Yes, It Was Terrorism. No, It Was Not a Tourist Visit. Yes, Officer Daniel Hodges Did His Homework. A Lesson for Public Speakers.

US Capitol in Happier Times

The world is full of speakers who have no idea what they’re talking about. Enough of that is enough. Speakers need to do their homework. And we have a hero! It’s not just that District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges defended the Capitol on January 6, which should be glory enough. He also defended truth by giving well-researched testimony.

One of four officers who testified at this week’s hearing about the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, Hodges came prepared. Because he was prepared, he devastated one of the most common Republican talking points about that horrible day. Republicans, one recalls, like to say that the January 6 riot was no big deal.

For example, Republican congressional representative Andrew Clyde called the riot a “tourist visit.” During that “tourist visit,” hundreds of people broke into the Capitol, clubbed police with heavy implements, smashed up the interior, and fogged the area with bear spray. The whole time, they were screaming “hang Pelosi” and “stop the steal.” We all watched this on live television. A recent Monmouth University opinion poll found that 62% of Republican voters described the riot as, indeed a “riot.” Nevertheless, 47% of them thought it was “legitimate protest.” Still, for anyone to think of that awful day as anything less than a riot requires a person to unhook from reality. Other persons, however, have instead described the riot as “terrorism.” Does that overstate the case? Is “terrorism” too strong a word?” Officer Hodges thought that “terrorism” was the exact, correct term.

Here’s how his testimony worked:

First, when asked whether January 6 was a “tourist visit,” Hodges quipped: “If that’s what American tourists are like, I can see why foreign countries don’t like American tourists.”

Second, Hodges preempted people who think that “terrorism” is too strong a term:

“I can see why someone would take issue with the title of 'terrorist.' It’s gained a lot of notoriety in our vocabulary in the past few decades, and we'd like to believe that no, that couldn’t happen here. No domestic terrorism. No homegrown threats.” 

Third, and this was the zinger, Hodges said, “But I came prepared.” He cited US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 11B, Section 2331. He then quoted verbatim the exact law that defines “domestic terrorism:”

“Activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of The United States or of any state and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

Boom! Hodges made his point. For it is obvious that the Capitol riot met that definition to the letter. The rioters indeed broke the law. They indeed tried to intimidate members of Congress. Members of Congress indeed had to flee the Capitol and delay counting the presidential votes.

Yet, did Hodges’ irrefutable statement of evidence convince anyone? That’s hard to say. Probably not. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t make his point. It just means that some people refuse to be persuaded. Hodges did, however, put Republicans on the defensive. For example, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote today on the National Review's website that the January 6 riot was not terrorism. His astonishing argument is that January 6 may have met the legal definition of “terrorism,” but wasn’t, for some reason, as McCarthy put it, “real terrorism.” Pretty thin gruel. Much can be said for the way Hodges threw a seasoned lawyer like McCarthy back on his heels. Good work, Officer Hodges.

Mostly, however, conservatives ignored Hodges’ argument and defended themselves by launching personal attacks against the four officers. People resort to personal attacks when they have nothing else to say.

So, Hodges gave a lesson for speakers who find themselves in a tough spot. Hodges did his homework and reset the national debate about January 6 with one accurate, on-the-point quotation. He only needed a few seconds to shut down an entire Republican argument. We now all know that “terrorism” is not too strong a word. Hodges planned ahead. He expected to hear a question about terrorism. He did his homework. Sometimes the facts make a difference.

____________________

Mike Lee Tried to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Made Fun of Himself (P.S.: Speakers Need Research)

Speech Research in the New Media Era

____________________

P.S. Here’s a link to the US Code, which Hodges did, indeed, quote correctly.

Image: United States Capitol Visitor Center website

Tucker Carlson Used a Textbook Fallacy to Question the Coronavirus Vaccines

Coronavirus, CDC image

In a recent commentary, Tucker Carlson said: “To say it in unison – and they’re all saying it – that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated is simply untrue, that’s a lie.” Strong words! However, public health authorities’ point is that the vaccines are highly effective. Carlson’s rebuttal was that the vaccines are not completely effective. Carlson’s point is a classic example of the false dilemma fallacy. That is, Carlson implied that the vaccine is either effective or it is not – all or nothing. That is a fallacy because no vaccine works all the time.

People commit the false dilemma fallacy when they tell us that we only have two choices when, in fact, we have many. A vaccine might be perfect. A vaccine might be imperfect. Those are not, however, the only two choices. As Kathy Katella of Yale Medicine points out, the current vaccines used in the United States are 86%-98% effective in preventing severe coronavirus infections. Although that is an excellent result, it’s not perfect.  In Texas, for example, 99.5% of coronavirus deaths were among persons who were not vaccinated. Similarly, North Carolina health officials report that 94% of new coronavirus cases are among unvaccinated patients.

Still, if a tiny percentage of the serious illnesses occur among vaccinated people, does that prove that the vaccines do not work? Or does it merely prove that they are slightly imperfect?

To perpetuate his false dilemma fallacy, Carlson first cited British public health authority Sir Patrick Vallance, who said that 40% of British coronavirus hospital patients have been fully vaccinated. Carlson’s conclusion: “it makes you wonder how effective are these drugs anyway.”

Carlson contrasted this figure against what he said were promises made by American officials: “In the U.S., they’re telling us that no one who’s been fully vaccinated is fine. The only people getting dangerously sick or dying from COVID are the people who refused to get the vaccine.” In part, of course, Carlson was working with ambiguous or overstated comments by American officials, such as President Joe Biden’s comment that “The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated and they’re killing people.” (Biden could, of course, have phrased his point more precisely.)

Did you notice Carlson’s rhetorical trick? “They’re telling us that no one who’s been fully vaccinated is fine.” I assume he meant to say “everyone,” not “no one.” In either case, “everyone” and “no one” are absolutes. The false dilemma fallacy requires us to think in absolutes, in all-or-nothing terms. Carlson was leading his audience astray, for public health doesn’t deal in absolutes.

Carlson next slipped in one additional step: he sarcastically said that we are being told that “the only people getting sick are the ones who for political reasons have refused to get the vaccines. How many times have you heard that in the past month? As they continue to politicize medicine – almost at an irrecoverable point.” Again, notice the trick: “the only people.” Not most people, not almost everyone, but the only people. Another absolute.

Carlson's next target was CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who said that “This is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We are seeing outbreaks of cases in parts of the country that have low vaccination coverage because unvaccinated people are at risk.” She continued that: “communities that are fully vaccinated are generally faring well.” She then pointed out that people who are unvaccinated were very much at risk.

Walensky worded her statement pretty carefully. Carlson, however, exaggerated her point just a little bit to get to his fallacious conclusion. What Carlson said is this:

“Our CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, has said the same thing. If you’re vaccinated, Rochelle Walensky has assured us, you’re safe. You’re not just protected from infection – you're protected from serious illness or hospitalization, and even the lurking menace known as the Delta variant.”

There, Carlson didn't refute Walensky’s claim that the vaccines are protective – which they obviously are. Instead, he said that public health authorities are falsely telling us that, if you’re vaccinated, “you’re safe.” All or nothing.

So, if a few people get sick after being vaccinated, does that prove that the vaccines don’t work? Of course not. It does, however, let Carlson introduce a seed of doubt.

Now, I will agree that the public health authorities, who seek for us to avoid illness, sometimes overstate their case a little bit. Wise managers know that it’s smart to under-promise and over-deliver. I certainly understand that public health authorities want to encourage us to get vaccinated and to keep ourselves safe. At the same time, no public health authority can phrase a point so carefully that someone as unscrupulous as Tucker Carlson can’t twist and squirm. 

Conspiracy theories work with fallacies by their nature. A fallacy is, by definition, a flawed argument that can be made to seem reasonable. We hear that a few people got sick after taking the vaccine, and assume that the vaccine is useless. That is a fallacy because the majority of people who take the vaccine are highly protected and safe. In our current atmosphere of political mistrust, illogical arguments find fertile ground in the minds of people who are suspicious and uninformed. Knowing this, Tucker Carlson took full advantage to spread his bizarre conspiracy theory.

I think all of us like to think in absolutes. If I never run a red light, I think I will never be hit at an intersection. If I never drink alcohol, I think I’ll never get liver disease. Unfortunately, the real world gives us few absolutes. The real world faces us with gray areas, probabilities, and risk factors. When we start to think in all-or-nothing terms, we oversimplify our problems and make bad decisions. 

• Donald Trump Committed Straw Man Fallacies

• Tucker Carlson Got Tricky with His Evidence About Climate Change

Research Note: The best source about fallacies is still Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. 

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

Frederick Douglass

History repeats itself. Frederick Douglass warned us about the Christian Right in 1852.

Invited to speak about the Fourth of July in Rochester, New York on July 5, 1852, escaped slave Frederick Douglass proclaimed that the American church had, by supporting slavery, become “an abomination in the sight of God.” He thundered in the words of a biblical prophet: 

“In the language of Isaiah, the American church might be well addressed, ‘Bring no more vain ablations; incense is an abomination unto me: the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.’” 

Douglass raged for more than an hour against a nation that spoke for freedom but founded its economy on the backs of African American slaves.  We have all heard the famous question that he asked near the speech’s middle: “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?” Most critics, however, overlook his diatribe against the hypocrisy of most American churches. The Christian Right is nothing new. Does the Christian Right of today reflect the same hypocrisy? I will give the evidence and let the reader decide. 

In this Fourth of July speech, Douglass was not attacking Christianity – he was, for a time, an ordained minister of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. Instead, he argued that most mainstream American churches betrayed their religious principles when they either supported or excused American slavery. Why should we care today? Many Christians, not always trusting their own judgment, look to church leaders for moral guidance. When church leaders turn to evil, however, who will guide the guides? 
 

The Fugitive Slave Law

Beginning, Douglass condemned Christian churches that either supported or excused the Fugitive Slave Law. The Fugitive Slave Law required free states to return escaped slaves to their masters. Douglass called the law “one of the greatest infringements of Christian Liberty. He continued that: “if the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly indifferent, they, too, would so regard it.” 

Explaining why the Fugitive Slave Law was unchristian, he pointed out that, hypothetically, a law that would “abridge the fight to sing psalms, to partake of the sacrament, or to engage in any of the ceremonies of religion” would arouse a massive response from the churches: 

“A general shout would go up from the church, demanding repeal, repeal, instant repeal! And it would go hard with that politician who presumed to solicit the votes of the people without inscribing this motto on his banner.” 

Yet, Douglass said that the law was “a declaration of war against religious liberty.” In language echoing the Hebrew prophets, Douglass maintained that the Fugitive Slave Law attacked religion’s moral foundations. Indeed, the failure of most churches to object to the law told Douglass that the “church regards religion simply as a form of worship, an empty ceremony, and not a vital principle, requiring active benevolence, justice, love and good will towards man. It esteems sacrifice above mercy; psalm-singing above right doing; solemn meetings above practical righteousness.” 

The Church and Wrongful Public Policies

 Not content with his prophetic statement, Douglass then protested that churches were siding with evil: “the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors.”

In fact, he complained that churches taught “that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God,” and that, even worse, “to send it back and escape the bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.” 

Furthermore, Douglass protested, mainstream churches had twisted Christianity into a tool of depravity: “they conferred the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty.” He said, that, by taking evil’s side, churches were driving good people away from the gospel: they “serve to confirm more infidels in this age than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done!” He lamented that “These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion.”

The Corruption of the Church

By this point, Douglass had gone well beyond the condemnation of slavery. He was now attacking what was, to him, a corrupt church that defiled itself as it served the slave masters. He said that false ministers, who, he believed, represented the majority of churches, “strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throng of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form.” Instead, American Christianity had become “a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and dogs.” He complained that American Christianity had become “a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind.” 

In a bold, brilliant rhetorical move, Douglass contrasted what he said was the American church’s wickedness against the English church’s anti-slavery activism. The English church, he said “true to its mission of ameliorating, elevating, and improving the condition of mankind, came forward promptly, bound up the wounds of the West Indian slave, and restored him to his liberty.” He praised English churches for viewing emancipation as a “religious question.” Because of the English churches’ more principled stand, “the anti-slavery movement there was not an anti-church movement, for the reason that the church took its full share in prosecuting that movement.” Thus, he showed that religion did not need to be pro-slavery. He urged the American church to follow the British example.
 

Sin of Omission?

Douglass’ decisive point, however, was that the American Christian church had committed a sin of omission. Instead of using their moral authority to excuse slavery, he said, they could exert that authority for the abolitionist cause. What if more religious leaders had stood up against slavery and worked toward the biblical Jubilee, the day of freedom and restoration? Churches and preachers could abandon their passive acquiescence. Instead, they could become a positive force for social justice and reform – just as the Hebrew prophets commanded: 

“The American church is guilty, when viewed in connection with what it is doing to uphold slavery; but it is superlatively guilty when viewed in connection with its ability to abolish slavery.” 

Religion can be a powerful, radical force for good, but, all too often, churches and other religious organizations serve the rich and powerful. That was true during the Crusades. It was true in Douglass’ time and remains true today. In a survey, 86% of white evangelical Protestants inexplicably said that the Confederate flag was a symbol of southern pride, not racism. And scholar Robert P. Jones found that “ “the more racist attitudes a person holds, the more likely he or she is to identify as a white Christian.” Of course, not all white Christians hold these attitudes. Still, these findings seems utterly contrary to the prophets’ teachings.

The Christian Right of Today?

The Christian Right of today does not advocate slavery, but has been known to support openly racist political candidates and public policies. Just as Douglass predicted, no one is quicker than today's Christian Right to protest the slightest infringement of their liberty to exclude or oppress people for their race, creed, or political views. Anyone who deprives them of the right to oppress becomes in their minds, a threat to religious liberty. 

Douglass distinguished between religion of form and religion of content. Does being religious mean that one should follow that religion’s moral principles? Or does religion transform itself into an excuse for evil? When religious leaders side with wickedness, they justify people who wish to perform wicked deeds. I have written before about conversation-stoppers. There is no faster way to stop the conversation then to claim that God is on your side, no matter how evil your side might become. 

Earlier: Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies and Gave a Lesson in How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate

Conclusion

Douglass cited biblical authors and religious principles to condemn the Christian church. He held nothing back as he attacked the United States’ political system and religious organizations. There are reasons that scholars routinely rank Douglass  among the greatest orators. His eloquence, his command of the English language, but, most of all, is willingness to take a firm, uncompromising stand – to attack evil without hesitation, no matter the risk – have marked him as a persuasive force through the ages.

Earlier: What happened to the Fourth of July Speeches?

Earlier: Mark Twain’s Fourth of July Speech

Earlier: Barack Obama’s Fourth of July Speech

Research Note:

James Darsey, a prestigious communication scholar, argues in his award-winning book, The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America, that radical speakers often quote the Hebrew prophets. Let us remember, of course, that the abolition of slavery was considered a dangerous, wildly radical idea in Douglass’ time. 

Quotations from Amos: Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE ®, Copyright  © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977, 1995 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. www.Lockman.org

Image: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons