theme of inclusiveness, she noted “structural racism,”  which she said caused these evils: 

“...inequities in education and technology, health care and housing, job security and transportation.

“The injustice in reproductive and maternal health care. In the excessive use of force by police. And in our broader criminal justice system.

“This virus has no eyes, and yet it knows exactly how we see each other—and how we treat each other.

“And let's be clear—there is no vaccine for racism. We've gotta do the work.”

Calling racism “this virus,” she drew attention about the coronavirus without mentioning it. Harris also made an implied dig against President Trump’s sexual proclivities when she reviewed her career as a prosecuting attorney: 

“I've fought for children, and survivors of sexual assault. I've fought against transnational gangs. I took on the biggest banks, and helped take down one of the biggest for-profit colleges.

“I know a predator when I see one.”

 “Predator?” Oops. Can't miss that one. 

Harris repeatedly emphasized voting, for example:

“People of all ages and colors and creeds who are, yes, taking to the streets, and also persuading our family members, rallying our friends, organizing our neighbors, and getting out the vote.

“And we've shown that, when we vote, we expand access to health care, expand access to the ballot box, and ensure that more working families can make a decent living.” 

She was right about that. The ballot box is what matters in our political system.

Language Style 

First, unlike the intellectual speeches we heard from Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Harris’ carefully-scripted speech was accessible. Her speech ran between the sixth and seventh grade level on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level measurement. Since not all voters are highly educated, Harris and her speechwriters were wise to tone down the big words. 

Earlier Post: Did Bernie Sanders Talk over People's Heads at the 2020 Democratic Convention?

Second, although Harris’ speech was more readable than Sanders’, it was not totally listenable. The text still reads like an essay, not like a speech in oral style. Although Harris' rich, pleasant voice was expressive and personable, it was still obvious that she was reading. Some speakers can read a speech and sound conversational. Harris isn’t good at that. 

Consider, for example, this stilted sentence from her speech: 

“That's the vision that our parents and grandparents fought for. The vision that made my own life possible. The vision that makes the American promise—for all its complexities and imperfections—a promise worth fighting for.” 

Does anyone talk like that? Of course not. Does anyone, even in a formal meeting, say things like “for all its complexities and imperfections – a promise worth fighting for?” You know that they don’t. No one does. That’s written style, not oral style. The sentence twists too many ways to sound good out loud. 

Finally – and here comes one of my pet peeves – no one should ever begin a public speech by saying something so trite as, “It is truly an honor to be speaking with you.” Stale. Overused. Wordy. Hackneyed. If, heaven forbid, I were ever to run for public office, I would fire any speechwriter who wrote something like, “It is truly an honor…” Ny friend and colleague, Professor David Ritchey, said that when you use an adverb, the reason is that you’re using the wrong verb.  Furthermore, “truly” is one of the English language’s worst adverbs. It sounds fine in the King James Bible, but nowhere else. If you want to say something true, just say it. Don’t remind people that it’s true by saying "truly." Good speakers always choose the opening sentence with care, and no careful speaker should start by saying, “It is truly . . .”  

In other words, as my high school music teacher said, you need to begin and end well. The audience won’t care if you mess up in the middle, but they do notice a bad beginning or ending. 

To give her credit, Harris' ending gave a dramatic call to action. She said that actions count more than words:

"And we will tell them. We will tell them, not just how we felt.

"We will tell them what we did."

Conclusion

Kamala Harris’ acceptance speech reached out to a broad group of Democratic voters, encouraged people to vote, and attacked Donald Trump. She mostly tried not to be polarizing. Although her personable delivery helped, her speech was stilted, which is bad, but safe and inclusive, which is what she wanted. 

Presidential nominee Joe Biden speaks tonight. His job is to be safe and memorable. Let's see what happens! 

Image: US Senate photo