Biden’s Speech about the Kabul Bombing: Language and Style

Biden's speech about Afghanistan

The press often says that President Joe Biden’s Afghanistan policy has been weak. I cannot agree, but I wonder if the bureaucratic language style that he’s used over the past few days might have made him sound weak. Just recently, on August 26, 2021, Biden spoke about the ISIS bombing of soldiers and civilians during the evacuation of Americans and their allies from Kabul. Not only the conservative press, but even the more mainstream media have been saying harsh things about Biden’s leadership during the evacuation. So, Biden needed to sound strong. From the standpoint of content, he did that. In his speech, he said the right things to make himself look steadfast and strong. But did speech’s tone project strength? Not really. Too often, Biden used wordy sentences. He also used too many big words. This helps to explain why he still struggles to regain public confidence. In other words, Biden spoke in written style, not oral style.

We do not talk the way we write, and we don’t usually write the way we talk. To the extent that he promised (and delivered) strong action, Biden showed leadership. Yet, to the extent that he talked like a bureaucrat, rather than a leader, he failed to sound strong.


Showing Dedication

Yes, Biden talked about his dedicated efforts in Afghanistan. Getting right to the point in the third sentence, Biden told people that he was working hard to control the seemingly chaotic situation:

“I’ve been engaged all day and in constant contact with the military commanders here in Washington, the Pentagon, as well as in Afghanistan and Doha. And my command here in Washington has been on this with great detail and you’ve had a chance to speak to some.”

Those were, of course, exactly the things we want a president to be doing right now. We want the president to work with the commanders and gather information. Biden’s style of language, however, sounded like something from a published government report. Phrases like “I’ve been engaged” or “has been on this with great detail” were not going to stir the blood.


Could Biden Have Said Something Like This?

• What Biden could have said, but didn’t: I’ve been working all day. I’ve been talking with our military leaders all over the world. My staff right here in Washington is looking at every detail. I know that you’ve already talked with some of them.

See the difference? The day’s events called for clear, sharp words, and we didn’t hear them. “Working” instead of “engaged.” “Talking” instead of “constant contact.” And so forth. Instead of writing like a bureaucrat, a president needs to talk like a speaker.


Sharing Knowledge

Afghanistan’s politics are difficult. Biden needed to express that. In particular, it seems that the group that bombed the embassy had nothing to do with the Taliban, which is a different organization. To appreciate what the president is doing, the public needs to understand that. And, indeed, Biden explained it:

“Over the past few weeks. I know you’re—many of you are probably tired of hearing me say it. We’ve been made aware, from our intelligence community, that the ISIS-K, an arch-enemy of the Taliban—people were freed when both those prisons were opened, have been planning a complex set of attacks on the United States personnel and others. This is why from the outset, I’ve repeatedly said that this mission was extraordinarily dangerous, which is why I was so determined to limit the duration of this mission.”

Okay, same problem. The content was fine. That’s the information the public needs to understand. Again, however, the language choice got in Biden’s way. Passive sentences like “we’ve been made aware,” tedious phrases like “from our intelligence community,” and adverbs like “extraordinarily” slow the listener down. If you are reading a speech, you can slow down, think about the big words, and sort out what the speaker is saying, but we can’t do that when we are listening to a speech.


So, Would Something Like This Be Better?

• What Biden could have said, but didn’t. Our experts have briefed me about ISIS-K. They are the Taliban’s arch-enemy. The former president let them out of prison at the same time as the Taliban prisoners. ISIS-K has planned many attacks against the United States and our friends. They are the ones who planned the horrible suicide bombing in Kabul. This is why I said from the start that this mission is risky. That is why we need to set a deadline.

Policy speakers often do well to use parallel language. That’s why the “this is why…this is why” above works in speech better than it does in writing. So…

• Would this have been even more forceful? What Biden could have said, but didn’t. ISIS-K are the Taliban’s arch-enemy. The former president let them out of prison at the same time as he freed the Taliban prisoners. ISIS-K has planned many attacks against the United States and our friends. ISIS-K planned the horrible suicide bombing. ISIS-K is planning even more terrible deeds. This is why I said from the start that this mission is risky. That is why we need to set a deadline.

Again, when we speak, we tend to use simpler words. “Planned many attacks” instead of “planning a complex set of attacks.” The longer phrase sounds like something a government official would write in a formal report. That is not, however, how most people talk. “Risky” is better than “extraordinarily dangerous,” which uses two words to say what you could say in one word. (Plus, a public relations friend of mine said that if you use an adverb, like “extraordinarily,” it means you’ve chosen the wrong verb. I try to remember that; it’s hard!) Let’s not call the victims “others;” let’s call them “friends,” for that is what they are. And why would anyone want to hear words like “duration of this mission?” Also, instead of the passive “were opened,” which dilutes responsibility, shouldn’t he remind us that the former president ordered the prisoner release?

Speakers Making Points

Language style matters. Think about how Franklin Roosevelt raised his points after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor: “a day which will live in infamy.” Not only did Roosevelt make his point, but he made sure that everybody knew what he meant. He gave the press a memorable phrase that pointed out exactly whose fault the Pearl Harbor raid was.

Franklin Roosevelt's War Speech

Or consider the sharp language that Biden himself used not long ago when he talked about the new coronavirus variant:

“My fellow Americans, this nation has never failed when we have come together as the United States of America. So I say to all those who are unvaccinated: Please — please get vaccinated.”

Isn’t that sharp, clear, and forceful? An audience is more likely to think that Biden is forceful if he uses strong, simple language. “Say what you mean, and mean what you say” – that’s how tough guys talk, and it is good advice for all of us.

Biden's Delta Variant Speech Showed Leadership 


Showing Strength

Later in the speech, Biden began to sound strong when he spoke in a more Biden-like manner:

“We will not be deterred by terrorists. We will not let them stop our mission. We will continue the evacuation.”

That was sharp and excellent. Three parallel sentences (audiences love to hear three things) itemized the United States’ plans in a way that promised listeners that no one would interrupt those plans.

Finally, right at the end, Biden did a great job of promising that Americans would all be rescued from Afghanistan:

“We will find them, and we will get them out.”

That was a simple, bold statement. He needed that kind of clarity all through the speech. Sometimes, too much explanation just makes a speaker sound weak. In a time of crisis, people want assurances. People want results. “We will find them, and we will get them out” promised results. And, in fact fulfilling the promise, the United States soon assassinated the ISIS-K leader with a drone strike.


What Went Wrong with This Speech?

We can be charitable, of course. The crisis is ongoing, and Biden had little time to work on the speech. He probably wasn’t sleeping much. He and his speechwriters probably didn’t have enough time for meetings and revision. But, then again, neither did Franklin Roosevelt with his Pearl Harbor speech, and he got the job done.

In a time of crisis, Americans look to the president for leadership. That leadership often comes from speaking. Speeches can matter more than actions! Biden performed actions of strength, power, and competence. Indeed, I think that most of the criticism of his Afghan policy is unfair and opportunistic. This is a war, and nothing in war goes smoothly. The enemy can always veto your plans. In this rhetorical situation, however, the speaker’s word choice and sentence construction can show as much as the actual actions. Roosevelt’s “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” reassured people. Biden’s “This is why our mission was designed the way it was designed” did not.


Oral Style Versus Written Style

Let’s return to oral style versus written style. A long out-of-print public speaking book by John F. Wilson and Caroll C. Arnold offers a lengthy description of the difference between oral and written style. For example, oral style uses more sentence fragments and the sentences vary much more in length. Speakers use more imagery than writers. Speakers repeat themselves much more often than writers do. A well-written essay often sounds thick and pretentious if someone reads it out loud. Some top speechwriters actually dictate their drafts to a secretary (or, nowadays, into a computer) so their first words will express spoken thoughts. English speakers often use more short, blunt Anglo-Saxon words and fewer Latin-root words when they speak, as opposed to when they are writing. Speech and writing both use the same language, but they don’t use it in the same way. When it’s time to be forceful, as during an international crisis, it’s time to use oral style.


Conclusion

Biden said many good things in this speech. He expressed grief for the lives lost. He talked about his personal experience as a veteran’s father. He reminded the audience that the rescue efforts had brought more than 100,000 Americans and their allies to safety in a matter of days. He praised the heroes who made it possible. All that is good, solid public speaking.

So, as I said at the outset, Biden said all the right things. He didn’t need high flights of beautiful language. The speech was a policy briefing. This occasion needed plain, blunt language to give us information, while reminding us about what we care about. The speaker needed to sound strong and resolute.

Now, sounding strong and resolute does not mean that a speaker should rage or use foul language. It means to speak in a straightforward way, to choose words wisely, and to use language that people will grasp. It means to say things that people will understand and remember.

No public speaker excels every time. Even Abraham Lincoln gave an occasional boring speech. Speakers need to know, however, that it is not only what you say – it’s also how you say it – that makes a difference.



Research Note: Wilson and Arnold’s book, Public Speaking as a Liberal Art, is long out of print. That’s a shame, for it is one of the best public speaking textbooks ever written. You might find the first edition in a large university library or used bookstore. Later versions, often revised by other authors, sometimes pop up on the used book market. 

By the way, classical writers taught that language style was one of the five elements, or canons, of public speaking. The ancient Roman authors called style elocutio. They talked about what they called the “Asian style,” which was formal and flowery, and the “Attic style,” which was simple and plain. It would be fine for Biden to use the Attic style in a speech. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that he used something more like a bureaucrat's style. Maybe we could call it the “Pentagon style.” No one needs that. 

Image: White House YouTube channel

Three Warnings about Political Action From Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech”

On today’s date, August 28, 1963, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his most famous speech – “I Have a Dream” – from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. This speech’s inspiring language commands our attention, but must not overlook King’s equally inspiring life lessons. The press often considered King to be a moderate civil rights leader. Nevertheless, in “I Have a Dream,” he gave three warnings.

When we remember King’s eloquent language – “I have a dream today” – we are reminded that dreams matter. King was, all the same, not a pie-in-the-sky dreamer. He was a pragmatic leader who understood how to face challenges. The three lessons that he slipped into his speech –  to avoid gradualism, to recognize the United States’ vast potential, and to shun despair – mean as much today as they did in 1963.

In the face of timidity, King warned his audience against moderation. In the face of conservatism, he warned against thinking small. In the face of liberal discouragement, he warned against pessimism. King directed these life lessons at the civil rights workers of 1963. All the same, what made his speech timeless was that his lessons are timeless. 

King's warnings resonate today. Civil rights are a never-ending struggle. Even today, conservative legislators at the state and national level struggle to make voting more difficult or protest the results of the 2020 election. So, let's look at King's three warnings. 

First Warning, Against Moderation

Minorities, who carry a history of enslavement, Jim Crow laws, and police brutality, are often told to be grateful for gradual change. And, truly, gradual improvement always trumps no improvement. Yet, with the civil rights movement in full swing, King told the massive crowd that it was time to move forward:

“This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

In this speech, King similarly also talked about “the fierce urgency of now.” King’s language compelled action: “fierce urgency,” opposed to a “tranquilizing drug.” This was language of power, strength, of immediacy. The time for action was now, not later. Timing is everything.

As we all know, oppressors often promise that liberation will come, but not quite today. Maybe later. So, King said that today was the day. Now was the time. Instead of “cooling off,” civil rights workers needed to push forward for justice. An ancient principle of rhetoric tells us that a speech must be given at the right time. King told his audience that 1963 was the right time to act. He warned them not to wait.

A year after King’s great speech, conservative firebrand Barry Goldwater would tell the Republican National Convention that: “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” That was truer than Goldwater knew.


Second Lesson, Plenty for Everyone

Not only however, did King say that we should avoid gradualism, but also there was no need to be gradual. He insisted that United States had plenty for everyone. His point was that the land of opportunity could fulfill its promises:

“We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.”

King’s point was that people think that the nation has exhausted its wealth and cannot afford to share opportunities. This is because so often – too often – people think small. We are afraid to win the big prize because we fear that we will lose the little one. We think that we will lose if we share with someone else. Too often, we fear that every exchange means that one person wins and another fails. King instead made the point that America offered “great vaults of opportunity.” There was enough for everyone.

We can remember that lesson today, can we not? A simple glance at the map shows that the poorest states in America have the most conservative state governments. The five poorest states are West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Alabama. All but New Mexico has a Republican legislature. When we clutch to what little we have, we fail to reach for greatness. The fallacy of gradualism lies in fear. The fallacy of conservativism is to deny the very existence of opportunity. So no, the nation did not lack potential in 1963, and it does not have “insufficient funds” today. What we lack, too often, would be concern for others, confidence in the future, and willingness to change.

King did not, however, endorse the “prosperity gospel” that is so enamored by many conservatives. He did not say that great riches awaited anyone who had faith. That kind of thinking lacks depth. Instead, King spoke for opportunity and justice. He spoke for urgency.


Third Warning, Avoid Despair

Radicalism poses a great temptation, however. If we fail to achieve everything we want, at the moment we wanted, we think that we have failed. We hear this today from liberal firebrands. Too often, we let failures discourage us. Indeed, in 1963, African Americans faced horrible challenges, especially in the South. King understood that gloom could become a self-fulfilling prophecy:

“Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.”

King spoke before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and before the Voting Rights Act of 1965. “I Have a Dream” was surely one of the many forces that led to those important laws. In 1963, he warned against despair. By 1965, important, long-promised legislation had been enacted. At the same time, injustice, timidity, and despair are the constant enemies of progress. King warned us against all three. King saw that the faint of heart could not succeed. His movement needed to recognize opportunity and seize the moment. Like all great speakers, he taught a timeless lesson. 

________________

Barry Goldwater on Extremism

John Kelley Did Not Speak at the Right Time 

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

Does Donald Trump Lead His Supporters, or Do His Supporters Lead Him? Oops, He Asked Them to Take a Vaccine

Donald Trump, White House Photo

In a lively, rambling speech at his political rally in Alabama yesterday, former president Donald Trump told the crowd that he recommended the coronavirus vaccines. Many in the crowd booed.

What? Trump’s loyal, slavish acolytes booed him? How can that be? For, it seems, we often hear that Trump’s supporters loyally believe every ridiculous thing he says. Maybe we have that backwards. Maybe they only love him because he says the ridiculous things that they want to hear. Yesterday, he outraged them because he said something true and good.

Leading into his comments about the vaccines, Trump told the crowd that they had their freedom. Of course, the main reason that conservatives cite for not taking the vaccines is that they have freedom. But, then, Trump said this:

“And then we developed a vaccine – 3 vaccines – in three months – in nine months. It was three days less than nine months.”

The crowd then rumbled their disagreeable disapproval. Isn’t that strange? Trump took credit for the rapid development of life-saving vaccines. Trump supporters love Trump and like to give him credit for everything. Three vaccines in nine months? Doesn’t that sound like an accomplishment? All the same, however, the Trump-loving crowd booed him. How can that be? Did they suddenly not trust him? Trying to recover, Trump continued:

“I believe in freedom. You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do. You’ve got your freedom, but I happened to take the vaccine. If it doesn’t work you’ll be the first to know – But it is working.”

The crowd continued to signal their unhappiness. Looking a tiny bit flustered, Trump then conceded:

“But you do have your freedoms.“

He quickly went on to rant about Dr. Anthony Fauci and mask-wearing, and also complained that the 2020 election had been stolen from him. His audience seemed happier about that nonsense.

The rhetorical tactic on which Trump depends the most is to say whatever gets the most cheers. It’s been rumored that his staff tracks which lines get the most applause. He could then repeat those lines in future speeches to get even more applause. He is known to have relied on polls. He adjusts his message to say whatever is popular. In that respect, he’s not much different from any other politician.

Of course, anyone with a working brain knows that the coronavirus vaccines are an absolute miracle that can save the world from the horrible pandemic that has already killed so many people. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine experts tell us that, “All three vaccines authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been thoroughly tested and found to be safe and effective in preventing severe COVID-19.” Nevertheless, anti-vaccine feelings lie deep in the conservative movement. When he recommended vaccination, Trump told his audience something they did not want to hear.

Sometimes a leader needs to tell people hard truths. Trump made a brief effort to do that yesterday. I don’t think he will do it again. As I mentioned before, Trump is a follower, not a leader: he follows the crowd. It is the crowd that steers Trump, not Trump who steers the crowd. Worse, liberals often think that the way to beat people like Trump is to point out when conservatives present silly ideas. That misses the target. Trump said one true thing, and the crowd turned against him. Trump, whatever his faults, isn’t the main problem. 

__________________

Trump, the "China Virus," and the Art of Controlling the Agenda by Misdirection

Will The Real Donald Trump Please Stand Up?

__________________

Here is the CDC's Fact Sheet about the coronavirus vaccines.

__________________

Research Note: Joel B. Pollak, one of Trump’s top campaign experts, talks about his use of polls and feedback in How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution.

If you want to understand how American politicians think, there is still no better source than Dan Nimmo, The Political Persuaders. Highly recommended. It's outdated, but you’ll never look at a campaign rally the same way again.

Joe Biden Reset the Agenda with His Speech about the Disaster in Afghanistan

Biden's Afghanistan Speech

Speaking to the American public about the Afghanistan withdrawal, President Joe Biden made his case and offered constructive actions to alleviate the suffering. Was he right? I have no idea. His speech, however, helped to reset the discussion. Instead of talking about details of the ongoing disaster, Biden focused our attention on larger international issues. He reset the dispute on his own terms. That can only be to his political benefit. After all, the “bully pulpit” is the President’s greatest power. 

As Professor Lloyd Bitzer pointed out some time ago, there are situations that call out for speech. The chaotic collapse of Afghanistan’s government is one such case. Was this a foreign policy failure? Of the four presidents who presided over the Afghan policy, who was most at fault? Why did Afghanistan’s military forces collapse? Where should the United States go from here? For the president to say nothing would show weakness. Instead, Biden gave a White House speech yesterday to talk about the situation in Afghanistan. Let’s look at how, instead of focusing on the immediate disaster, he looked at the broader picture.

This was a prudent rhetorical strategy, for the immediate situation Afghanistan is a self-evident calamity. Biden needed to justify his policies. He needed to give the catastrophe a context.

First, Biden reminded us of the original war goals. He said that when the United States invaded Afghanistan about 20 years ago, the purposes were to “get those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001, and make sure al Qaeda could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again.” Many wars escalate out of proportion, as the warring parties seek more and more unrealistic results. Biden was wise to focus on the war’s initial purpose. In rhetorical masterstroke, he then asserted that those purposes had been met: “We did that. We severely degraded al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We never gave up the hunt for Osama bin Laden, and we got him. That was a decade ago.”

Second, Biden attacked the neocon goal of remaking Afghanistan into a Western democracy. That was a larger purpose, much bigger but far less realistic than stopping Al Qaeda. Biden simply refocused on the war’s original purpose:

“Our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation building. It was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy.

“Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on American homeland.”

Third, although the 9/11 attacks originated from bases in Afghanistan, Biden emphasized that the terrorist threat now extended well beyond that nation. That was also quite clever. The purpose of the Afghanistan war was to suppress terrorism. Fighting in Afghanistan, however, was no longer enough to suppress terrorism:

“Today, the terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond Afghanistan: al Shabaab in Somalia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Nusra in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. These threats warrant our attention and our resources.”

Furthermore, I don’t think anybody can blame Biden too much for reminding his audience that former President Donald Trump had already negotiated to let the Taliban take over the country by May 1, 2021, a day long past: 

“When I came into office, I inherited a deal that President Trump negotiated with the Taliban. Under his agreement, U.S. forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1, 2021 — just a little over three months after I took office.”

_______________

Earlier Post: President Trump's 2017 Afghanistan Speech

Earlier Post: Mueller Refocused the Agenda on the Russia Investigation

Earlier Post: The Bully Pulpit and Biden's Infrastructure Speech

_______________

I have often remarked that the winner of the debate is usually the side that sets the agenda. So, although the situation in Afghanistan appears to be dire, and much heartbreak is inevitable, Biden diverted attention away from the immediate situation. Instead, he reminded the audience of the conflict’s history, its original goals, and the straitjacket that the former president had tied him into. The speech was certainly not enough to silence Biden’s critics. His critics will only be silenced if his policy succeeds. The speech did, however, take Biden off the defensive. He reset the agenda. He restated the debate on his own ground and in his own terms.

_______________

P.S.: The comparison to the Vietnam War? Here are my suggestions. Don't start a war for careless political reasons. Never think that you can fight a war without heartbreak. Never think that you can make people love you by bombing their homes and shooting their husbands and brothers. Plus, innocent people get killed and the survivors' lives are often ruined. 

Research Note: Years ago, I wrote a paper about George W. Ball's attempt to justify American policy in Vietnam. Strangely enough, as we learned years later, Ball did not even believe the things that he said in his speech. How often does rank hypocrisy or double-dealing make it impossible for us to discuss foreign policy in a rational manner? If you have time, read my paper (link below, it's free) and feel free to comment what you think. 

George W. Ball's Vietnam War Speech

Image: White House YouTube Channel

Governor DeSantis Twisted the Evidence and Put Florida’s Children in Danger

Teddy Says, Wear a Mask

Public officials have pleaded with us to follow the science as we fight the coronavirus pandemic. This seems to irritate conservatives, who sometimes pretend that science is on their side. Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis issued an executive order (Florida Executive Order 21-175) forbidding Florida schools from requiring students to wear masks. As he issued that order, coronavirus has been spiking throughout his state, while Florida’s pediatric wards are filling up with young coronavirus patients. Disaster is inevitable. DeSantis offered powerful but empty arguments.

This post discusses how DeSantis distorted scientific evidence about mask-wearing. He twisted the science to support a pre-conceived political opinion.


Twisting the Science

Mask-wearing has become a flag issue for conservatives. Avoiding masks symbolizes their independence from what they consider obnoxious, pompous, and insulting advice from public health officials. DeSantis turned the table on scientists by citing scientific studies to support his policy. Although better scientific research (which we’ll look at in a minute) contradicts DeSantis’ interpretation, that, unfortunately, does not diminish the persuasive power of his line of argument.

So, let's look at one of DeSantis’ faulty arguments:

“WHEREAS, despite recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ‘guidance,’ forcing students to wear masks lacks a well-grounded scientific justification; indeed, a Brown University study analyzed COVID-19 data for schools in Florida and found no correlation with mask mandates.”

Quotation marks around “guidance?” That was DeSantis’ snub against experts.

DeSantis did not, of course, cite his source. Who would ever expect a politician to cite sources? But I tracked it down. The study does, indeed, exist, but it was published on a website, not a scientific journal. The website warned: “This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.… It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.” So, although the preliminary study may turn out to be right, let’s not use it to justify endangering children’s health.


But What About Other Studies? Do They Support Masks in Schools?

I did, however, find a 2021 study, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. That article’s data showed that mask mandates, when combined with other public health methods, help control the virus’s spread. The authors explained that schools that “implemented multicomponent measures [which included mask mandates] to reduce spread reported lower in-school transmission unless lapses in these measures occurred.” 

The study wasn’t performed in Florida, however, so I guess DeSantis could decide to ignore it. I suppose he could also ignore a Georgia study which discovered that: “Adjusting for county-level incidence, COVID-19 incidence was 37% lower in schools that required teachers and staff members to use masks, and 39% lower in schools that improved ventilation, compared with schools that did not use these prevention strategies.” That, of course, shows a dramatic improvement from mask-wearing.

One of the best general scientific articles about mask-wearing was published this year in an excellent peer-reviewed scientific journal, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. The authors found that mask mandates do, indeed, help a lot. They explained that “Several studies have demonstrated that face masks decrease the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus. “They concluded that “Mask mandates that include minimal exceptions will lead to a reduction in community COVID-19 rates, decrease hospitalizations, and save lives.”

However, can ordinary face masks slow down the virus? A 2021 review of research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a highly-rated scientific journal, concluded that widespread mask-wearing could reduce community spread. This should, the article explains, be combined with other public health measures. The researchers said that, “places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.”

The point? DeSantis picked and chose his science – actually, he mentioned only one study, and not necessarily the best one – while ignoring better evidence that contradicted his opinion. Scientific studies don’t always reach the same conclusion, which is why scientists like to repeat studies over and over in different situations. That way, they can be sure they have the truth. One study, by itself, is never conclusive.

Was DeSantis Learning about Masks? Or Trying to Prove a Pre-Determined Opinion?

DeSantis wasn’t looking for truth; he was just scoring political points. As communication scholar George Ziegelmueller pointed out in his 1993 argumentation and debate textbook, there is a difference between inquiry and advocacy. We are doing inquiry when we want to learn something. We engage in advocacy when we want to prove something we’ve already decided. In other words, are we willing to learn from science? Or will we just cherry-pick science to prove a cynical agenda? 

DeSantis’ Executive Order engaged in advocacy, not inquiry. Politics obviously drove his decision. He then fished around for the best evidence he could find. That evidence wasn’t especially good, while better evidence contradicted his decision. So, unwilling to deal with truth, he did the best he could to promote a dangerous, unwise policy. He was following public opinion, while making little effort to lead.

 
That is outrageous.

If you want your children to live, ignore the governor of Florida and put facemasks on the precious little ones until this pandemic is over.

____________________

Biden's Delta Variant Speech: Showing Leadership During the Pandemic

Trump and the Maskless Crowd: A Flag Issue for Conservatives

On Elaine's Blog: Should Children Wear Masks All Day in School?

____________________

P.S. I knew the late Professor Ziegelmueller quite well. He was a great guy, and I assure my readers that he had no patience with sloppy arguments like the ones that DeSantis offered in his Executive Order.

Photo: Elaine Clanton Harpine

The President and the Bully Pulpit: Biden’s Latest Speech Pushed Infrastructure

While American cars fall into potholes big enough to swallow the state of Rhode Island, families from Texas to California sit huddled together waiting for electricity from dead or overstrained power grids to be restored, and safe drinking water is hauled to school children in Michigan, Congress continues to argue about whether the United States even needs an infrastructure bill.

So, President Joe Biden’s White House speech yesterday reached out to the public about the infrastructure bill. The bill is slowly advancing through Congress. Since Congress hasn’t gotten much done yet, Biden used his prestige and ability to command attention and sell his proposal to the public.

Why the public push? The United States Constitution, Article II, sharply limits the President’s power. Article I gives most government power to Congress. The President’s biggest power is that he can command public attention. Theodore Roosevelt called this the “bully pulpit.” Starting with William McKinley, presidents have spoken directly to the public, bypassing Congress, to persuade the people. Wanting to get reelected, members of Congress often respond to public opinion.


First, an excuse to give a speech

Biden boasted about a minor accomplishment, which is that the infrastructure bill would probably pass a procedural vote the next day. That gave Biden an excuse to give a speech:

“Yesterday, the United States Senate took the additional step toward passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It’s a bill that would end years of gridlock in Washington, and create millions of good-paying jobs, and put America on a new path to win the race for the economy in the 21st century.”

Packed in that simple introduction, Biden told us that the bill had some Republican support, that passing it would end gridlock and show that Washington can work. He also emphasized that it would bring economic benefits.


Second, informing the public

Biden’s next step was to list the bill’s basic provisions:

“A historic investment in roads and rail, in transit and bridges, in clean energy and clean water. It will enable us to not only build back, but build back better than before the economic crisis hit.”

That sounds simple, but it’s important. The news media have done a terrible job of telling the public what the bill contains. They have been reporting the congressional deliberations like a NASCAR race, focusing only on which side seems to be ahead at the moment. The public, however, needs information. Biden didn’t give details, but he pointed out that the bill covers transportation, energy, and water. The public usually likes things like that.


Third, reaching out to his adversaries

Biden next praised his opponents in Congress. Presumably demonstrating that gridlock was being overcome, Biden took time to “thank the bipartisan group of senators.” He praised them for their efforts. Interestingly, he also thanked them “for raising their ideas and concerns with me and Vice President Harris and members of our cabinet.” That was a tactful way to put a positive spin on the internal debates. I can only imagine how heated those “ideas and concerns” must have been. In any case, he stressed unity, not division. 


Fourth, appealing to conservatives and liberals

To overcome those “ideas and concerns,” Biden sought to appeal to a wide range of attitudes. Conservatives and liberals both need to support the bill. Accordingly, Biden looked toward the past and future alike:

“As we did with the Transcontinental Railroad and the Interstate Highway System, we’ll soon, once again, transform America and propel us into the future.”

The transcontinental railroad and the interstate highways were major infrastructure programs of the past. Anyone who remembers high school history knows how they transformed the United States.  Mentioning them reminded conservatives that the United States has a long history of infrastructure spending. Saying that the bill would “transform America and propel us into the future” would appeal to more liberal voters.

Biden then rambled off to talk about other issues, including economic growth and the coronavirus.

Reaching out to the public

The four points that Biden made about the infrastructure bill were simple and straightforward. He employed no flights of fancy language. His goal was to show that he was pushing the bill while working together with Congress.

During the coronavirus epidemic, President Biden is giving few speeches on the road. That doesn’t matter as much as one might think. The magic of broadcasting and the Internet can carry his message across the land. Many cable networks and Internet sites broadcast his speech live. It even popped up on Internet-connected televisions. In a combined effort, Biden's Secretary of Transportation also gave a major infrastructure speech the same day, although he obviously commands less attention than the President. 

Also, the news media reported Biden's speech. For example, Lisa Mascaro of the Associated Press noted yesterday that “The president’s note of encouragement offers a reset for lawmakers after frustrations mounted and tempers flared overnight as the Senate stalled out, unable to expedite the package to completion.” Similarly, reaching a more conservative audience, Fox Business reported that “President Biden touted the bipartisan infrastructure deal and job growth in a speech Friday following the release of a robust July jobs report, while also renewing the push for Americans to get vaccinated against COVID-19.” Since most people get political information secondhand – this has been true for centuries – news reports like those gave Biden a secondary audience for his speech. That’s the bully pulpit at work.

________________

Earlier: Trump's 2018 Calm, Rational Infrastructure Meeting

Earlier: George W. Bush and the American Vision

Earlier: Biden's Delta Variant Speech

________________

Conclusion

The president is not a dictator. The Constitution limits Biden's power. The Constitution does not, however, limit the people’s power. If Biden can persuade the people, members of Congress will fall into place like the sheep they are. One speech, of course, will not be enough, William McKinley gave dozens of speeches about the ratification of the 1899 Treaty of Paris. Let us keep our ears open: is Biden going to push infrastructure with the vigor it will require? So far, it looks as if he will. By reaching out to the public in speeches like this, Biden is on the right track. If he continues to push his agenda to the public, the infrastructure bill might struggle its way through Congress.

________________

P.S.: When I was a young man, infrastructure bills passed automatically. Hordes of lobbyists used to descend on Congress to hawk highway projects, public waterways, public drinking water and waste disposal, and so forth. More recently, unfortunately, hardened antigovernment attitudes have made it difficult for Congress to pass urgently-needed legislation. Thus, the need for Biden's speech. 

P.P.S. Biden wore a tan suit during his presentation. Maybe that was because of the hot Washington summer. Or was he mocking conservatives who once made fun of Barack Obama’s tan suit? Nonverbal communication, including clothing, makes a difference.

P.P.P.S. Although most media outlets have done a terrible job of reporting about the infrastructure legislation, the liberal website Vox gives a nice rundown of the bill’s major provisions.

Research note: In his book The Rhetorical Presidency Jeffrey Tulis explains how presidents back to Theodore Roosevelt bypassed Congress to speak directly to the public. Professor Melvin Laracey shows that presidents as far back as Abraham Lincoln found ways to reach out to the public about legislation.

For my own writings about President William McKinley’s innovative speaking career, click on William D. Harpine’s publications above.

Image: White House YouTube channel

Joe Biden's Delta Variant Speech: Showing Leadership on the Coronavirus Pandemic

Biden Speaks about Coronavirus Vaccinations

Politicians give people easy, superficial solutions to their problems. Leaders, however, tell people the truth. If your options change with the latest polls, you're a follower, not a leader. Joe Biden’s recent White House speech urging Americans to get vaccinated against the coronavirus showed leadership.

We’re facing a tough battle against the novel coronavirus, and, as dangerous new variants evolve, the worst may still be ahead of us. Republican politicians, following Donald Trump’s example, tell us to open up, let natural immunity protect the survivors, rip off our masks, skip the vaccine, and tell us that everything will be fine. Republicans like Arkansas’ Rick Crawford imply that the novel coronavirus is no worse than the common cold. He says that as dozens of children, ill with the coronavirus, fill his state’s intensive care wards. Many Republicans spout anti-public health attitudes. That is the opposite of leadership. Indeed, Republican-led states like Florida and Missouri are seeing record highs in infections and deaths.

President Joe Biden is not taking that easy route. Instead, he is trying to show leadership. In this speech, Biden warned us that we have a tough fight. He talked about serious measures to combat the pandemic. In a speech of leadership, it makes sense to warn us about dangers, to avoid easy solutions, and to give people a positive course of action that gives them hope. Speakers like Franklin Roosevelt and William McKinley showed leadership. That was also Biden's undertaking.

Franklin Roosevelt's War Message, December 8, 1941


Biden Gave a Warning
During his speech, Biden offered this sobering commentary:

“I know this is hard to hear. I know it’s frustrating. I know it’s exhausting to think we’re still in this fight. And I know we hoped this would be a simple, straightforward line, without problems or new challenges. But that isn’t real life. We’re coming out of the worst public health crisis in 100 years, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

That’s not the way to get quick, easy votes. People do not like to be frustrated. Voters don’t like to hear things that are, well, “hard to hear.” We’re all tired of the virus. We’re tired of lockdowns, masks, and social distancing. So, let's look at what Biden said.  

First, Biden’s warning preempted the superficial thinking of people who think that we can wish the virus away: “I know this is hard to hear. I know it’s frustrating.” That was smart. If you’re going to give people tough solutions, you can’t pretend that everything will be easy.

Second, Biden acknowledged the feelings of people who are tired of public health restrictions: “I know it’s exhausting to think we’re still in this fight.” Instead of arguing with their feelings, Biden admitted that they have real concerns.

Third, Biden warned his listeners that reality is always a challenge: “And I know we hoped this would be a simple, straightforward line, without problems or new challenges. But that isn’t real life.”

Having warned us about tough challenges, Biden next offered solutions. 

Biden Gave People Hope
If you want people to act, you can’t leave them in despair. Persuasion experts have known this for at least a century. Biden combined his message of hope with a nice dose of national pride:

“My fellow Americans, this nation has never failed when we have come together as the United States of America. So I say to all those who are unvaccinated: Please — please get vaccinated.

“And to the rest of America: This is no time to be despondent or let our guard — our guard down. We just need to finish the job with science, with facts, with the truth. And together, as Americans, we’re going to be able to beat this.”

First, Biden’s message of hope pointed that the United States could face any challenge: “this nation has never failed when we have come together.”

Second, he warned us that it was too soon to “let our guard down.” The job isn’t finished. It does seem that, every time the virus takes a brief holiday, the voting public thinks everything is over and we can go back to normal. The virus unfortunately, has voted otherwise. We still face a challenge, and a good leader has to warn us about it.

Third, Biden came down straightforwardly in favor of science, facts, and truth. In a world where the other political party talks about “alternative facts” (i.e., lies), and routinely makes fun of science every time a new research study comes out, Biden came out for truth. That was risky but wise. Truth is often unpopular. People often dislike hearing the truth. We cannot, however, solve our problems by playing make-believe.

Fourth, and finally, Biden gave people positive courses of action. Take a vaccine: “please get vaccinated.” He said to continue with public health measures. He advised us not to think that the virus is finished until it’s actually finished. But he also told us not to give up hope, to take a positive attitude: “This is no time to be despondent or let our guard down.” Again, persuasion experts know that people are only going to act if they think their acts will make a difference. Biden took time to assure his listeners that they could do things that would help.

Yes, the former president, Donald Trump, gave people easy solutions – quack medicine cures like bleach injections or hydroxychloroquine. Many of his supporters, apparently, agreed that such cheap, effortless solutions were the way to go. Real life, however, isn’t so easy, and a true leader doesn’t just respond to public opinion. 

Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

Trump, the "China Virus," And the Art of Controlling the Agenda by Misdirection

Donald Trump was not a leader – he was a follower who said whatever his supporters wanted to hear. He did not lead his people; he mimicked them. He followed the polls, listened to the cheers, and said what was popular. In contrast, a true leader guides people toward success. Biden warned people that things will be hard, but he offered hope and recommended actions to help.

Will it work? Not everyone is willing to be led. Still, Biden made a good effort in this speech, and I hope that America is listening.

P.S. Did Trump rely heavily on opinion polls? Yes, he certainly did. Joel Pollak, one of Trump’s top campaign people, explains the secrets in his book, How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution.

Research note: if you want to learn more about persuasive communication, my former professor Charles Larson wrote one of the best introductions to the subject.

Image: White House YouTube Channel