Janet Yellen Established Her Credibility During Her Confirmation Hearing

Janet Yellen

Always calm and measured in her speech, Secretary of the Treasury nominee Janet Yellen is past master of the art of establishing credibility. She demonstrated that quality once again in today’s opening presentation during her Senate confirmation hearing. Scholars of speech and persuasion have known, literally for millennia, that the speaker’s own character is the most powerful element of a persuasive speech.

We might think that the most energetic speakers are more credible, and this is often true. Not always, however. Consider Yellen’s persuasive challenges:

 

1. Nobody in the United States Senate wants to put a firebrand in charge of the United States Treasury. Yellen needed to persuade people that she would be a sure, calm, sober advocate of good fiscal policy.

 

2. Economics is a scary subject, whose devotees throw around analytic geometry problems and billion-dollar figures like confetti. Yellen needed to give economic policy a human face.

 

3. Having run up enormous budget deficits over the last four years, Republican legislators have suddenly become fiscal hawks. Yellen needed to advocate President-Elect Joe Biden’s economic policies, which call for massive coronavirus relief, without scaring the hawks too much.

 

Speaking remotely from her home due to coronavirus restrictions, Yellen used two simple techniques to establish her credibility. 

Janet Yellen's Speech at Jackson Hole: Do We Need a Stable Financial System?

 

Economics, the Human Science

 

Yellen’s first technique was to talk about her background in a way that gave economics a human face. She accomplished that by talking about her parents, who she described as children of the Great Depression. She said this about her father, a family physician: 

“He was the kind of doctor who treated the whole patient. He knew about their lives, about when they’d been fired, or couldn’t pay. Those remain some of the clearest moments in my childhood.”

She then emphasized that she viewed economics, not as a sterile economic field, but as a way to help people improve their lives: 

“Economics is sometimes considered a dry subject, but I’ve always tried to approach my science the same way my father approached his, as a means to help people. And this committee, I believe, has viewed it the same way, especially during these last few years.” 

It never hurts to compliment your audience, does it?

 

Similarly, discussing her expertise, Yellen did not waste time boasting about either her credentials (she was a Professor of Economics at the University of California Berkeley and chaired the Federal Reserve Board for four years) or her impressive scientific research record. Instead, once again, she focused on the human side of economic science: 

“I have spent almost my entire life thinking about economics and how it can help people during hard times.”

In other words, instead of discussing abstruse economic theories, Yellen emphasized her commitment to helping people. Since the economy has been struggling during the pandemic, her comments were both timely and thoughtful.

 

 

Calm Delivery

 

Yellen’s second technique was to speak calmly and clearly. Although she used plenty of vocal variety, Yellen never raised her voice. She spoke slowly and quietly in measured tones and did everything she could do to play the part of the calm, self-assured grandmother. That was exactly the right tone for her purposes. I could almost smell chocolate chip cookies baking. It’s hard for even the most bellicose politician to get angry with someone who speaks as she did.

 

Still, her delivery was varied and interesting. For example, when she said of her father, “He was the kind of doctor who treated the whole patient,” she paused just before she said “the whole patient.” That emphasized her point without ever making her sound shrill.

 

Yellen’s obvious goal was to sound calm but concerned. Her delivery did as much to accomplish that as the words she spoke.

Shaktikanta Das Gave a Central Banker's Perspective on the Coronavirus Depression

 

Conclusion 

Yes, people admire powerful speakers like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Barack Obama. But there’s something to be said for a speaker who is calm and reassuring, whose caring attitude gives us hope. Always relaxed under pressure, always measured in her thoughts, Yellen makes herself an easy person to trust.   

 

 

Interested in Yellen’s research? This 2018 paper is less technical than most of her work and helps readers understand current United States economic policies.

  

Thanks to rev.com for once again preparing a quick transcript of Yellen's statement. 

 

P.S. I have no idea whether Yellen is a grandmother, much less whether she does or does not bake cookies. Not my point.

Image: Federal Reserve

"The Law Can't Change the Heart, but It Can Restrain the Heartless:" Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech about Church and the Struggle for Justice

In November 1964, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke to the Methodist Student Leadership Conference in Lincoln Nebraska. He proclaimed that “while the law may not be able to change the hearts of men, it does change the habits of men. And when you begin to change the habits of men, pretty soon their attitudes will be changed and their hearts will be changed.” King called for churches to stand for social justice, and in more than just words. King called for legislative action. “There is nothing more tragic," King said, “than to sleep through a revolution.”

King talked about the important role that the Christian church plays in advancing human rights. In a lesson that we should, but often do not, remember, King emphasized that churches should stand foursquare behind social justice. Yet, then, as today, churches too often go the wrong way. Injustice did not disappear in 1964, and King’s words are as true today as they were back then.

Yesterday was Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and it was temporarily heartening to hear right-wing politicians and church leaders say that they honored Dr. King’s legacy. They can prove their sincerity when they have a chance to support the John L. Lewis Voting Rights Act. Will they back up their words with action?

Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Mountaintop: A Speech for the Ages

In this important but long-forgotten speech, King noted that church leaders and religious councils often made “noble pronouncements” about civil rights and social justice. All the same, he lamented that those pronouncements “filtered down all too slowly in some situations to local congregations.” He complained that “the Church is the most segregated major institution in America.” (As it is today, in 2021.) The church, he warned, has a long way to go to meet its own ideals. Church members often sing the old hymn, “In Christ there is no East or West,” he said, and yet, as they sing it, “we stand in the most segregated hour of America.”

And, nevertheless, King knew that cynics too often lament that it is not possible to impose noble values on people. Acknowledging that this is often true, King’s response was a model of incisive and ethical clarity. We cannot legislate how people feel, but we can legislate against bad actions:

“It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law can’t change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me and I think that’s pretty important also.”

We, today, must remember these oppositions. Too often, conservatives dismiss efforts to impose morality as “political correctness.” Indeed, they often sneer at political correctness as if they have a perfect right to say and do evil things and yet escape criticism.

For example, today, people refuse to wear a coronavirus mask because of their freedom, and yet feel free to spread disease to innocent people. Still, although people’s attitudes might not change, the law can force them to wear a mask. We can’t force people to believe that Black lives matter, but we can pass laws to protect Black lives.

That is the language of today. In the language of 1964, King refuted a similar kind of thinking. Indeed, he expressed his hope that, if people are forced to behave better, their hearts may eventually soften. Thus, King argued that the Christian church should and can properly support laws to encourage justice. He praised churches for their role in encouraging the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which had just been enacted when he gave this speech:

“And so it is the role of the Church to support meaningful legislation. And I am happy to say that, as we were struggling to get the civil rights bill through, we had the support of so many elements and segments of the Church community all across this nation.”

Continuing his speech, King underlined the role of Christian churches in making society better. By appealing to the conscience, Christian churches can improve our communities. He said:

“And I am convinced that the civil rights bill is a reality today because the religious forces of our nation were willing to join with the civil rights organizations and the other forces of goodwill. And it was this coalition of conscience that brought it about and this kind of coalition of conscience must continue, if our problems are to be solved.”

For all the honors done to him today, Martin Luther King, Jr. was extraordinarily unpopular during his own lifetime. To resist powerful forces of injustice requires great courage, and rewards often come slowly.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" Made Biblical Morality a Public Imperative

The old hymn to which King referred, “In Christ There Is No East or West,” is loosely based on a Bible verse, Galatians 3:28 – “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The biblical imperative is that all of us are equal. Are the Christian churches of today teaching this important lesson? Living by this lesson? 

Speeches Show That There Are Two Different Christianities

So, it is fine as far as it goes, to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by tweeting his praise. Truly, however, as King showed in this thoughtful speech, we can also honor justice, and King, by passing legislation. When too many police officers feel free to kill black men for the crime of waving a cell phone, and when the President of the United States orders teargas to be sprayed around a church so he can wave a Bible that he has never read, then, yes, we need to remember King’s ideas, not just his birthday. We need to honor him with public action, not just empty words.



Scripture quotation from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Once again, thanks to the good people at AmericanRhetoric.com, led by my former graduate school classmate Martin J. Medhurst, for publishing an accurate transcript of King's speech.

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

In his April 12, 1922 Munich speech, testifying of his “boundless love as a Christian and a man,” Adolf Hitler warped Christianity to support cruel public policies. Just like conservative American politicians today, Hitler identified himself with the group that has since become known as Christian nationalists. To persuade conservative Christians, Hitler talked about Jesus as a warrior, not a peacemaker; a fighter, not a man of love. Hitler didn’t just give his audience an excuse to be cruel; he said that Christianity required Germans to lash out. Hitler is gone, but those themes resonate today.


Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us There Are Two Different Christianities


Adolf Hitler was a public speaker of hypnotic power, one of the last great masters of the ancient art of elocution, who could captivate his audience with a stream of words. Alternately thoughtful and bombastic, pleading and demanding, Hitler planned and rehearsed every word, every phrase, every gesture, and every facial expression in meticulous detail. He used his powers to rally Germans to an evil cause and ultimately to destruction, leading conservative Christians to become his all-too-willing tools.

Eleven years before he became Chancellor of Germany, Hitler was already a major Nazi Party leader. Do Hitler’s Christian nationalist views echo in the United States today? I think they do. As we’ll see in a moment, Hitler cited Jesus’ life and actions to support his values. But Hitler’s framework was nationalism. Hitler stated his nationalist theme with these opening words, where he praised a historical German leader:

“Frederick the Great after the Seven Years War had, as a result of superhuman efforts, left Prussia without a penny of debt.”

Not just great efforts, not just human efforts, but “superhuman” efforts. It’s only one step from the superhuman to the supernatural. Would the audience think that Hitler planned to make superhuman efforts himself? Maybe so. Here is how Hitler introduced his twisted version of Christian theology a few minutes later:

“I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God’s truth! Was great not as sufferer but as fighter.” 

Hitler preached a violent, angry Christianity that provided strength and power. To Hitler, Jesus, his “Lord and Saviour,” was a “fighter.” Indeed, we will see that, by the speech’s end, Hitler transformed Christianity into a struggle to rescue downtrodden Germans. He didn’t do this by building them up, but by blaming their supposed enemies. 

Hitler was raised in the Catholic Church. However, he did not practice Christianity in adulthood. All the same, conservative Christians formed Hitler’s support base throughout his political career. Hitler, in turn, reached out to them, spoke in their terms, and placed himself in their ranks. Hitler depicted himself as a minority figure who, like Jesus, was fighting for an unpopular but noble cause. 

In turn, it appears that Hitler would have had no use for the Jesus who said, “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). The Jesus of Matthew’s Gospel was not a fighter. Likewise, Hitler seemed to leave no place for the Golden Rule: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” That surprises me not at all. In my many years attending church in conservative areas, I have only heard one sermon (out of hundreds) about the ever-so-liberal Sermon on the Mount, and not even one about the Golden Rule. No, Hitler had no interest in submission. Indeed, he directly contradicted Matthew: 

“As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”

Hitler wasn’t turning the other cheek, was he? Continuing, Hitler tied Christian duty to patriotism, and, in turn, patriotism to anger:

“For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people is plundered and exploited.”

That is, Hitler felt that the solution to German workers’ economic struggles was to blame Jews. Using the language of liberalism – “plundered and exploited” – Hitler’s rhetoric twisted the issue into a mass of unsupported denunciations. He told his audience that Christianity not only allowed but required that they crush Jews. By this point in the speech, Hitler had spun Christian mercy into its opposite. Yet, as he did so, he continued to speak words with which, apparently, many German churchgoers could identify.

Donald Trump at the Values Voters Summit: Was His Impeachment a Threat to Religion?


Thus began Hitler’s pseudo-theology of Christian nationalism. Throughout the speech, Hitler talked about a Jesus who was a fighter, not a healer. Hitler taught a theology of strength. According to Hitler, Jesus was an enemy of Jews, and that Jesus “summoned men to the fight against them.” Jesus, Hitler emphasized, started with a handful of followers – as did Hitler himself – and rose to prominence by power. Indeed, as this 1922 speech continued, Hitler praised Jesus for “His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.”

Hitler concluded his speech by creating a new moral theology. Hitler’s religion did not speak for peace or Christian love, but, instead, for a new faith of strength and power:

“That is the mightiest of things which our Movement must create: for these widespread, seeking and straying masses a new Faith which will not fail them in this hour of confusion, to which they can pledge themselves, on which they can build so that they may at least find once again a place which may bring calm to their hearts.”

And with that comment, Hitler left the stage. Christianity had now vanished from his speech. Having left Jesus behind, Hitler announced a new nationalist faith. No longer guided by Christian values, Hitler subordinated Christianity, with its teachings of tolerance and love, to a new religion of nationalist triumph. Millions of German Christians followed him to the bitter end.

Germany was one of the world’s greatest nations, a center of art, music, literature, philosophy, and religion. If Nazism could arise there, it could arise anywhere. It could arise in the United States. Don’t ever think it couldn’t. In eleven years, Hitler’s powerful but evil rhetoric converted his great nation into a land of violence and hatred. When he cited his supposed Christian faith, Hitler gave his audience an excuse to commit wrongful deeds. How could it be wrong, Hitler implied, to be cruel in Jesus’ name? 

Reverend Paula White Prayed Against Trump’s Enemies


Do you think that Hitler’s themes – a Christianity of power and struggle, whose rhetorical purpose is to promote national strength and vengeance, not mercy – resonate in the Christian Right of today? Or not? More important, is it even possible to fight for Christianity while forsaking its teachings? Please feel free to make comments below.

Technical note: "Elocution" has meant different things during different periods of rhetorical history. For more insight into the public speaking methods that Hitler was taught, interested readers might look at Gilbert Austin's book Chironomia, or the Art of Manual Rhetoric. It's fascinating, but it's also heavy-duty reading. François Delsarte may have been a more direct influence on Hitler or his mentors.