Is The Coronavirus an Invisible Enemy? Donald Trump’s Second-Most Influential Speech

Coronavirus, CDC image

Former president Donald Trump delivered his second-most influential speech during a Coronavirus Task Force Update on March 16, 2020. The coronavirus pandemic was the gravest crisis that Donald Trump faced (or failed to face) during his presidency. It inevitably gave rise to his two most influential speeches. I wrote about his “their new hoax” speech a couple of months ago. Now, let us look at the second one, where he called the virus “an invisible enemy.” He helped people pretend that they could ignore the virus. People do not avoid public health measures because they value freedom more than life. No, they ignore the coronavirus because Trump helped them pretend it wasn’t a big deal. No, the virus was invisible, just as unsafe water and gamma radiation are invisible. Out of sight, out of mind. 

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

Trump’s most important speeches helped his supporters escape from reality. Trump helped people think that he did a great job with the pandemic - by downplaying it. Let us recall that many presidents have given influential speeches about momentous national and international issues. Trump himself gave such speeches. In contrast, however, Trump’s rhetorical response to the virus boiled down to two influential phrases: “This is their new hoax,” in February 2020, and “An invisible enemy,” in March 2020. Why should we wear an itchy mask or take a vaccine to protect ourselves from “their new hoax?” Why should we pay attention to an “invisible enemy” that we cannot even see? Nothing that Trump said in any speech mattered more than the clever way he underplayed the pandemic. 

Just as in February 2020, Trump’s March comments laid the groundwork for endless conspiracy theories. In February 2020, Trump had called the virus a hoax. By March, however, enough people were dying that it was no longer satisfying to call the virus a hoax. But what if the whole thing was not really a hoax, but merely invisible? And therefore easy to ignore? And, so, Trump continued to leapfrog across reality.

Just as with his “their new hoax” speech, it was one brilliantly-worded phrase that helped Trump lead his supporters away from reality. Everything else Trump said could be normal – except for the single crucial phrase. Trump’s idea – the invisible virus – the invisible enemy – still reverberates across our nation. A September 2021 Gallup poll concluded that: “Republicans retain the lowest vaccination rate of any major subgroup of Americans.” There are many reasons for this. Crucial, however, is that Trump reinforced the view that the virus didn’t matter much. 

So, by using his March 16, 2020 Coronavirus Task Force Update to remind people that the virus was invisible, Trump led his listeners away from the pandemic’s deadly reality. He cleverly did so while simultaneously noting that the pandemic was horrible:

“I just say this. We have an invisible enemy. We have a problem that a month ago nobody ever thought about. I’ve read about it. I read about many years ago, 1917, 1918. I’ve seen all of the different problems similar to this that we’ve had. This is a bad one. This is a very bad one. This is bad in the sense that it’s so contagious. It’s just so contagious, sort of a record setting-type contagion. The good part is the young people they do very well and healthy people do very well. Very, very bad for older people, especially older people with problems. My focus is really on getting rid of this problem, this virus problem. Once we do that, everything else is going to fall into place.” [Italics added]

That passage, was as a whole, pretty reasonable. Trump said that the pandemic was “very bad.” He said that it was “a record-setting-type contagion.” He emphasized that it was “very, very bad for older people.” How sensible! But the virus was also “invisible.” And we all know that, deep inside, many people don’t really believe in things they cannot see. That is how the soundbite made the difference.

Unfortunately, we live in the soundbite era. The press did not, for the most part, pick up Trump’s comment that things were “very bad” or “record-setting.” No, the press picked up on the virus being “invisible.” CNN later even ridiculed the idea, headlining: “Trump’s task force invisible as cases surge again.”

Donald Trump was nothing if not master of the soundbite. He said many of the right things in that March 2020 update. All the same, it was a soundbite – “invisible enemy” – that captured public attention. We can easily ignore unseen dangers. Radiation? Viruses? Carbon monoxide? Unseen carcinogens in our plastic bottles? If we don’t see something, we can pretend it’s not there. If we pretend it is not there, we don’t need to let it trouble our lives. We can pretend that we don’t need to watch our cholesterol. We can pretend that we don’t need to worry about toxins in our food. We can pretend that we don’t need to take a vaccine. Yes, Republicans all the time talk about their “freedom” to ignore public health. That misses the point. No one really wants to become deathly ill or die while gasping for breath. People don’t ignore the virus because they value their freedom. They ignore the virus because they can pretend it isn’t a big deal. Trump’s two most influential speeches came down to two influential phrases: “Their new hoax.” “An invisible enemy.” He helped his supporters ignore the virus. And, unfortunately, here we are.

_________________

Earlier Post: Trump Lived in Two Opposite Coronavirus Realities

Earlier Post: Trump Used Medical Quackery to Divert Attention from Coronavirus Issues

Elaine’s Post: Misinformation Kills; Has Your Child Been Vaccinated? Or, Are You Waiting?

_________________

P.S.: Thanks to the good people at the rev.com, transcription service; they have archived so many excellent speech transcripts. 

P.P.S. I hope all my readers had a wonderful, peaceful, and healthy Thanksgiving. 

"I Will Do My Best. That Is All I Can Do:" Lyndon Johnson's Speech at Andrews Air Force Base, November 23, 1963

Lyndon Baines Johnson

On this date, November 22, 1963, Lyndon Baines Johnson gave his first speech as President of the United States. It was only a minute or so long. President John F. Kennedy had been murdered just a few hours earlier, and Johnson had accompanied Kennedy's body and his widow back to Andrews Air Force Base on Air Force One. Johnson’s basic point was simple. He acknowledged that he couldn’t lead the nation alone. A burden had been thrust on him – violently and unexpectedly – and he promised to do his best. Many ceremonial speeches contain policy arguments. This one did not. It was not a time for policy. Johnson’s brief speech showed that national leadership continued. 
 

A Simple, Somber Speech

The situation called for a speech. Failure to speak would have meant that national leadership had broken down. Yet, Johnson could not possibly have had much to say. Furthermore, a lengthy speech in that situation would have seemed tasteless. As Kennedy’s body was loaded into a Navy ambulance, Johnson said a few brief words into the microphone, with the roar of engines almost drowning out his voice.

Beginning, Johnson said that the day had been a personal tragedy for him and he expressed sympathy and compassion for Jacqueline Kennedy and her family. He concluded with this brief statement: 

“I will do my best. That is all I can do. I ask for your help. And God’s.”

Asking for Help, not Policy

Johnson didn’t announce a policy. He didn’t say what he planned to do. He acknowledged that he couldn’t succeed alone. Accordingly, he asked for Americans to help him and asked God to help him. Although the sincerity of Johnson’s religious convictions often became a conversation topic, he belonged to the Disciples of Christ and attended services of that denomination and other denominations frequently.

Conclusion

This brief presentation said what needed to be said. Johnson then returned to his office to begin his duties. Terrible history was made that day. Conspiracy theories were already raging. The nation was still stunned by the day’s events. With the help of excellent speechwriters, Johnson said exactly what the nation needed to hear. Sometimes, less is more.

 

Research Note: The indispensable source to understand speeches like this is Lloyd Bitzer, The Rhetorical Situation. 

Image: National Portrait Gallery, via Wikimedia Commons

A Tale of Two Heckles: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Jabs Kevin McCarthy - And Resets the National Debate

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The other day, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California, gave a floor speech of more than eight hours. His goal was to delay the vote on the Democrats’ Build Back Better bill. The bill eventually passed. McCarthy’s speech was, by all accounts, terrible. The event’s highlight, however, came from two heckles by Democratic firebrand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. One of her heckles was excellent, while the other was a mess. A good heckle makes people think. Let’s look at what happened.

The First Heckle

Ocasio-Cortez’ first heckle was short, pithy, and exactly on point. It was a masterful display of how heckling can reset public issue discussion.

Here’s the context. During his seemingly endless speech, McCarthy complained that the Democratic agenda was too big. Alluding to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, McCarthy said this:

“Just a few weeks ago, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger said, ‘Nobody elected Joe Biden to be FDR.’”

From the audience, Ocasio-Cortez shouted,

“I did!”

Someone else, presumably another Democratic member of Congress, then shouted, “Me, too!”

Why was “I did!” a good heckle? First, it was short. Two words. Long heckles just irritate people. Second, she interrupted the speaker for only a brief moment. McCarthy needed a few seconds to regather his thoughts, but continued his speech. Since he had nothing to say, he didn’t comment about the heckle.

Furthermore, Ocasio-Cortez’ heckle changed the agenda. With two simple words, she encouraged us to think big. The United States of America is, after all, the country that sent astronauts to the moon and built an interstate highway system. The United States was the Arsenal of Democracy during World War II. The United States dollar is the world’s reserve currency. Nevertheless, today’s conservatives don’t seem to think that the United States can afford to do anything. Let the roads crumble and the bridges fall down? Cut school funding? Let people die without medical care? No problem!

The heckle worked because Ocasio-Cortez reset the debate. FDR became president at the height of a massive economic depression that originated under the leadership of his conservative Republican predecessor. His New Deal brought us Social Security and rural electrification, while helping the nation recover from the Great Depression.

Yet, McCarthy made it clear that he did not want another FDR. FDR thought big, and McCarthy literally boasted about thinking small. Thus, he invited Ocasio-Cortez’ heckle. Speaking for many Democrats, Ocasio-Cortez’ two-word heckle expressed her view that an ambitious, positive program was just what the nation needed.


The Second Heckle(s)

Ocasio-Cortez then retired to the luxurious congressional cloakroom, where she live-streamed a sarcastic running commentary about McCarthy’s speech. She remarked that he had “one of the lowest vocabularies ever.” She said that, even if McCarthy wanted to be evil, he shouldn’t also be stupid. Maybe, she said, he should instead be an “evil genius.” She called him an “imbecile.” And so forth.

Now, first of all, such rude language would not be allowed during floor debate. She got away with it because she was streaming from a remote place, while watching McCarthy speak on a TV monitor. Her sarcastic comments probably appealed to her liberal congressional district. I can’t say that she was wrong about McCarthy. Nevertheless, the crudity of her live-streamed heckles contrasted with her short, pithy shout about Biden and FDR.

Indeed, although Ocasio-Cortez is Past Master of Social Media, her live-streamed observations detracted from the main point. That’s because her instant heckle – “I did!” – made her point perfectly. She didn’t need to say anything else. Task complete! Furthermore, “I did!” focused national attention on the real issue, which was the Democrats’ ambitious social and industrial program. To the extent that people dwelled on her live-streamed insults, they could be distracted from thinking about the issue. For McCarthy’s poor speaking skills were not the national issue. The issue was FDR and Biden – the New Deal and the Build Back Better legislation that is now going to the Senate. 

Sometimes, short is better.


What about Heckling?

Let’s review about good heckling:

1. A good heckle is short and pithy. (Witty is also good.)

2. A good heckle is tasteful.

3. A good heckle does not disrupt the proceedings.

4. Most important, a good heckle makes people think.

When Ocasio-Cortez shouted, “I did,” she got people thinking. That was good. In contrast, when she complained about McCarthy’s lack of English language skills, she may have had a point, but that point was neither pithy nor tasteful. It didn’t make anyone think. It was just a random insult.

It is interesting, though, that we can now heckle a speech in real time over the Internet. I don’t think that’s entirely fair, since the speaker can’t respond in real time, but it is a noteworthy technological development.

Conclusion

When Ocasio-Cortez said, “I did!” she reset the day’s agenda. In two words, she reminded Congress and the public that it’s okay to think big.

“Here, here!” for good heckling. But “shame, shame” for tasteless or pointless heckling.
____________________

Earlier Posts about heckling:

The Lost Art of Heckling

Hear! Hear! Three Cheers for (Tasteful and Witty) Heckling

"OK, Boomer:" Chlöe Swarbrick Teaches Us How to Put a Heckler Down Flat

____________________

P.S.  Whenever I write about heckling, I think about my University of Illinois professor Kurt Ritter, who excelled at the art. 

Image: US House of Representatives

Biden Sold His Legislative Agenda in His Detroit Speech, but Let His Opponents Set the Agenda

Joe Biden speaking in Detroit

My wonderful high school music teacher, Mr. Matt Hines, told us that the most important parts of a performance were the beginning and the end. That’s when people are paying the most attention. The same is true when speaking. People pay the most attention at the speech’s beginning and end. No aspect of speech organization has more impact than the speech’s beginning

In his speech in Detroit yesterday, November 17, 2021, President Joe Biden said all the right things to sell his legislative agenda. Unfortunately, Biden did not organize his speech for the greatest persuasive effect. Instead, he debated on his opponents’ ground. Biden’s point was that his agenda would help people. His opponents’ point was inflation. Yet, Biden began by refuting the accusation that his legislative program would cause inflation. That was defensive. He put the issue on his opponents’ ground, not his own:

“Before I begin, I just want to mention three pieces of good news today. First, two of the leading rating agencies on Wall Street confirmed today — not a liberal think tank, two Wall Street outfits — that the economic proposals we put forward for the nation — the infrastructure law we just signed and the Build Back Better plan are being considered this week in Congress — will not add to inflationary pressures in the economy. (Applause.)

“And at one — and here’s what one of the agencies said, and I quote, ‘The bills do not add to inflation pressures.’ Let me repeat that: ‘do not add…inflation pressures.’

“The reason? Because the policies I proposed, quote, ‘help…lift long-term economic growth via stronger productivity… labor force growth,’ as well as taking ‘the edge off of inflation.’”

As a speech technique, that’s both really good and absolutely awful. It is important to preempt your opponent’s arguments. It is more important to put your own best points first. An old debate textbook by the late Robert Huber, a mentor from my younger days, suggested a better way to organize refutation. Begin by stating your own positive point. Always. Then, and only then, state your opponent’s point. Don’t explain your opponent’s point. Then state and prove why your opponent is wrong. That keeps the debate on your own ground. Always emphasize your own positive points. You don’t win debates – ever – just by proving that your opponent is wrong. You win a debate by proving that your point is right.


What Was Good?

Biden preempted his critics’ main argument. Republican members of Congress, media pundits, and even some of the Democratic caucus, complain that government spending for infrastructure and other needed projects will cause inflation. Biden needed to attack that. 

Now, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell has been insisting that inflation (a 5.6% annual rate in the most recent monthly report) will be transitory. He thinks prices are spiked by the pandemic and supply chain bottlenecks. All the same, people who want to sound serious are hysterical over a one-month inflation spike. In any case, Biden wanted to confront the issue right off.

Furthermore, Biden tackled the inflation issue exactly. He cited two Wall Street investment studies that the recent infrastructure law and the proposed Build Back Better legislation “will not add to inflationary pressures in the economy. “ He noted that neither of these reports came from “a liberal think tank.” That was important, for so many people try to politicize simple economic information. Indeed, Biden may have worried that people would reject factual news as liberal propaganda. So, that was a good way to make his point.

To drive the point home, to eliminate any possible misunderstanding, Biden directly quoted one of the Wall Street reports: “here’s what one of the agencies said, and I quote, ‘The bills do not add to inflation pressures.’ Let me repeat that: ‘do not add…inflation pressures.’” He didn’t just quote the point. He repeated it.

That was all good. If you know that something is on your listener’s mind, you need to confront it. Congress surely knows that the Build Back Better and the infrastructure bills enjoy overwhelming public support in the polls. Biden’s opponents’ only hope for stopping the much-needed legislation is to complain about inflation. Recognizing what people were thinking, and noticing his opponents’ persuasive strategy, Biden refuted their argument. That’s good. But what wasn’t good?


What Was Absolutely Awful?

The problem is that Biden let his critics set the agenda. He started his speech with the inflation issue—his opponents’ issue. As I have said many times, the side that sets the agenda wins the debate. The public loves projects like safe bridges and highways, broadband access in rural areas, safe drinking water, and childcare. When I was a child, legislation like that passed automatically. “Highway bills pass” used to be a District of Columbia proverb. However, the group that economist Paul Krugman calls “very serious people" (VSP) never cease to panic about inflation. Prices can plummet, and the VSP’s will still panic about inflation. Wishing to appear serious, I guess, Jason Furman just warned that the Federal Reserve is “behind the curve on inflation.”

Related Post: Biden's Speech Reset the Agenda on Afghanistan  

Similarly, writing for the mainstream CBS News, Aimee Picchi asked, “Could Biden’s Spending Plans Push Inflation Even Higher?” She quoted Lawrence Summers’ warning about long-term inflation. If we turn to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, we read Joshua Green’s warning that inflation is eating into people’s paychecks. And, of course, a Fox News pundit frantically shrieked that, “Inflation is running hot; rising prices are everywhere and are here to stay.” In contrast, as we’ve seen, many responsible economists still agree with the Federal Reserve that inflation is transitory. 

Still, Biden let the Very Serious People set the agenda. That is why, when Biden began his speech by talking about inflation, he was debating on his opponents’ ground – not his own. The strong point about Biden’s legislative program is not that it is inflation-free. The strong point is that it provides what many people believe are badly needed improvements to the American economic structure.

And, indeed, Biden talked about those improvements – later in his speech. About 1/3 of the way into the speech, for example, Biden zoomed in on the United States’ desperate need for infrastructure:

“The kind of conversations that take place around your kitchen tables — conversations, as profound as they are, are ordinary: ‘How am I going to get to work on time if I-75 is flooded again?’ ‘How can I be sure that my job at the auto plant is still going to be here a few years down the line?’ ‘How can I afford to get my child degree — a degree beyond high school if they don’t start with the same opportunity?’ And more broadly, ‘How do we emerge from this pandemic not just with a little breathing room but with real fighting chance to get ahead?’”

Exactly! How can the economy function if the roads are flooded? Guess what, it can’t! How can people improve their lives if education is unaffordable? They can’t! How do we recover from the pandemic and get the economy rolling again?

That was a wonderful passage. Biden focused on the lives of ordinary people and how they will be better off with his legislative agenda. It’s hard to argue with any of it. That, and not inflation, needed to be Biden’s agenda. Put your own agenda first! Put the refutation later in the speech! Every champion debater knows this.


Sell the Project!

All along, Republicans have done a terrific job of branding their ideas. Most of their ideas are, in my opinion, utterly silly. They are, nonetheless, clear and precise. They scare people about socialism and inflation. They put up pictures of poverty-stricken migrants trying to come to the USA to work. Everybody knows what the Republicans stand for. What do the Democrats stand for?

Yet, what Biden stood for is that he was not making inflation worse. That’s because he began his speech with a piece of good news – but it was good news relevant to the Republican’s agenda. Biden began by telling people that the Republicans and their allies were wrong. He said that his plan would not cause inflation. He was probably right. So what? Nobody is going to vote for a plan if its selling point is that it doesn’t cause inflation. People will support a plan if they see its positive benefits. Unfortunately, Biden waited several minutes before he told people about the benefits.

My friend, college classmate, future big-time business professor, and one-time college debate partner Kathy Micken once told me how important it was to emphasize my key points. One of the best ways to emphasize a point is to put it first in the speech. Mr. Hines was ever so right about that. People pay attention at the beginning. No one pays attention to the middle of the speech. Dear reader, you know this.


Conclusion

Biden actually said all the right things in this speech. He gave positive points for his ideas. He proved those points. He put his points in simple, human terms. He related to people. He showed why inflation fears were wrong. In fact, he proved that inflation fears were wrong.

The only problem is, he said things in the wrong order. Organization is one of the five classical parts of public speaking theory – dating back to ancient times. We often forget how important it is. Biden said all the right things, and he said them wonderfully. But he didn’t put his own point first.

This was, otherwise, a fine speech. Nevertheless, Biden’s opponents are using up too much media oxygen. Biden’s opponents use up the oxygen by saying ridiculous things. I’d love to see Biden take consistent command of the public agenda on his own ground.  

__________________

Related Post: President Biden and the Bully Pulpit

Related Post: Joe Biden's Juneteenth Speech Used Values to Support Policies

Related Post: Biden's Speech at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center: Working Together for Progress

__________________

Research Note: my colleagues who study rhetoric and communication often stress deep-seated ideas. They like to talk about historical and cultural contexts and intellectual history. That’s excellent and I’m glad they do it. I’ve done that kind of research myself. Sometimes, however, we overlook the basics. Audiences respond according to what speakers emphasize. The simplest way to emphasize something is to put it first.

Ancient Greek and Roman writers divided the study of public speaking in the five parts (canons), which all had fancy Latin names. In contemporary English, those five parts would be (1) ideas and proof, (2) organization, (3) language, (4) delivery, and (5) memorization. We don’t worry much about #5 today. The other four are as important as ever. Yes, the content is what we should care about – but speakers need people to understand and believe the content. That’s where, among other things, organization becomes vital. For more information, click on the button above to see my brief essay about the canons.

Image: from White House YouTube Channel

Copyright Ó 2021, William D. Harpine

Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana’s Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?

“Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate.”  (Amos 6:15)

Choosing that passage from the prophet Amos (6:15), Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana of the historic Congregation Beth Israel in Portland, Oregon, gave a sermon on the topic, “Summer of Love / Summer of Hate – Love is What We Need,” on Rosh Hashana, 5778. (That would be September 20, 2017 in the Gregorian calendar.) His message was simple: that we were seeing an outbreak of hateful right-wing violence, and the answer was not angry confrontation, but love. His claim was deeply rooted in religious tradition. He did not speak for weakness, but for the strength of love and justice. His lesson reaches to us today, four years later, maybe more than ever. For Rabbi Cahana gave a scriptural response to the viciousness of the United States of America’s growing right-wing movement.

 

The Rising Right-Wing Threat

 

Rabbi Cahana commented about “the history of White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis and the KKK” in his own city of Portland, Oregon. He recalled his childhood experiences: his parents needed to protect him and his siblings from “the night phone calls and bomb threats.” He criticized the recent “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. He criticized the “Torch-bearing marchers chanting the Nazi slogan of ‘Blood and Soil.’” He was chilled as he heard the white supremacists’ slogan “Jews Will Not Replace Us,” which “made me question our Jewish safety.” He expressed his shock that the Charlottesville police declined  to protect worshipers in the Charlottesville synagogue.

 

People who scream out these white supremacist and Nazi slogans often call themselves “patriots.” Yet, do those so-called patriots really stand for American revolutionary values? In contrast, Rabbi Cahana reminded his congregation of the exact words of tolerance and equality that George Washington himself offered to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. Washington said:

 

“Happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.”

 

Those words from the United States’ first president assured Jews that, in our country, there was no place for religious prejudice. Yet, Unite the Right did the opposite of Washington’s words. They tried to take the nation along a dark road of bigotry.

 

The Answer Is Love, Not Hate

 

How should good people respond to attitudes like those of “Unite the Right?” The ideals of equality that George Washington promised survive only if people act on them. The rabbi’s answer to right-wing threats was not hostility, but love:

 

“But I am not discouraged. I am optimistic. I know the goodness of this country and I know that the shouted hatred of a few, even when it turns deadly, is far outweighed by the kindness in the hearts of the many.“

 

Describing Naziism as “a dying ideology,” Cahana instead insisted that:

 

“What we need is a little more love.”

 

Concluding his powerful sermon, Rabbi Cahana embellished on the prophet Joel:

 

“Hate evil – be outraged, love the good – bring love, bring optimism, find the good – establish justice in the gate –  make sure that the actions we choose are positive and good and lead to more justice.”

 

Echoing Joel’s ideas, Cahana insisted that anger could lead us nowhere. Anger breeds only more anger, and so the answer is love:

 

“Outrage keeps us in a place of hate. What we need is love. Love, not anger, to confront the hate. Love of each other is stronger than the hate which wants to tear us apart. Love the stranger and welcome them into our midst. Love the other who is different and let them know they are loved. Let those who are the objects of hate feel the love. All you need is love.”

 

No group has ever suffered more terribly from right-wing extremists than the Jews during World War II. Yet, the right wing seems committed to denying history. Recently, a Texas school district told its teachers that they should teach “both sides” of the Holocaust. (They backed down under pressure.) Are there really two sides of the Holocaust? Well, only if you think there is a good side to bigotry, mass murder, slavery, and brutal slaughter. No, unlike that Texas school district, we should not try to justify the Holocaust. We should not excuse bigotry and cruelty. We should not forget the historic horrors of right-wing extremism. To forget is to risk repetition.

 

At the same time, Rabbi Cahana insisted, “The Summer of Hate has ended.” He urged the congregation to “create again the Summer of Love.”

 

Rabbi Cahana’s most positive point, however, was, in the words of the prophet, to “establish justice in the gate.” Powerful forces, not just in the United States, but across the world, are trying to revive the Nazi tyranny. Or, if not Nazism itself, many people support its close cousins like the Ku Klux Klan and the Proud Boys. In the face of that threat, should we not remember that justice, not strength, is the ultimate earthly power?

 

And What about Today?

 

Yet, four years after Cahana’s sermon, the right-wing threat has failed to disappear. Contrary to Rabbi Cahana’s hope, I see no sign that right-wing extremism is dying. People carrying Confederate flags stormed into the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. Their futile hope was to use violence to reinstall their hero, who had conclusively lost reelection, as President of the United States. People at political rallies openly wear Nazi emblems on their clothing. A right-wing member of Congress threatened to murder his liberal colleagues – and Republican leaders, instead of condemning him, remain silent.

 

All the same, was Cahana’s sermon too optimistic? I think not. Let us never forget that the ancient tradition of Judaism, as well as most of the world’s great religions, is to do what is right. Can we ever risk thinking that evil will overpower good? To be optimistic and loving does not make either a person or a nation weak. It means that justice is the stronger force. 

________________

Related Posts:  

 

John Wesley’s Sermon Against Bigotry

 

Richard Spencer’s Speech on the End of History: Right-Wing Extremism Finds a New Voice

 

President Trump Speaking about Charlottesville: "Very Fine People" on Both Sides? 

 

The Solution to Climate Change Is in the Cities: President Ursula von der Leyen's Speech at the European Energy Award

Climate Change, US National Park Service

The world’s oceans are rising, island nations are flooding, and increasingly violent storms whip across the planet. Conspiracy theorists, including at least one United States Senator, ridicule global warming as a hoax. Still, more responsible public leaders are working more quietly to put the brakes on climate change.

Senator Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself

President Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, spoke virtually at the European Energy Award. Von der Leyen’s speech gave a brilliant insight: the solution to climate change lies in our cities. She changed the focus from what we should do to where we should do it.  Why didn’t we think of that earlier? Although von der Leyen talked about Europe, everything she said applies to the United States of America.

 

Von der Leyen Talked about Energy in European Cities

So, where do we fight against global warming? Von der Leyen said the fight is in the cities:

“The transition to an economy that is fully in harmony with our planet begins in each one of our cities. It begins with empowering people to choose public transport or bikes instead of private cars. It begins with smart systems for waste management. And with solid strategies to change the way we heat or cool our homes. Climate action is a responsibility that we all share.” [Italics added]

That’s also an important lesson for us in the United States: climate change policy – needs to start with cities. That’s where the most energy is used, and that’s where the solutions can best begin. Continuing, President von der Leyen pointed out what a large proportion of Europeans live in urban areas:

“Cities play a crucial role in this transition. 75 per cent of Europeans live in cities, and this is where 80 per cent of climate legislation is implemented. This is why it was so important to me to join you today.” [Italics added]

Those same lessons, however, apply to the United States as much as to Europe.


Yes, Most Americans Also Live in Cities

When President von der Leyen said that 75% of Europeans live in cities, my first reaction was, “Wow! That’s a lot!” The reader can imagine my surprise when I looked up the figures, learning that the United States, despite its wide prairies, massive deserts, and endless mountain ranges, is even more urbanized than Europe. And most energy use is urban. In the United States of America, we like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, a nation of rugged cattle wranglers, pioneer families, and small farmers, tied to the land and inspired by the Waltons of television fame. In real life, however, the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan estimates that 83% of people in the United States live in cities. That is a huge increase from the 64% who lived in urban areas in 1950.

Consider, for example, my home state of Texas. We have sprawling cattle ranches and oil fields. But Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas are among the nation’s 10 largest cities. (Austin ranks 11th!)


Can American Cities Help with Climate Change?

Can American cities make the same changes that von der Leyen sought in Europe? The challenges are great. Not only do we Americans love our automobiles, but few of our communities are set up for convenient bicycle or public transportation. For example, I live in Corpus Christi, a pleasant medium-sized city, but my neighborhood, like much of the city’s residential areas, looks like a typical suburban enclave. I live about 1½ miles from the nearest small supermarket, and there are no sidewalks most of the way. I need to walk about a mile just to get to a bus stop. Arriving at the bus stop, I would find that the bus runs only a few times a day. The nearest major shopping area, which features a Walmart and a large supermarket, is a 20-minute drive. Walk to Walmart? Not a chance. I’d need to cross a bridge with, you guessed it, no sidewalk and no bike lane. Rail transit? None. If I want to leave my neighborhood, I need to drive. This may largely be political: the United States’ political system underrepresents cities.

Of course, people who live in the countryside don’t want city voters to overwhelm them. William Jennings Bryan pointed out in his 1896 “Cross of Gold” speech in 1896 that the American economy depended on farms. We still need farms, ranches, mines, and outdoor recreation. At the same time, however, neither the economy nor political realities are bringing sustainable energy to the cities.

William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold”

So, yes, let’s think about where to work on climate change. If most people live in cities – and we do – can’t cities find ways to use less energy? Of course they can. Can our political and economic system adjust to an urban nation? An urban world?


Can We Work Together?

President von der Leyen said that we need to work together in that urban world. Can we get better energy policies? Von der Leyen sounded optimistic:

“In recent months, I saw so many positive efforts in cities across Europe. I hopped on a new hydrogen-fueled bus in Riga, Latvia. I learned about energy efficient social housing in Luxembourg. And I saw the plans to create new car-free areas in Malta. This transition is an opportunity to make our cities climate neutral and more livable.”

Yet, she cautioned that all of us need to take responsibility to deal with climate change. We need to live in the world the way it is today, not the way it was in the past. The science fiction movies of my youth often showed magnificent, futuristic cities with nearly-instant mass transit, livable spaces, and ultra-modern services. Guess what? That future could be now.

Can we, as President von der Leyen said, “make our cities climate neutral and more livable?” She concluded:

“The responsibility for climate action doesn’t just belong to world leaders. It is a choice for every community and every individual. The road to climate neutrality runs through our cities and regions.

“Thank you for your efforts. They are indispensable.”    

Indispensable indeed. What can ordinary people do? One thing, of course, is to vote for politicians who take climate change seriously. Public transportation, bike trails, and pedestrian-friendly city planning all require national and local government commitment. Homeowners who can afford it can install wind or solar power. A simple step is to combine driving trips to use less gasoline, and thus emit less carbon. The government of urban King County, Washington notes that recycling helps to reduce carbon emissions: “If you throw away even half the paper you use in a year instead of recycling it, you increase your climate pollution by the same amount as driving 526 miles.” Near my home, the Port of Corpus Christi is developing facilities to generate hydrogen fuel from renewable electricity sources. We need more of that kind of thing. When hydrogen burns, the only exhaust gas is pure steam.

 

Conclusion

President von der Leyen focused our attention on the vital but neglected side of climate change: green energy policies are, first and foremost, urban policies. Her point could apply to the United States even more exactly than to Europe. Her speech focused our attention, not so much on what to do, but where to do it. When we change the question that skillfully, we can often find better answers. So, can we do more in our cities to fight climate change?

True to form, the press paid little, if any, attention to the content of von der Leyen’s speech, preferring to focus on her wasteful use of private jets. No, she should not have flown on private jets, but her speech made powerful points. The press did not inform the public about those points. How can speakers better command press attention? Feel free to comment below.

______________

Earlier posts: 

Charles Michel’s Speech to the World Health Summit

Biden’s Speech at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center: Working Together for Climate Progress

Harrison Ford’s Climate Change Speech

Texas Proposition 3: A Constitutional Amendment Framed to Restrict Public Health Measures

My Texas "I Voted" Sticker

On November 12, 2021, Texas voters approved eight amendments to the state constitution, all cleverly worded to ensure that they would pass. Let’s look at one of them, which was Proposition 3 on the Texas ballot. Proposition 3 was framed to focus the voters’ attention on freedom of religion. Most people support religious freedom. It was cleverly not framed to focus on public health. If they think about it, many people also support public health. However, Proposition 3 was phrased so that voters would need to make a special effort to think in public health terms. Proposition 3 did not look like a persuasive message. But it was. The way it was phrased – the spin – had a powerful persuasive impact.

So, here is Proposition 3:

“The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”

Proposition 3 could easily have been framed to focus on public health. It could have said (but did not): “The constitutional amendment to stop public health authorities from imposing reasonable, temporary restrictions on religious organizations if evidence shows they are spreading a deadly disease.” If it had been phrased that way, the amendment might have been defeated. 

Every time we say something, especially if we are trying to persuade people, we always frame it in a particular way. Framing is not an evil thing. It is always part of how we communicate. Yet, the way an argument is framed often persuades with more power than facts or evidence.

Proposition 3 was framed to evoke an emotional response about religious freedom. Erving Goffman called this kind of thing “spin.” Proposition 3 was phrased to arouse fear that the government was going to interfere with religion. It was not phrased to arouse our fear about catching a virus and gasping to death on a ventilator. That was a value choice by the people who wrote the proposition.

In a more general sense, we frame all kinds of things, controversial and non-controversial alike. For example, consider the Civil War. Do we really learn about the Civil War? Or do we call it the War Between the States, as I learned in Virginia schools in the 1960s? That’s a framing question. Before the Civil War, the southern states said that the issue was slavery. After the Civil War, they insisted that the real issue had been states’ rights. Which framing is correct? How do we respond to those competing frames? Just as an art frame sets off a picture and affects the viewer’s emotional response, so a rhetorical frame also affects the way people respond.

Any number of examples can show how framing changes how we understand issues. Suppose the TV news shows President Joe Biden stopping to chat with a small child. The news could frame the tender event in at least three different ways:

#1 President Joe Biden is a kind, compassionate man who cares about other people.

Or

#2 President Joe Biden might be a nice guy, but he’s weak.

Or

#3 President Joe Biden shows the strength that comes from wisdom.

Can you see how different people can perceive the same event differently? #1, #2, and #3 all refer to the same facts, and a voter could interpret Biden’s actions in any of those three ways.

Similarly, not long ago, I blogged about how conservatives often discuss coronavirus restrictions as being control measures, not public health provisions. That, again, is framing. Yes, coronavirus restrictions do, indeed, limit what we do. So there is an element of control. The coronavirus restrictions also save lives. A religious Texas summer camp infected 125 attendees. So, which is more important? Religious freedom, or health? Should we balance the two? Can we have both? When we put a frame around coronavirus restrictions, does that frame stress the control, or the public safety? Notice, however, that none of that framing even mentions facts or arguments. How many people are dying from the coronavirus? Do the restrictions save lives? Do the restrictions limit our ability to succeed? Once we have framed the issue of coronavirus restrictions, we see the facts, pro and con, in different lights – depending on our framing.

Earlier Post: "It's All about Control:" Conservatives, Public Health, and the Jackhammer Method of Persuasion

The framing of Proposition 3 was no accident. No, Proposition 3 arose because public health authorities sometimes restricted religious services during the pandemic’s height. Public health authorities believe that religious services often became super-spreader events. It’s no secret why that should happen. Dr. William Schaffner of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine explained why religious services often spread disease:

“The members know each other. They enjoy seeing each other. They hug, they kiss, and they spend a fair amount of prolonged time in close association.”

Dr. Eric Christopher Cioe-Pena contributes this comment:

“Sometimes people are not wearing masks when they speak or sing, and a lot of these churches are older and have poor ventilation.”

So, public health authorities do not necessarily want to interfere with religious freedom, but they do want to stop disease from spreading. At the same time, many religious organizations of many faiths resisted simple public health precautions. Churches displayed signs like “masks optional” and took it as a matter of pride when people stuffed the pews.

Indeed, the framing may have made more difference than the actual issues. Texas news organizations gave little information about the constitutional propositions. Probably, few people were aware in any real way of the pros and cons. Although I read the brief information on the League of Woman Voters website, most people probably just responded to the proposition's text.

Accordingly, people voted in favor of religious freedom. Proposition 3 passed. The final tally was 62% for and only 38% against. Turnout in this off-cycle election was only about 9%, so, like many American elections, it was decided as much by who didn’t vote as by who did vote.

So, the freedom of religion frame seemed to shape the result. I’ve said many times that the side that sets the agenda usually wins the debate. The people who wrote Proposition 3 set the agenda by what they did and did not emphasize. Proposition 3 was phrased to direct attention toward religious freedom. It did not direct attention toward public health.

And, so, the next time a pandemic hits the state of Texas, religious organizations will be free to spread fatal diseases to as many people as they please. Of course, when I phrase it that way, I’m not being neutral. In framing theory, neutrality is an illusion. I have my spin, and you have yours.

Earlier Post: Donald Trump Set the Agenda at the 2018 RNCC Fundraiser

And, yes, in case you are wondering, I voted “against” on Proposition 3. I’ve never seen anything in the Bible (or any other religious writing) that says, “Go forth and spread disease to all the nations.” But, then, there I go, spinning again.

Still, we frame things all the time. We all have perceptual frameworks that help us understand things. At the same time, to think critically, we need to understand our own frames and the frames that other people offer. That doesn’t mean that will ever be objective. We’re never objective. Nor does it mean that all perspectives are always equally valid. It means that we need to try to understand one another’s perspectives as best we can,


Earlier Post: Should Schools Reopen during the Pandemic? It Depends on How You Frame the Question


Research Note: Although framing theory dates back at least to the 1950s, most communication researchers refer to Erving Goffman’s 1974 explanation. Here is a good, easy-to-read explanation of framing theory. 

Of course, nowadays, years after Goffman wrote his book, the concept of “spin” is an everyday topic, especially in journalism. The point is that every message, certainly every persuasive message, is going to be framed. Issues will be spun in a particular way. There is no such thing as a "no spin zone." To be human is to spin. That isn’t always bad, but it’s something that we as listeners and readers need to notice. How is an issue framed? How could it be re-framed? Those are questions to ask.