Israel’s new Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, Spoke against Polarization, but...... but.....

Israel’s new Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, recently spoke at the United Nations. His twin themes: the coronavirus, and polarization. He said:

“There are two plagues that are challenging the very fabric of society at this moment: One is the coronavirus, which has killed over 5 million people around the globe; the other has also shaken the world as we know it — it’s the disease of political polarization.

“Both coronavirus and polarization can erode public trust in our institutions, both can paralyze nations. If left unchecked, their effects on society can be devastating.”

Unfortunately, Bennett soon contributed to polarization by devoting much of his speech to a brutal attack against Iran:

“Ebrahim Raisi [Iran’s President] also oversaw the murder of Iranian children. His nickname is “the butcher of Tehran,” because that’s exactly what he did — butchered his own people.”

I’m not saying that Bennett was wrong. The fact remains that name calling (“butcher of Tehran”) just adds to the polarization. Is Bennett extending an olive branch, or the barrels of artillery?

So hard, is it not, to live up to our ideals in an imperfect world?

____________________

Further Reading: Trump's Polarizing Rally in Kentucky. Polarization Has Its Drawbacks.
____________________

P.S.: I’m pro-Israel, and I don’t like Iran’s government, but, still, rhetoric is rhetoric.

Dina Pronicheva’s Testimony at a War Crimes Trial: A Model of Effective Persuasion, a Reminder That We Must Never Forget History’s Lessons

Babi Yar Holocaust Memorial

Today, September 29, 2021, is the 80th anniversary of the Nazi massacre at Babi Yar. On September 29-30, 1941, SS troops, assisted by Wehrmacht soldiers, Ukrainian soldiers, and Ukrainian police, murdered more than 33,000 Ukrainian Jews – men, women, and even small children. Babi Yar is a ravine outside Kiev. The victims were marched to the ravine and shot. The killings went on for two terrible days.

Dina Pronicheva, a local actress, survived the massacre and testified about her experiences. She presented her statement in a calm, matter-of-fact style. Her story taught us a lesson about inhuman brutality that we must never forget.

Pronicheva narrated how she was separated from her family on September 29, never to see her mother (who died that day) again. She described the sounds of screams and gunfire. She explained how she played dead while murdered and dying victims were piled on top of her, until it got dark and she was able to sneak away. Here is a brief selection from her testimony:

“Suddenly all became quiet. It was getting dark. Germans armed with submachine-guns walked around, finishing off the wounded. I felt that somebody was standing above me, but I did not give any sign that I was alive, even though that was very difficult. Then I felt we were being covered with earth. I closed my eyes so that the soil would not get into them, and when it became dark and silent, literally the silence of death, I opened my eyes and threw the sand off me, making sure that no one was close by, no one was around, no one was watching me. I saw the pit with thousands of dead bodies. I was overcome by terror. In some places the earth was heaving - people half-alive were [still] breathing.”

Her calm recitation of facts was enough. The Nazis’ crimes were so horrible, so unthinkably brutal, that there was no need for her to supplement her description with the blood-curdling words that demagogues so love to utter. She let her horrible experience speak for itself.

What was the legal aftermath? Paul Blobel, one of the massacre’s main organizers, was arrested after the war, convicted of murder, and executed. Most of the lower-level participants, such as common soldiers, middle-ranking commanders, and police officers, never faced justice. Those who survived the war returned quietly to their peacetime lives.

____________________

Further Reading: Richard Spencer’s “End of History” Speech: Are Trump’s Supporters Fooling Themselves?
____________________

A Holocaust slogan tells us: “never forget.” My uncle, Pfc. Peter Feduska, son of immigrants, gave his life fighting Nazis in World War II. My father-in-law, Rev. Jesse Clanton, was a disabled veteran of the same fight. My father came back from World War II in North Africa and Southern France uninjured, but shaken by what he had seen. Millions of Americans can tell similar stories. Conservatives love to call the men and women of World War II “the greatest generation.” 

Yet, in the United States today, we are getting closer to Nazi Germany than we would like to think. People who wave Nazi symbols and wear T-shirts that say “6MWE6” (“6 Million Wasn’t Enough”) describe themselves as American patriots. On occasions that are rare, but even so too frequent, such people even find a home in today’s Republican Party. Indeed, although former President Donald Trump condemned neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville, Virginia, he also said that some of those who marched with them were “fine people.”  That's a pretty close distinction. Before the 2020 election, Trump told the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group, to “stand back and stand by.” 

Yes, it could happen here. It could happen here if good people fail to stop it. Adolf Hitler characterized himself as a Christian fighter, a defender of the faithful. Germany in 1941 was one the world's richest countries, the homeland of Bach, Beethoven, Schiller, and Martin Luther. If it could happen there, it could happen here. The only way to honor the greatest generation is to make sure that their sacrifices were not in vain. 

____________________

For Further Reading: Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

____________________

I bring up Dina Pronicheva’s testimony because we must, in fact, never forget. The human capacity for cruelty is boundless. Nevertheless, there is also no limit to the human capacity for doing what is right. Pronicheva’s calm, detailed recitation of the facts of her own experience remind us what can happen and what we must never allow to happen again. Pronicheva’s testimony reminds us of the horrors that people commit in the name of racism, religious bigotry, and bureaucratic inertia. Still, all the time, the people who commit monstrous deeds describe themselves as moral and noble, as good Christians, as self-sacrificing patriots, as paragons of virtue. The world must never forget Dina Pronicheva’s testimony. She laid out the facts. The world listened to her at the time. But have we moved on and forgotten? Or do we wrongly think that her dark warning has become ancient history? 

P.S. The "documentary novel" Babi Yar was one of the formative experiences of my youth. Everyone should read it. Everyone. 

Image: דוד שי, via Wikimedia Commons

President Joe Biden Told the United Nations the World Has a Choice

Biden Speaking at the UN

Yesterday, September 21, 2021, President Joe Biden gave a carefully-scripted speech to the United Nations General Assembly. He said that “our collective future will hinge on our ability to recognize our common humanity and to act together.” He did not just list policies or make promises; more than that, he urged the world to think about doing the right things. To work together, to do the right things, Biden assisted, was a choice: “this is the clear and urgent choice,” he said.

Biden reaffirmed the United States’ dedication to diplomacy, the nation’s recommitment to the Paris climate accords, and contributions to the fight against COVID-19. All of that is fine. In large part, he wanted to assure the anxious delegates that the United States was moving past the chaos of the Trump administration and rejoining the international community. I don’t know whether anyone was convinced. After all, the United States’ ongoing political turmoil is obvious to the entire world. Biden’s speech had a theme: and that theme was choice. Will we make the right choices? 

Indeed, Biden pulled his points into the theme of choice:

“I know this: As we look ahead, we will lead. We will lead on all the greatest challenges of our time — from COVID to climate, peace and security, human dignity and human rights. But we will not go it alone.

“We will lead together with our Allies and partners and in cooperation with all those who believe, as we do, that this is within our power to meet these challenges, to build a future that lifts all of our people and preserves this planet.

“But none of this is inevitable; it’s a choice. And I can tell you where America stands: We will choose to build a better future. We — you and I –- we have the will and capacity to make it better.”

Biden’s point was that – we all have a choice. “It is within our power,” he said, and “none of this is inevitable.” The news pundits and politicians all seem to be missing that theme. Biden promised that the United States would lead the world in making the right choices. 

Making positive decisions is a choice. At the same time, however, political turmoil is also a choice. We can choose to deal with climate change, or we can choose to ignore it. We can choose to deal with the coronavirus, or we, along with former President Donald Trump, can pretend that it is a hoax. We can choose to work together as an international community, or we can choose conflict and disaster. World history shows us that there is no guarantee that humanity will make the right choices. At the same time, however, history shows us that we can do the right things if we so desire. That is why he insisted "it is within our power." 

There will always be people who fear failure so deeply that they refuse to succeed. No one can stop change, but we can learn to control change instead of fearing it. We can recognize that humanity is stronger when we work together than when we degenerate into partisan conflict.

Even in the United States, however, it is not certain that Biden can fulfill his relatively modest agenda. Even as I write this, the Republican Party’s representatives in Congress are threatening to default on debt payments. Tens of millions of Americans, apparently still thinking that the coronavirus is no big deal, refuse to take vaccines or to follow even the most minimal public health precautions. Those are also choices. Inaction is a choice. Refusal to admit basic facts is a choice. It is a choice if, like former Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, we choose to believe in “alternative facts” instead of truth.

Biden’s speech was sober and thoughtful. There were no John Kennedy-like flights of eloquence. His purpose seemingly was not to inspire, but to encourage us all to think about our futures. Yes, he tactfully refuted the Trump philosophy. But to reject what is bad is not enough. We must also move forward to what is good.

So, yes, the world faces choices. United States faces choices. Will we make the right choices? Or will we succumb to bitterness and fatalism? At least President Biden made the effort. Will enough voters, factions, and nations join him? Time will tell.

_________________

Further Reading: Joe Biden's Juneteenth Speech Used Values to Support Policies

Further Reading: Joe Biden's 2020 DNC Acceptance Speech Did Not Play It Safe

_________________

Image: From White House YouTube Channel

Can Proof Ever Be Absolute? Tucker Carlson and the Conservative Fantasy of Perfect Vaccines

Coronavirus, CDC Image

What I hear almost constantly from conservatives’ anti-vaccine rhetoric is a demand for certainty. Absolutism. The coronavirus vaccines must be proven, they say absolutely for certain, to prevent all infections. The side effects must be zero. The risk must be nil. The proof must be complete. The vaccines must be flawless. They either work, or they don’t work – nothing in between, so the anti-vaxxers tell us.

And the king of the anti-vaxxers is Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

But Carlson and his ilk promote a fantasy. Perfection is a fantasy. Human beings don’t have access to perfection. No physician can offer perfect medications. No one has a perfect brain. No scientific study is perfect. We live in a world of probabilities. If we are wise, we judge our actions by what the majority of the best evidence tells us. We can expect nothing better. Yet, the conservative anti-vaccine rhetoric often insists on perfection. Their argument seems to be that the vaccines must work 100%, or 0%. It appears that nothing in-between makes sense to them. Yet we live in a world of in-betweens.

____________________

Read: Tucker Carlson Used a Textbook Fallacy to Question the Coronavirus Vaccines

____________________

 

Tucker Carlson Asks for Perfection

So, let’s look a passage from Tucker Carlson’s July 30, 2021 monologue:

“Now — surprise, surprise — they’re demanding that even after you got the shot, you wear a mask again, even when you’re outside.

“What’s going on here? Why are they doing this? There must be some reason for it. We’ve been wondering about it all week. Yesterday we asked the CDC to explain the reasoning behind it. They couldn’t tell us. Today they did. What an explanation. It turns out that the COVID vaccines – those wonder drugs that were absolutely perfect, more impressive than the moon landing, the drugs you were not allowed to question in any way – don’t actually work in the way they told us they did. The science is more complicated than we thought.”

Let’s pull out Carlson’s key phrase, which he uttered, his lips dripping with sarcasm: “those wonder drugs that were absolutely perfect.”

But No One Said Vaccines Were Perfect  

First, public health officials aren't saying that the vaccines were “absolutely perfect.” In April 2021, for example, Dr. Anthony Fauci said: “No matter what study you look at, the protection against severe disease leading to hospitalization is always well within the 90%, regardless of the study, regardless of the country.” He did not say absolutely perfect. He did not say 100% effective. He said 90%: nine times out of ten.

Further, in April 2021 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a major controlled study. The study found that the mRNA vaccines were highly effective, but not 100% effective:

“Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 13 consecutive weeks. Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (³14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (³14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.”

The researchers stated the information quite clearly. The vaccines were 90% effective against infections two weeks after the second dose. That’s remarkable, but it is not 100%. It is not perfection.

Despite the admitted lack of perfection, the study concluded:

“Authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.”

Similarly, an August 2021 research report found that the vaccines were highly but not completely effective:

“Among adults aged 65–74 years, effectiveness of full vaccination in preventing COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 94%–98%) for Pfizer-BioNTech, 96% (95% CI = 95%–98%) for Moderna, and 84% (95% CI = 64%–93%) for Janssen vaccine products.”

In other words, for older adults (like me), full vaccination prevented hospitalization with an effectiveness between 84% and 96%. That’s really good. It’s not perfect.

In September 2021 – this month – the CDC released a new study conducted among veterans hospitalized in Veterans Affairs medical centers. This is obviously a high-risk population. The results were somewhat less impressive than the April study, which was to be expected. The researchers nevertheless found that the vaccines were highly, but not perfectly, effective:

“During February 1–August 6, 2021, vaccine effectiveness among U.S. veterans hospitalized at five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers was 87%. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remain highly effective, including during periods of widespread circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-19–related hospitalization was 80% among adults aged ³65 years compared with 95% among adults aged 18–64 years.”

So, the researchers found that the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations was 80% among older adults and 95% among younger adults. That’s good, of course, but still not perfect.

But Wasn't the Smallpox Vaccine Perfect? (Uh, No, It Wasn't.)

But is Tucker Carlson moderating his views in the light of repeated scientific studies? So far, no. In his September 13, 2021 monologue, Carlson carried the demand for vaccine perfection even farther:

“Unlike say the smallpox vaccine, which prevents you from getting smallpox, the COVID vaccines do not necessarily prevent you from getting COVID. The COVID vaccine does not prevent you from spreading COVID to other people. The long-term effects of the COVID vaccines are unknown, and at this point cannot be known.”

As usual, Carlson talked about perfection: “the COVID vaccines do not necessarily prevent you from getting COVID” he said.  Yes, once again, Carlson suffered from the fantasy of perfection. Nor were smallpox vaccines 100% effective. A 2003 scientific article found that the smallpox vaccines were 90%+ effective in producing an immune response. That is not 100%. By pretending that the old vaccines were perfect, Carlson falsely implied that the new vaccines are substandard. Necessarily? No, of course not. Probably? Yes. Perfection is a fantasy.

Probability Is Our Only Real Goal

Every argumentation and debate textbook warns students not to expect perfection. In the realm of human affairs, what we work for is probability, supported by evidence. If we wait for something to be proved for certain, well, we will wait forever. In their textbook, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision-Making, Austin J. Freeley and David L. Steinberg explained that point precisely:

“Probability is associated with a high degree of likelihood (but not certainty) that a conclusion is true. As advocates we will spend much of our time trying to prove that our propositions have a high degree of probability and are more probably true than those of our opponents. For example, no method of contraception is 100 percent effective; even sterilization fails at times, and other methods range from 76 percent to 97.6 percent in their effectiveness. Thus, in choosing contraceptives, people are basing their decisions on probabilities.”

So, let us get back to Tucker Carlson’s July 30 conclusion: “The science is more complicated than we thought.” Is that not the point? Strangely enough, Carlson even admitted the problem of perfection at another point in his July 30 monologue:

“Surprised? You shouldn’t be surprised. Science is like that. It can change quickly. It is never really settled, despite what they tell you.”

Unfortunately, Carlson did not offer that cautionary comment to reassure his listeners that the bulk of scientific evidence was accurate. No, instead, he cast doubt on believing in any scientific information – since scientific information can change, should we believe it at all? “Despite what they tell you?” What a strange twist on the problem of perfection and certainty.

Conclusion: Judge by Probability and Evidence

Perhaps the anti-vaccine people insist that they will only change their minds if they hear 100% proof that they are wrong. Perhaps they think that is better to be wrong than to change. To insist on perfect proof, however, is to insist on something that can never be.

The scientific researchers and public health officials who Tucker Carlson misrepresented and ridiculed said exactly what they should have said. They said that the vaccines are effective with a stated degree of probability. Yes, it is possible to be vaccinated and still get sick. However, the evidence shows that the probability of being healthy is much greater if one is vaccinated than if one is not vaccinated. To pursue perfection is to chase a fantasy.

____________________

Read: “And This Is Their New Hoax:” Donald Trump’s Six Deadly Words Still Ravage Our Nation

____________________

P. S.: On a side note, if a person wants to be well-informed about scientific information, especially on a controversial subject, one can look directly at the scientific studies. Many of these are found on Google Scholar at scholar.google.com. On the right-hand column of a Google Scholar search, the reader can find full-text copies of some of the actual articles. Otherwise, your local library probably has access to the research databases. Librarians will be happy to help you find the information you need, and it doesn’t take much more time than browsing around on doubtful websites. If people want to do their own research, looking at Facebook posts and political blogs does not do the job. Listening to uninformed or devious political pundits is no better. The best way to avoid media misinformation is not to become cynical and turn to mindless negativism. No, bypass the media and go to the source! 

Janet Yellen Told a Story about Childcare Economics

Janet Yellen

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen spoke on September 15, 2021 about the need for the United States to strengthen its childcare system. A Department of the Treasury report had found that the United States’ childcare system is overloaded. Worse, lack of childcare has significant implications for economic growth.  Yellen told a personal story to make an abstract economic principle come to life.


Janet Yellen’s Economics Story

Good speakers tell stories. Communication researchers call this the “narrative paradigm.” Yellen began her presentation with a personal story about when she needed to pay for childcare as a young working mother in 1981. Her story did not just illustrate her point, but also helped her explain economic theory. Her story showed that working families rely on childcare, that it is important to pay childcare workers a good wage, and that the economy depends on childcare. Here is her story as she narrated it:

“We didn’t plan this, but today is a very appropriate day for me to participate in this event. Because it turns out, forty years ago on this exact morning – September 15th, 1981 – I was returning to work.

“My son Robert had been born over the summer, and by the time the school year rolled around, I was ready to resume teaching again at Berkeley. I needed a babysitter, and I started doing some research. What was the going rate for childcare in the Bay Area? I asked friends with kids and surveyed childcare providers, and when I came to an answer, I called the Classified section of The Daily Californian – people still used those back then – and purchased a ‘help wanted’ advertisement, offering ‘good pay,’ the market rate plus a few dollars more per hour. ‘Job starts on September 15,’ I added.”

Yellen’s story stressed that she and her husband were willing to pay more than the market rate to attract a babysitter. Why would anyone do that? Conservative orthodoxy says that people should be paid according to the market, as if the market has some magic moral power. As she spoke, however, Yellen pointed out that employers gain benefits when they pay more than the market rate. She made that point by continuing her story. Here is what she said next:

“Why a few dollars more? My husband George was an economist too – he still is – and at the time, we were both interested in the topic of ‘efficiency wages.’ Classical economics says that it’s not rational to pay a worker more than the market rate, but we hypothesized it could be. The job might be an important one, for example, and a higher wage could encourage someone to do better work. That’s a completely rational reason to pay someone more, especially if the job is some of the most intimate work there is, which is caring for children.

“Our hypothesis proved correct, at least in our own home. The advertisement led us to a babysitter who took wonderful care of Robert while George and I were at work.”

Yellen was rhetorically clever to slip economic theory into her narrative. She slyly acknowledged that she had violated economic orthodoxy. She continued, however, that paying more than the market rate helped to attract a good babysitter who proved to be loyal and caring.


And on to policy recommendations!

Yellen’s story helped her explain the need for better financing of childcare. “The free market works well in many different sectors,” she insisted, but childcare is not one of them.” She continued:

“It does not work for the caregivers. It does not work for the parents. It does not work for the kids. And because it does not work for them, it does not work for the country.”

(I love parallel language, by the way, which helps audiences see how different points link together: “It does not work for … It does not work for … It does not work for.”)

Yellen went on to cite economic figures about the number of workers who had to drop from the labor force or change jobs because they couldn’t get adequate childcare. That was good, but her story had already made that point – it was her story that helped the audience understand why financing childcare was important. She concluded, in fact, by referring back to her own story: “Indeed, looking back, I am not sure whether I would be here, in this job today, if I didn’t have an excellent babysitter 40 years ago.”

Read: Does a Speaker Always Need to Be Energetic?

Yellen has never been a dynamic speaker, but she has an extraordinary gift for being clear. She made her point sharply and precisely. It is unfortunate that critical events in Afghanistan and the coronavirus drowned out news reports of this important and dramatic speech.

Economic theory is always abstract and mathematical. Yellen’s personal story framed her economic recommendations to help the audience understand them in human terms. Good speakers tell stories. Advice to speakers: tell stories. And don’t just tell random stories: instead, tell stories like Yellen’s that help you make your point. Tell stories like Yellen’s that help you prove your point.

________________

Read: Janet Yellen Established Her Credibility During Her Confirmation Hearing

Read: Janet Yellen’s Speech at Jackson Hole: We Need a Stable Financial System

Read: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' First Congressional Speech Told a Story
________________


P.S. The entire Department of the Treasury report about “The Economics of Childcare Supply in the United States” is well worth reading.

Research Note: the late Professor Walter R. Fisher introduced the concept of narrative argument in a 1984 article that he published in Communication Monographs.

Image: Department of the Treasury

Benjamin Franklin’s Speech about Our Fallible Constitution

Benjamin Franklin

As the United States celebrates Constitution Day today, September 17, 2021, let us remember that Benjamin Franklin, who represented Pennsylvania at the Constitutional Convention, gave the most influential speech of his long career in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The date was September 17, 1787.  Franklin asked the delegates to be humble, to recognize their own fallibility, and to compromise for the public good. We need that lesson today. 

Noting the many controversies about the proposed Constitution, Franklin urged the Convention to adopt it and send it to the states for ratification. Franklin was too old and weak to speak in person. He instead gave the draft to his colleague James Wilson, who read it to the delegates. "I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better," he said, "and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good."

So, here’s an important contrast, and a lesson to learn: many people today think that the Founders of our Republic were demigods of unearthly wisdom. Nevertheless, in reality, the Founders themselves were divided and uncertain about what they had done. We can learn from their humility.

Today, we too often think of the Constitution as a sacred document. We think of it as an unchangeable

Independence Hall

pact of immutable wisdom. At the time, however, its adoption caused much controversy. Franklin did not begin his speech by praising the Constitution to the skies. Instead, he noted its many weaknesses and urged its critics to recognize that they might sometimes be wrong. Franklin did not think that the Constitution was divinely inspired. Instead, he advised the political leaders, gathered together to form a new government, to exercise modesty and humility.

Franklin began by acknowledging that there were parts of the Constitution that he disliked. He defended it all the same. His defense was not that everything was good, but simply that he recognized his own fallibility:

"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."

Franklin then warned the delegates not to think of the Constitution in religious terms, or to think that the delegates were infallible as churches often claim to be. He gave that argument a nice humorous twist:

"Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong."

Concluding his brief speech, Franklin did not give an impassioned plea that the proposed Constitution was perfect. He knew, and specifically acknowledged, that it was not. Instead, he urged the delegates to realize that the proposed document was the best that they were likely to produce and compromise on. Instead of telling them that the Constitution had no weaknesses, he asked them to adopt it despite its weaknesses:

"On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument."

A healthy dose of humility, is, indeed, sorely missing in today’s political discourse. People assert their political views with absolute conviction. The more absurd their views become, the more obstinate people become about them. We live in a world where people are as happy to believe in Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts” as they are in anything true. Franklin’s modesty and wisdom can teach us much.

Franklin recognized, as we all should, that anyone can be wrong. Let us, therefore, not worship Benjamin Franklin as a demigod. Let us instead recognize him as a fallible human being who did the best he felt that he could. We should think the same about the best of us in the United States today. The fact that someone lived a long time ago does not make that person perfect. Nor should we think of the United States Constitution as a religious dogma. Franklin warned us about that. The Constitution has served us for centuries; that does not mean that it is perfect. The people who wrote it did not think it was perfect. Why should we believe otherwise? So, let us learn to be humble, recognize our own fallibility, and compromise for the public good.

The Virginia Gun Rights Rally and (Sigh) a Fake Founding Fathers Quotation. Why Don't Conservatives Learn History?

Historical Note: What were the delegates' biggest concerns about the Constitution? Some of the northern delegates felt that it was unacceptable that the Constitution allowed slavery. Many of the delegates felt that the Constitution did not list and guarantee enough individual rights. That latter fault was largely rectified by the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which were the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. There were many other disagreements, as well.

Image of Benjamin Franklin:  Joseph Duplessis - metmuseum.org, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12154958

Image of Independence Hall: copyright William Harpine

George W. Bush Used His Prestige to Call Out the January 6 Terrorists

Flight 93 National Memorial, James Steakley

Can we compare the 9/11 terrorists to the rioters of January 6, 2021? That is what former President George W. Bush did in his speech yesterday, September 11, 2021, at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the site where Flight 93 crashed.

As a former Republican president, his chastisement of the January 6 rioters carries more weight than anything that President Joe Biden, a Democrat, could possibly say. It’s not just because of what he said, but the fact that it was he, not someone else, who said it. It was neither his proof or reasoning; no, it was his personal ethos that carried his point. 

Of all the many 9/11 tributes yesterday, Bush’s brief speech attracted the most attention. Bush honored the passengers of Flight 93, praised the durable American spirit, and contrasted the wickedness of the 9/11 terrorists against what he described as the basic goodness of Americans. He also criticized the mob that attacked the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021: he asserted that “the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within.

Millennia ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle said that the purpose of a ceremonial speech is honor. Indeed, Bush honored the heroes of 9/11 and praised the United States’ unity and resilience. So, he didn’t just praise the passengers on Flight 93. He also praised the United States’ people: 

“In those fateful hours, we learned other lessons as well. We saw that Americans were vulnerable, but not fragile - that they possess a core of strength that survives the worst that life can bring. We learned that bravery is more common than we imagined, emerging with sudden splendor in the face of death. We vividly felt how every hour with our loved ones was a temporary and holy gift. And we found that even the longest days end.”

Bush then gave a lesson. Ceremonial speakers throughout history have reached beyond the day’s immediate topic to draw a larger lesson. They can pass on the life lessons that the honored people can teach. Ceremonial speakers might suggest that we, today, should pursue the same goals as the persons being honored. Modern-day ceremonial speakers from Hillary Clinton to John McCain have done exactly that.

Read: John McCain's Speech about "Spurious Nationalism"

Read: Pink and the Power of Pearls at the VMA Awards: Epideictic Excellence

Read: Hillary Clinton's New York Speech about Women and Girls

In this case, Bush compared the horrors of 9/11 against the misdeeds of the United States’ own domestic terrorists of today:

“And we have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within. There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit. And it is our continuing duty to confront them.”

Let us unpack the similarities. The Muslim terrorists of 9/11 showed “disdain for pluralism,” defying their own religion’s beliefs in the process. Likewise, America’s right wing today, with its narrow view of Christianity, disdain for minorities and immigrants, and resistance to cultural change, also shows “disdain for pluralism.” By that, Bush meant that terrorists respect no one’s ideas except their own. The “disregard for human life” and “determination to defile national symbols” are also unmistakable. The 9/11 terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, two symbols of American greatness. The January 6 terrorists ransacked the United States Capitol and threatened to murder government officials. Bush’s choice of words strikes one’s attention: the two groups of terrorists “defiled” American symbols.

Bush nevertheless acknowledged that our domestic terrorists and the 9/11 terrorists placed themselves at opposite ideological poles: “little cultural overlap,” Bush said. American conservatives despise Muslim radicals with a passion. That does not negate the many features that they share. Using parallel language to drive the point home, Bush compared “violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home.” He described both groups as “children of the same foul spirit.”

Critically, Bush insisted that “it is our duty to confront them.”

We all immediately knew that the unnamed domestic terrorists to which Bush alluded were, in fact, the right-wing rioters who attacked the United States Capitol building on January 6, 2021. Despite all the previous hype, no one thought he was talking about the Portland, Oregon riots or the George Floyd protests. No one thought that he was talking about anti-fascist demonstrators. Media as distinct as the right-wing Breitbart.com, the mainstream USA Today, and the liberal website Axios all acknowledged that Bush was criticizing the January 6 Capitol rioters. For example, Breitbart’s Charlie Spiering wrote, “The former president did not specifically name the January 6th protests but alluded to the American citizens who stormed Capitol Hill to protest the 2020 election.” Yet, Bush never mentioned January 6. He never mentioned the Capitol riots. His vague comments about a “foul spirit” and defilement of “national symbols” were enough for all of us, conservative and liberal alike, to know, almost instinctively, what he meant. Maybe Bush’s simple phrases awakened people’s sleeping consciences. Maybe the guilt and worry about January 6 only needed the simplest wake-up call.

And, yes, Bush said that called on Americans to confront terrorists of both ilks. Unlike policy speakers, ceremonial speakers rarely explain what they think should be done. All that Bush said about policy was, “And it is our continuing duty to confront them.” One vague sentence. How should we confront them? He didn’t say. He didn’t need to say. The details can come later. The important thing is that we need to recognize that the January 6 rioters, the people who encouraged them, and the people who make excuses for them, are the United States of America’s enemies. The policy specifics don’t matter – yet. What matters is to acknowledge the threat. We cannot solve a problem until we acknowledge the need to challenge it. Bush himself was the president who led the United States through the horrors of 9/11. Interestingly, although he himself is a conservative Republican, Bush did not call on the insurrectionists to repent and reform. He did not ask them to rejoin traditional conservativism. His simple statement implied, among other things, that good people need to face evil down.

Bush expressed so much meaning in a few simple sentences. I never thought much of Bush’s work as president. He left the United States’ economy and foreign policy in shambles. At the same time, however, with his political ambitions already fulfilled, he now seems to feel free to express his conscience and to say positive things.

Like many ceremonial speakers, Bush drew a lesson for the present day. That lesson was harsher than what one might have expected. Perhaps members of America’s right wing took offense. The fact that a conservative Republican, not some left-wing liberal, criticized them carried a special sting. Bush’s words carries more weight precisely because of who he is.

Earlier Post: George W. Bush's 9/11 Oval Office Speech: Values versus Reality? 
_________________

Research Note: The ancient term for a ceremonial speech is “epideictic.” An epideictic speech, literally, is a speech that “shows forth.” It shows the speaker’s eloquence while praising honorable deeds. Although researchers usually think of epideictic speech as a conservative genre, liberals also give epideictic speeches. I’ve written a number of academic papers about epideictic speech; click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above to see some of them.

Image: James Steakley, via Wikimedia

George W. Bush's 9/11 Oval Office Speech: Values versus Reality?

George W. Bush, Dept. of Defense Photo

On the evening of September 11, 2001, the day on which terrorists hijacked four airplanes to crash into American targets, United States President George W. Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office. This was one of three brief speeches that he gave that day. Bush did not lay out a specific anti-terror policy. That would come later. What he did was to lay out basic values of justice and peace, which, in turn, gave his yet-unnamed policies a moral justification. With the advantage of 20 years of hindsight, some people might think that Bush’s moral justification has become shaky. Still, he placed values at the center of his policies: 

“This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.”

Let’s unpack that critical passage from Bush’s speech:

First, Bush assumed that the nation would unite. He did not say, “let us put aside partisanship and unite.” No, instead, he took it for granted that Americans would all stand together: “This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite.” In the face of a terrorist attack, Bush assumed, that the United States would be resolved to mourn the victims, praise the rescue workers, and deal with the threat. For the most part, that assumption was correct.

Second, Bush aimed at positive values. He did not say that we would unite out of fear. Instead, he said that we would “unite in our resolve for justice and peace.” That short phrase gave his audience much to think about. Bush, like most of us, took it for granted that America was the land of justice and peace. Indeed, citing “justice and peace,” Bush undertook to give subsequent American policies a moral foundation. Subsequent struggles would represent, so he implied something greater, more noble than a mere response to fear. Instead, the United States would be responding to a moral cause. Yes, earlier in the speech, Bush had said that, “Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.” So, he had already set up the contrast between the terrorists’ evil and America’s goodness.

Whether subsequent American policy was or was not moral is something that historians will debate for centuries. I have my doubts. Bush recognized, however, that the quasi-religious doctrine of American exceptionalism would give any subsequent conflict a positive moral foundation. Bush’s persuasive goal was to go beyond immediate questions of attack and defense. From the outset, the war on terror would be, in Bush’s rhetoric, a struggle for what was right and good.

Of course, “justice and peace” can be subjective. After all, the Roman historian Tacitus commented that, “where they make a desert, they call it peace.” In a brief, largely ceremonial speech like Bush’s, however, the speaker could go easy on the details. Who gets to define justice? Who gets to define peace? Those devilishly hard questions would only haunt him later.

Third, Bush promised to oppose the United States’ enemies: “America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.” There is, as we all know, a long tradition that the best way to achieve peace is by war. That explains the Peacemaker bomber and the Peacemaker missile. Still, the nation, shocked by the terrorist attacks, mostly expected the President to display strength and resolve. Logic tells us that war and peace are opposites, but they came together in Bush’s speech.

Fourth, Bush predicted that, “None of us will ever forget this day.” Indeed, today, the 20th anniversary of the attacks, the United States plans a series of commemorative events. But what do Americans remember? That we were attacked? That we were caught by surprise? That we had enemies that the public barely knew about? Today, however, on the 20th anniversary of the attacks, it is proper and fitting for us to remember the thousands of innocent people who lost their lives, the heroes of Flight 93, and the rescue workers who underwent great hardships to help the victims.

Fifth, Bush returned to his speech’s moral center: “we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.” American exceptionalism, again, was Bush’s implied value.

Bush’s speech was remarkably vague. What things were just, and which things were good? Exactly how would the United States “stand down” its enemies? Would the nation go to war? If so, where? For how long? And with what goals? Those questions have hovered around the center of America’s foreign policy ever since.

For the things that Bush said in this speech were essentially unimpeachable. Of course the United States should not stand still while terrorists attack civilian targets. Of course justice and peace are good. Does that mean that Bush’s impending war in Iraq, a nation that presumably had little to do with the 9/11 attacks, was a war of justice and peace? Furthermore, we have seen in the past few weeks that the war in Afghanistan, a nation that indeed harbored the 9/11 terrorists, dragged on for 20, largely tragic, and possibly futile years. It might be said that Bush expressed wise values, but that his subsequent violent policies were a mixed bag at best.

And, yes, Bush’s message of joint resolve seems almost naïve in hindsight. Indeed, a few days after 9/11, Bush gave a speech of solidarity at the Islamic Center in Washington DC. Would it not seem unthinkable for a Republican politician to give such a speech today?

Commemorative speeches like this one often imply policies. There’s nothing new about that. It is, however, a long stretch from expressing values, on the one hand, to coming up with wise policies to deal with complex threats. At the time, Bush said what needed to be said. He said it well. Let us not forget, however, that justice and peace are not just assumptions, but also obligations to do what is right. In hindsight, the war on terror has been complex. The struggle against international terrorism has certainly had its ups and downs. Far more people died in the war on terror then on 9/11. The idealism that Bush expressed 20 years ago smashed into the hard realities that followed. War does not always make peace, does it? All the same, Bush’s call for national unity stands as this speech’s lingering message – a message that now sounds more like a desperate plea.
_____________

Earlier Post About This Speech: Bush Appeals for National Unity

Earlier Post: Franklin Roosevelt's Epideictic-Policy War Message

Earlier Post: Donald Trump and American Exceptionalism

_____________

President Joe Biden Offers the United States a Tough Coronavirus Path

President Joe Biden’s  latest White House speech offered the United States a tough coronavirus path. Is that politically unwise? Or is it good leadership? 

Politicians love to offer easy solutions to tough problems. “A chicken for every pot,” promised President Herbert Hoover. Hoover’s foolish policies soon led the United States into the calamity of the Great Depression. President Donald Trump offered disinfectant injections and hydroxychloroquine as cheap, easy solutions to the coronavirus pandemic. Trump also said that we had only 15 cases. He even implied that the virus is a hoax and nothing to worry about. Of course, people are always eager to pretend that their problems aren’t real. People are always grateful for easy solutions. Real problems, however, rarely have easy solutions.

___________________

Read: Trump Used Medical Quackery to Divert Attention from Real Issues

Read: Trump Proposed Disinfectant Injections

__________________

Sometimes, real leadership means asking people to make tough choices. It means facing challenges and rising to meet them. 

In his September 10, 2021 speech about the coronavirus, President Joe Biden offered the United States a tough, challenging path to follow. He said that the nation faced major challenges. He warned his listeners that the solution would not be easy. That’s not the route to short-term popularity. It might, however, be the path of wise leadership. 

After listing the public health progress made so far, Biden challenged the American public to handle the coronavirus pandemic. The solutions, of course, were the time-tested methods of wearing a mask, getting vaccinated, and testing people who might be infected: 

“If we raise our vaccination rate, protect ourselves and others with masking and expanded testing, and identify people who are infected, we can and we will turn the tide on COVID-19.

“It will take a lot of hard work, and it’s going to take some time.  Many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinated, even though the vaccine is safe, effective, and free.”

“Hard work,” Biden said, and “time:” two things that voters don’t like to hear. Biden then offered a series of public-health measures, including mandatory vaccinations or frequent testing for healthcare employees and federal workers.

Furthermore, Biden called out the obstacle that prevents the United States from overcoming the pandemic. That obstacle is not a failure of public-health specialists, but the stubborn refusal, he said, of those who declined to get vaccinated. Biden especially blamed elected officials who exploit people’s fears and ignorance for political purposes:

“We have the tools to combat COVID-19, and a distinct minority of Americans – supported by a distinct minority of elected officials – are keeping us from turning the corner.  These pandemic politics, as I refer to, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.” 

In a nation overrun by increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories, Biden focused blame on people who spread ridiculous misinformation.

In addition, however, to warning people that solutions would not be instant, that the nation can make real progress in overcoming the disease, keeping schools open, and ensuring business prosperity:

 “The measures — these are going to take time to have full impact.  But if we implement them, I believe and the scientists indicate, that in the months ahead we can reduce the number of unvaccinated Americans, decrease hospitalizations and deaths, and allow our children to go to school safely and keep our economy strong by keeping businesses open.”

This is leadership. I suspect that Biden will turn out to be right. Even if his proposals fall short, however, he is making a serious effort to lead the nation.  He proposes a course of action that might lead the United States out of this public-health disaster. States like Florida and Texas have tried easy solutions, with massive death rates the predictable result. Statistics clearly show that states which have conservative leaders are faring poorly during the pandemic. That cannot be a coincidence. States with mask and high vaccination rates are faring far better. Not only are fewer people sick in those regions, but their economies are doing better as well.

The right thing – the hard course of action – is not always popular. In the long run, however, it is not a President’s job to win elections. It is the President’s job to offer leadership. It is the President’s job to help the nation thrive and to fulfill its potential.

It is not just that President Biden gave the nation tough solutions. He also told his audience that the solutions would be difficult. In an era where few politicians are willing to make tough choices, or even buck the latest two-week opinion polls, Biden in this speech tried to move the nation forward. He proposed a challenge. He told us that it wouldn’t be easy. He told us that it would take time. Those are not pleasant things to hear – but they are probably true.

 ______________

Elaine's Post: Masks Do Not Cause Medical or Psychological Harm to Children

Read: How to Tell if a Conspiracy Theory Is Real

Read: Biden’s Delta Variant Speech Showed Leadership

Image: White House Photo

“And This Is Their New Hoax:” Donald Trump’s Six Deadly Words Still Ravage Our Nation

It’s no accident that the coronavirus pandemic has ravaged the United States worse than any other nation on earth. Even today, tens of millions of Americans refuse to get vaccinated or take minimal public health precautions. Republican leaders continue to ridicule the virus and make fun of health officials. Nurses and physicians sometimes receive death threats from their own coronavirus patients.

What is our problem? It all goes back to Donald Trump’s most influential speech, which he gave at a February 28, 2020 campaign rally in Charleston, South Carolina. When I say “influential,” I don’t mean that Trump gave a good speech. I don’t mean the public speaking textbooks will talk about this speech. I mean that this awful speech had massive public impact. This speech’s six deadly words have spread through the conservative movement’s collective soul.

The virus is a contagion of microbes. The idea that the virus is a hoax has spread like a contagion through right-wing media and social groups.


Trump’s Six Deadly Words

Trump’s Charleston speech rambled incoherently for almost an hour and 20 minutes. It was, however, just one six-word sentence that ignited the deadly fires of coronavirus ignorance. Just six words launched the conspiracy theories and rampant stupidity that prevents the United States from controlling the coronavirus 18 months later. For, Trump said:

“And this is their new hoax.”

Cable news talk show hosts, right-wing radio pundits, and Russian trolls have spread and amplified Trump’s simple message that the coronavirus is a hoax ever since. Although Trump’s speech is long forgotten, his message resonates through America’s public health life.

With those six words, Trump convinced his millions of followers not to worry about the coronavirus. On the contrary: Trump convinced them to reject any thought that the coronavirus endangers them. And, my goodness, was Trump clever when he talked about the “hoax.” In context, he didn’t literally say that the virus wasn’t real; he accused his opponents of manipulating and exaggerating information about the virus. He meant that all the talk about the coronavirus was political and malicious. This was, as we will see, a dog whistle that his supporters could understand perfectly well. To his supporters, the important point was not whether the virus was literally real. Instead, the point was whether they could trust anyone who talked about it. That’s a lot of complexity from one 6-word sentence, isn’t it?

A String of Hoaxes?

How did a mere six words from Trump, the master salesperson, cause so much damage? Well, one thing that Trump excels at is twisting words. Let’s back up a bit and look earlier in the speech, when he complained about the “impeachment hoax:”

“They tried the impeachment hoax.… They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax.”

So, Trump complained about impeachment, which he called a hoax. He then grumbled about other unnamed hoaxes: “It’s all turning.” I don’t know what Trump meant, exactly, but it sounds as if hoaxes are turning around everywhere. Within that context, Trump could imply that the coronavirus was just one more hoax from a long list. These supposed hoaxes, starting with the “impeachment hoax,” had one goal: to remove Trump from office.

Let us not overlook Trump’s next point, when he said that the coronavirus was not affecting the United States. He claimed that there were only 15 cases at the time and boasted of “early” steps to control the disease:

“We have 15 people in this massive country and because of the fact that we went early. We went early, we could have had a lot more than that. We’re doing great.”

What did Trump do that was early? He didn’t say. He was long past talking about facts. The only thing that mattered was that he had said: “And this is their new hoax.”


Conspiracies Rule the Earth?

A hoax, new or old, would be spread by conspiracies. Trump’s tactic worked because his audience was already adapted to – and ready to receive – bizarre conspiracy theories. People who thought that Obama forged his birth certificate and instituted death panels were ready to believe that the coronavirus was just one more hoax. Once the audience believed – as his rally crowd obviously did – that the Democrats were using endless dirty tricks to remove Trump from office, it was a simple step to think that the coronavirus was merely one more tiresome hoax.

Reality soon attacked the hoax hypothesis, didn’t it? The 15 coronavirus cases that Trump cited in February 2020 have, by late summer 2021, multiplied into tens of millions of cases and more than 600,000 documented pandemic deaths.

Given that massive spread, can people still believe that the coronavirus is a hoax? Probably not. But people can still believe in a toned-down hoax hypothesis – maybe the coronavirus is just the flu, or the coronavirus only kills old people, or the coronavirus only affects cities, or it’s all coming from immigrants. Whatever. Once people decide that a hoax is involved, they no longer care about the details. And, of course, no conspiracy theorist needs to believe consistent things. Conspiracy theorists are eager to flip and flop their opinions from one ridiculous claim to another. The only thing they need to feel consistent about is that mysterious, powerful, wicked forces are out to get them.


Tricky Wording, Tricky Hoax?

Also note how cleverly Trump phrased his point to evade fact-checkers. His statement implied that the coronavirus itself was a hoax. But what he actually said – read literally and in context – was that his political opponents were drumming the coronavirus out of proportion. The only reason for his opponents to talk about “their new hoax,” Trump implied, was to make him look bad.

So, now, more than a year later, millions of Americans still think that the coronavirus is just the flu, or that the public or authorities want them to wear masks and take vaccines for the purpose of controlling them, or that the only reason to engage in social distancing or business restrictions is to harm Trump’s supporters.

One of the most remarkable features of Trump’s “And this is our new hoax” is that it passed fact checkers! Some Democrats accused Trump of calling the virus a hoax. The Democrats, not Trump, failed with the fact checkers! But Trump was actually saying that reporting about the coronavirus was a hoax. I’m not sure that matters in real life – if it is a hoax for reporters to say that the coronavirus is bad, I don’t see a practical difference. All the same, Democratic leaders plopped right into Trump’s trap. For example, when Kamala Harris accused Trump of calling the virus a hoax, PolitiFact.com rated her statement False. And, yes, you guessed it, PolitiFact concluded that Trump was only calling the publicity about the coronavirus a hoax, not the virus itself. The oldest fact-checking website, FactCheck.org, waffled a little bit, concluding “But that’s not what Trump said he meant.” Hmm.


Dog-Whistle Rhetoric

However, despite all the waffling, Trump’s supporters knew perfectly well what he meant. Conservatives have long used dog-whistle communication. That is, they say things that literally mean one thing, but they know the hidden meaning. For example, when right-wing demonstrators refuse to say “Black lives matter,” insisting instead that “All lives matter,” we know perfectly well that they are fudging over whether Black lives matter at all. At the same time, because of how “All lives matter” is phrased, they can absolutely deny any such evil motive. In the 1960s, the John Birch Society said to “Support Your Local Police,” when what they meant was “Oppose civil rights.” The idea of dog-whistle communication is to say things that your listeners will understand, but whose hidden meaning you can deny with your last breath.

So, when Trump said, “And this is our new hoax,” he could squirm around to say that he wasn’t really calling the virus a hoax. Conservative audiences understood perfectly well, however, what he wanted them to think. To this day, Trump’s supporters still underestimate the coronavirus and refuse to take the most basic public health precautions. For example, a Nevada woman who lost her husband to the disease said that she had believed that the virus was a “political game.” In Trump-supporting Clarion County, Pennsylvania, people this week are saying things like: “I don’t think COVID’s that serious, anyways. I don’t see it as anything more than a cold.” As if the coronavirus is a semi-hoax. Fred Lowry, a local Florida Republican politician, said on May 30, 2021 that “We did not have a pandemic, folks. We were lied to.” At this writing, three months later, he lies in a hospital bed, desperately ill with a coronavirus infection.

Yet, Trump’s “And this is our new hoax” eventually caught Trump himself. A few weeks ago, Trump told rally attendees that he had been vaccinated against coronavirus. He told them that the vaccine was good. He said that they should take it themselves. The result? The crowd booed!

After all, why should you get vaccinated against a hoax?


Conclusion

Trump sneaked six simple words into an otherwise unremarkable speech: “And this is their new hoax.” Once that idea became implanted in conservative ideology, it spread and morphed into a complex web of coronavirus denial.

Just think, if Trump had simply said, “The virus is bad, and let’s beat it,” how much better off we would all be today—Trump, himself, included.

_________________    

Read: Trump Said to Take a Vaccine, and the Crowd Booed! 

Read: Trump's Tweets Were (Sort of) Deniable Dog Whistles

Elaine's Post: We Need Mask Mandates in Schools
_________________ 

Research note: Communication scholars use the term “multivocal communication” when they talk about dog-whistle politics. What that means is that certain statements carry more than one meaning. In addition to a literal meaning, multivocal statements carry a hidden meaning that true believers understand perfectly well. Interested readers might look at an article by Bethany Albertson. She explains that: “Multivocal communication occurs when the same words have distinct meanings to different audiences.” You can read her paper, published in the academic journal Political Behavior.

The idea that information about risks can spread through formal and informal social networks is called Contagion Theory. In this case, it’s not just that American conservatives rely on partisan news sources. Also, people tend to share their ideas about risks through their social networks. Social groups, both in-person (like families) and on-line networks develop to exchange information about what people perceive to be the risks of the coronavirus. In this case, Trump started the contagion, but his idea has spread throughout a massive social ecosystem. Clifford W. Scherer and Hichang Cho explain the basics of Contagion Theory in this excellent peer-reviewed article.
_________________ 

Here is the entire “new hoax” passage from Trump’s speech:

“One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We have 15 people in this massive country and because of the fact that we went early. We went early, we could have had a lot more than that. We’re doing great. Our country is doing so great. We are so unified. We are so unified.”
_________________ 

Once again, I am grateful for the good people at Rev.com, who published a verbatim transcript of Trump’s speech. They operate a transcription service, but they also publish important speeches as a public benefit.

Image credits: CDC image; Trump’s official White House photo 

Biden's August 31, 2021 Speech about Afghanistan: Did He Reset the Agenda? Maybe Not

Joe Biden, White House Photo

President Joe Biden’s August 31, 2021 speech defending the withdrawal of United States military forces from Afghanistan hit the right points as he tried to reset the public agenda. Although Biden gave a good speech, the press continues to flail at him and his public support seems to have dropped. What did he do right in this speech? What did he do wrong? What are his long-term rhetorical prospects? How can he reset the agenda? 

My response: Biden said the right things, but a bit too late, a bit too defensively, and, well, just not enough. That is, he is not controlling the public agenda.

When they wrote about public speaking, the ancient Greek writers talked about timeliness. A speaker must speak at the right time. The right time for Biden’s speech, unfortunately, was a couple weeks earlier. August 31 was the right time for his sixth or seventh speech about the withdrawal.


What Did Biden’s Speech Do Right?

To start, let’s look at the President’s masterful introduction:

“Last night in Kabul, the United States ended 20 years of war in Afghanistan — the longest war in American history.

“We completed one of the biggest airlifts in history, with more than 120,000 people evacuated to safety. That number is more than double what most experts thought were possible. No nation — no nation has ever done anything like it in all of history. Only the United States had the capacity and the will and the ability to do it, and we did it today.

“The extraordinary success of this mission was due to the incredible skill, bravery, and selfless courage of the United States military and our diplomats and intelligence professionals.”

Let us think about what Biden (and his speechwriting team) did right in that introduction. First, he talked about the end of the war, noting how long it was. He phrased that as an accomplishment, not a defeat. Second, in the face of relentless criticism of the supposedly chaotic airlift, he noted that 120,000 people were evacuated, and that the number was more than twice what anyone had predicted or promised. That’s a success, and he mentioned right away. Third, he shared the credit, thanking the military, intelligence, and diplomatic people who made the evacuation possible. What Biden did right: he hit his main point sharply and clearly, right away.

Continuing the speech, Biden defended the American response, insisting that the United States was prepared for the collapse of the Afghan government:

“But I still instructed our national security team to prepare for every eventuality — even that one. And that’s what we did.

“So, we were ready when the Afghan Security Forces — after two decades of fighting for their country and losing thousands of their own — did not hold on as long as anyone expected.”

Next, refuting another criticism made against his policies, Biden discussed the small number of Americans who had not yet been evacuated. He pointed out that most of them had dual citizenship in Afghanistan and the United States, and that they had been reluctant to evacuate earlier. This deflected blame from people who attacked him for not getting those people out of the country.

“Now we believe that about 100 to 200 Americans remain in Afghanistan with some intention to leave. Most of those who remain are dual citizens, long-time residents who had earlier decided to stay because of their family roots in Afghanistan.”

Continuing, Biden proceeded to give his listeners an excellent soundbite. News reporters tend to focus on what seems newsworthy, rather than what is important. Short, pithy phrases get quoted:

“I was not going to extend this forever war, and I was not extending a forever exit.”

That was a short pithy, quotable sentence. Good for Biden.


Did the Speech Make Any Rhetorical Mistakes? Oh, Yes

At the end, however, Biden did get a little bit too defensive. To defend his policies, Biden had two reasonable choices. He could have told people that he was making the right decision. Or he could have said that it was the wrong decision, but it was Trump’s fault. It doesn’t make much sense to argue both. Yet, that is what he did:

“The fact is: Everything had changed. My predecessor had made a deal with the Taliban. When I came into office, we faced a deadline — May 1. The Taliban onslaught was coming.”

That was probably true, but Biden failed to demonstrate strength. If the withdrawal is right, Biden should say so. If it is wrong, but Trump’s fault, the public may wonder why Biden didn’t fix the problem. After all, we think that presidents have limitless power, do we not? And the withdrawal can't be both right and wrong. 

 
Was the Speech Timely?

Timing is everything in rhetoric. The public has been inundated with images of smoke and explosions, screaming people, and robed, bearded warriors swarming around Kabul. The President’s critics had, for days, attacked his every real and perceived mistake, whether large or small.

On the one hand, yes, the president’s #1 job is to manage things, not to justify them. I am sure that Biden has been working overtime to oversee the military, intelligence, and diplomatic agencies. That’s important. On the other hand, part of the President’s job in a constitutional republic is to communicate with the public. People need to know what’s going on. Even if the public does not understand the situation, they want to feel confident that somebody is at the helm. This speech, given a week earlier, could have accomplished that. But it was too late. With images of catastrophe flooding the television, the speech was no longer enough to restore public confidence.

In other words, if Biden had given this speech a week or so earlier, the message could have been: “Here is what we plan to do and why it is right.”

However, with this speech given near the evacuation’s end, the message was more like: “I know it looks like I messed up, but I really didn’t.”

That is, the words would have been much the same a week or two ago, but the public would have received a different message. And, indeed, the press did call Biden’s speech defensive. (Strangely enough, Tucker Carlson, who is usually one of Biden’s harshest critics, praised Biden for withdrawing from Afghanistan.)


Is It Too Late? Can President Biden Recover?

Let us leave it to the historians to judge whether Biden made right or wrong decisions about Afghanistan. I suspect they will be far more charitable than today’s news reporters, but time will tell. So far, the press seems more interested in what the Afghanistan withdrawal means for upcoming elections than they do about the withdrawal itself. News reporters today say little about substance. The President – any president – needs to refocus their attention.

The history of presidential rhetoric suggests two courses that Biden could take to recover in the public’s perceptions. First, he could give many more speeches on the same theme. That would keep his agenda on the public’s mind. When President William McKinley wanted to sell the unpopular peace treaty that followed the Spanish-American war, he took an extensive railroad speaking tour across the South – the region where he faced the greatest opposition. He traveled with a collection of Confederate war heroes, and took time to honor the Confederate war dead. McKinley’s speaking tour did much to defuse the South’s hatred of him and somewhat moderated their opposition to the treaty. Now, the pandemic makes a railroad (or airplane) tour impractical today, but Biden could surely reach out more to the public – and reach out more to his political opponents – to sell his argument, over and over. Public support does not come automatically. Presidents need to work for it. Sadly, having good policies is not enough. The President needs to set the public agenda. The President surely cannot stay quiet for days on end while the press sets the agenda.

Second, Biden could give many speeches about his administration’s other accomplishments. That would place his presidency in context. Yes, Biden does speak about his successes. However, he is not pounding away about them. A president is not just an administrator. The president commands the bully pulpit. The president needs to use the bully pulpit – over, over, and over. As a best-selling novelist said, once is never enough.

When a president excels at policymaking – like Biden, like Obama, like Reagan, like Clinton, like Franklin Roosevelt – the president must sell the policies. Roosevelt, Reagan, and Clinton understood that. FDR never let the press control the agenda about Pearl Harbor. Biden seems to be getting the idea slowly.

Biden’s speech was a good start. It was wise that he gave it. He needs to give many more speeches like this. If you are as good a speaker as Abraham Lincoln, you can give a handful of speeches and succeed. If you’re a mere mortal, like all other presidents, you need quantity as well as quality. So, Biden needed to give this speech at least a week earlier – to show that he was on top of things. He needs to give many more speeches like this one. And he can’t be so defensive – if the buck stops in the Oval Office, well, that’s where the buck needs to stop.

__________________________________________________

More: Biden's Speech About the Kabul Bombing

More: Biden Uses the Bully Pulpit

More: Franklin Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor Speech

__________________________________________________

Research Note: Chapter 9 of my book about the 1896 presidential campaign talks about timeliness in public speaking. The ancient Greek writers called this "kairos." Now available in paperback, this book can also be found in most university libraries. I talked about McKinley’s speaking tours in "William McKinley and the Emergence of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency." I also discussed McKinley’s railroad tour speeches in an unpublished convention paper; you can read it here. Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above to see more links.

P.S. About the Pearl Harbor meme: yes, I know that Pearl Harbor and Washington are not in the same time zone. Call it artistic license.