Joe Biden's 2022 University of Delaware Commencement Speech Reminds Americans that Our Nation Was Founded on an Idea

Biden at University of Delaware

Americans have been losing track of their values, and President Biden reminded us of what those values are. In his May 28, 2022 commencement speech at the University of Delaware, his alma mater, President Joe Biden appealed to a sense of national unity. He reminded his audience that the United States was founded on an idea, not “on ethnicity, religion, geography.” That idea was “the flame of liberty,” as Biden called it, “The right to determine our own destinies.”

This was a ceremonial speech, a graduation celebration. Ceremonial speeches like this (public speaking specialists call this “epideictic speech”) reinforce people’s values. Biden urged his audience to move forward toward liberty and justice. Most centrally, however, he urged the audience to place their faith in the nation's institutions. Unlike some of his earlier speeches, which too often ignored the nation's divisions, Biden asked the audience to confront those conflicts. He talked about:

“A crisis of faith in the institutions that have — however flawed they may be — serve as the infrastructure for the American experiment in liberty and self-government.” [italics added]

Biden reminded the students that, for the first time in American history, we did not have a peaceful transfer of power. Instead, a huge, violent mob ransacked the United States Capitol building to install the losing candidate in office. The assault arose from the bald-faced lie that the 2020 election was stolen. There are, however, no such things as “alternative facts.” To Biden, truth was an underlying value:

“Truth is truth. Lies are lies. And the truth is: We have a solemn duty to keep the flame of liberty burning. This is not about blue and red, rural, and urban. It’s about America. The right to govern ourselves. The right to determine our own destinies, to overcome division and despair, and to meet the challenges of our time with grit and, maybe equally important, with some grace. To press ahead determined, resolved, and full of hope.”

Instead of taking the easy route, Biden said that we must stand by our founding ideas:

“It’s not easy. It’s never been. But it’s who we are — people united by a [an] idea — by an idea, unbending in the face of adversity, and devoted to creating and sustaining [this] beloved nation of ours.” [italics added] 

So, Biden asked the public to trust the institutions of constitutional governance. Politics is not just about who wins an election, or which group benefits from which laws. Politics means to represent what the entire nation needs. To stand behind our values. As we celebrate Memorial Day, let us remember why our nation is worth defending. In our troubled times, what better reason can there be to give a speech?

______________________

Dolly Parton's 2009 Commencement Speech: Lively, Extemporaneous, Specific, Detailed

The Themes of Savannah Guthrie's 2019 Commencement Speech at George Washington University

Oprah Winfrey at Skidmore College, May 20, 2017

In His 2020 HBCU Commencement Speech, Barack Obama Reminds Us That the People at the Top Don't Always Know What They're Doing

______________________

Research note: Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca developed the idea that epideictic speeches reinforce social values in their groundbreaking book, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.

Image: White House YouTube channel 

"Do We Want to Be Healed?" A Sermon of Hope and Promise by Father Gabriel Bilas

Do we even want to be healed?

• Gun violence wracks the United States of America.
• On January 6, 2021, a violent crowd tried to overthrow the presidential election.
• Bizarre conspiracy theories obstruct basic public health measures.
• Indeed, people around the world suffer from problems that are, often, easily solved.

In the face of these sorrows, do we want to be healed? That is the question that Father Gabriel Bilas of Saint Mary Magdalene Orthodox Church of Fenton, Michigan wants us to answer.

In his May 18, 2022 sermon, Father Gabriel recounts the story of a paralyzed man who, according to the Gospel of John (5: 1-15), sat next to a miraculous pool at Bethsaida (Bethesda) in Jerusalem, waiting for someone to put him in the water and heal him:

“Before this incredible miracle, we hear a rather strange question escape our Savior’s lips. It is one that should leave us all a little puzzled. Christ goes up to this man, who has spent 38 years at this miracle working pool, trying to persuade a passer-by to help him into the waters when they are stirred by the angels, and asks: ‘Do you want to be healed?’”

The question should, Father Gabriel comments, puzzle us. Of course the man wants to be healed! He's been sitting there for years waiting to be healed! Why does the question even come up? Maybe, Father Gabriel wonders, the man has given up. Maybe he has grown so accustomed to his misery that he no longer tries to change:

“He may have become invalid in spirit as well as body, finding satisfaction when others catered to him. He may have just wanted to settle for the existence and the way of life that he had become accustomed to.”

Father Gabriel points out that, in many ways, we, too, often give up in our personal lives. We often forget to feed our own spirits. This leads him to ask:

“Do we want to be made well, brothers and sisters?”

He continues:

“What earthly comforts, or illogical doubts, or anger, or malice, or passion is holding my arms back from taking the outstretched hand of God?”

The question goes however, far beyond even that worthy point. Human beings are social creatures. We live in communities, nations, churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. We live in businesses, schools, and farms. No matter what our secular ideas tell us, no one—no one—succeeds alone. Are we to be healed of the divisions that threaten to tear the United States of America to pieces? Do we choose to be healed? For the first step in healing is to desire it. The paralyzed man could (according to the Gospel story) be healed easily if only someone would put him in the pool. Indeed, many of today’s problems could be solved—easily—if we would only help one another. Therefore, we ask the simple, surprising question: “do we want to be healed?” We must decide whether our “earthly comforts, or illogical doubts, or anger, or malice, or passion” can reach such depths that we neglect to accept healing.

For, as Father Gabriel reminds us, we must want to be healed. We must choose healing. Yes, surely, we should feel puzzled that the question even arises. Maybe we fail to answer it because of our “illogical doubts.” Worse, maybe we answer “no” because it is more important to win, to triumph at someone else’s expense, than to heal ourselves. Maybe we have indeed become so comfortable with our divisions and our vindictive sicknesses that healing may seem like too much of a change. Healing may be more than we can contemplate. Or so we think. Indeed, we sometimes choose failure because healing seems like too much to expect.

Father Gabriel offers a message of hope and resolution. From a local preacher at a small-town church, the basic question for our times: “Do we want to be healed?” Can we make the right choices? I think we can. What do you think?

_______________  

Do you have suggestions? This post is part of a series about sermons from various eras and religious traditions. Some were famous; others not. All pose challenging moral questions. I'd love to hear your suggestions for sermons to write about. I especially want to write more about sermons by women, as well as sermons from other nations or additional traditions. Peace to all! 

Earlier posts:

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

“Somebody Must Have Sense Enough To Dim The Lights:” Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon about the Power of Love

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

“What, They Demand, Is Your Christianity?" Rev. Theodore S. Wright’s 1837 Speech against Racial Prejudice

Pope Francis' Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

Rev. Witherspoon and the Christian Right in the Revolutionary War

Father Ioann Burdin Cited Christian Values to Oppose the Invasion of Ukraine

“What Are We Doing?” Can the United States Find Common Ground on Gun Violence? Senator Murphy's Desperate Plea

Chris Murphy, Senate photo

“What are we doing? What are we doing?” asked—pleaded—United States Senator Chris Murphy as he began a brief May 24, 2022 speech on the floor of the United States Senate. He continued:

“Just days after a shooter walked into a grocery store to gun down African American patrons, we have another Sandy Hook on our hands. What are we doing?"

Following the horrible mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, Murphy did not ask for any special proposal. Instead, he urged the Senate to take action to prevent more school shootings. It was, we recall, in Murphy's home state of Connecticut that a mass shooter killed twenty-six children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Such horrors have become an American epidemic.

Murphy asked his Senate colleagues to find common ground and adopt simple solutions. But do we share common ground? Unfortunately, although most Americans have moderate political views about firearms, as they do on most issues, the extreme voices are having their way—especially on the right wing. Despite Murphy's impassioned plea, the opposing political sides show no signs of reconciliation.

Yet, every public speaking student learns that the way to persuade people is to find common ground: common beliefs, common values. In this brief speech, Murphy proposed common values as a premise for a persuasive argument:

“I understand my Republican colleagues will not agree to everything that I may support, but there is a common denominator that we can find. There is a place where we can achieve agreement that may not guarantee that America never ever again sees a mass shooting, that may not overnight cut in half the number of murders that happen in America. It will not solve the problem of American violence by itself. But by doing something, we at least stop sending this quiet message of endorsement to these killers whose brains are breaking, who see the highest levels of government doing nothing shooting after shooting.”

Nevertheless, in desperation, Murphy ended his speech as he began:

“What are we doing? Why are we here? What are we doing?

Senator Murphy’s previous gun control proposals include such seemingly modest ideas as to tighten background checks, to stop known terrorists and domestic abusers from purchasing weapons, and to have some sort of licensing requirement for firearms owners. He filibustered in the Senate in 2016 on behalf of these proposals, and got pretty much nowhere. So, is it even possible that we have common ground? Murphy is right that there is common ground as to the goal: conservatives and liberals agree that it is bad to murder children. For politicians, the common ground seems to stop there. It isn’t just Democrats. When former President Donald Trump spoke out forcefully in favor of background checks for gun purchasers, howling protests soon forced him to back off.


Trump and the NRA: Was the President Finally Using His Business Communication Skills?


In the meantime, is there any hope that the tragedy in Uvalde will cause the two opposing sides to reach out for common solutions? I doubt it. At the National Rifle Association convention, being held at this moment in Houston, Texas, attendees hear fire-breathing speeches claiming that the massacre was a liberal false flag event staged to encourage gun confiscation. There are people who think that the Uvalde shooter was a CIA plant. Yes, people believe that. Many people. Can Senator Murphy find enough common ground with them, or with the politicians for whom they vote?

To solve our problem, we must indeed find common ground. Murphy was right about that. To find common ground, however, can we agree on the problem's cause? Can we share a common reality? It seems that we cannot. Sadly, Senator Murphy was shouting, however nobly, into a deafening wind.

As the satirical news site The Onion repeatedly points out, “'No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.” The solutions are so simple. So obvious. So unattainable. Common ground is so hard to find. Common chasms? No problem. But common ground?

Unfortunately, the United States’ political system, which was designed to encourage compromise while preventing any one group from gaining too much power, has morphed into a setup that encourages extremists. The system entourages politicians to polarize. I'll try to write more about that later.

________________

Emma González at the "March for Our Lives" Rally and the Rhetoric of Silence: Six Minutes and About 20 Seconds

Donald Trump 2017 NRA Speech: Polarizing the Audience

Wayne LaPierre's Speech Opposed Gun Control with a Conspiratorial Vision

Elaine's Post: Nothing Happens. Can We Change After Uvalde? 

 

Abraham Lincoln, White Supremacist: The First Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Lincoln Memorial, NPS

In the first of his famous debates with Stephen Douglas in the 1858 election to choose the next senator from Illinois, future President Abraham Lincoln said: “I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” That sounds like white supremacy to me. Yes, several years later, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Indeed, he was the president who talked about “government of the people, by people, for the people.” He was the president who said, “with malice toward none, with charity to all.” That does not change the fact that he spoke as a white supremacist. Before I go into more detail about this debate, however, let's look at context:

First, in 1858, people who wanted to abolish slavery, much less who favored racial equality, were considered dangerous radicals by the (almost entirely white) electorate. Nor during these debates, did Lincoln oppose slavery. His political position was to prevent slavery from spreading as new states joined the union. That, in 1858, was considered (by most white people) to be quite a liberal position.

Second, “white supremacy” can mean two different things. It can mean, in the opinion of a white supremacist, that white people are inherently better than other people. It can also mean, in the opinion of a white supremacist, that white people should be in charge. The view that white people are better is pure racism. The idea that white people should run things is pure politics. As we will see, Lincoln said both. A C-SPAN poll of historians found Lincoln to be our greatest president. For what it’s worth, I agree. Yet, he openly advocated racism and white supremacy.

Third, people too often talk about white supremacy as if it were a new thing that President Donald Trump activated while he was in office. The foul doctrine of white supremacy, however, has a long, dark history in American political speech, and this post is one of several that will prove it.

So, let’s take off the rose-colored glasses and look at Lincoln’s debate speech in more detail. What political policy did Lincoln speak about?

James Baldwin's 1963 Speech Ripped Away Two American Myths

Lincoln Opposed Racial Equality

In 1858, Lincoln, who would later be called the Great Emancipator, opposed the expansion of slavery. He also opposed equality of opportunity and of accomplishment. Period. Here is more of what he said in that first debate:

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

Note that he specially denied that he wanted “to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races.” That is, Lincoln did not seek to make the races equal—either in politics or social standing. Furthermore, he opposed equality for strictly bigoted reasons: “There is a physical difference between the two.”

With twisted but seemingly impeccable logic, Lincoln concluded that, since the races could not be equal, the white race should hold the “superior position.” His point was to have white people run the country. That is absolute white supremacy.


Lincoln's Logic Arose from Racial Prejudice

Why did Lincoln say that white people should be in charge? In this debate, Lincoln explained that quite precisely. He specifically opposed racial equality—and supported the doctrine of white supremacy--because of his belief that African Americans were inherently less than white people. He did say that African Americans should enjoy certain vague, basic natural rights, but this did not imply that African Americans were, in Lincoln’s view, as good as white people:

“I hold that he is as much entitled to these [rights] as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment.”

“Not my equal,” Lincoln said. Furthermore, Lincoln literally said that African Americans were not equal “in color.” That, by any standard, is bald racism.


Did Lincoln Offer a Solution?

No, in this debate, Lincoln did not offer a solution to the problem of slavery. In fact, he said: 

“If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution” [slavery].

He admitted that it was impractical to send every African American back to Africa. He refused to admit African Americans as equals. This led him to utter the following startling, politically cynical, horribly racist passage:

“What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.”

This paragraph, again, gives us much to unpack. Lincoln's “own feelings” would not let him make African Americans into his equals. He also admitted that “the great mass of white people” would not tolerate racial equality. He recognized that African Americans could never be equal because white people would not allow it. He specifically declined to pass judgment on southern slave owners.

Yet, as we all learned in school, even Lincoln's seemingly moderate view was enough to terrify slaveholding interests. For further insight, think about the American Civil War.


And What Happened?

Douglas won the election rather easily. At the same time, however, these well-publicized debates helped Lincoln gain the presidency two years later. Douglas, as we shall see in future posts, ran for Senator on a race-baiting platform whose purpose was to terrify white people into opposing Lincoln. That, in 1858, was the winning strategy in the free state of Illinois.

In contrast, Lincoln’s position offered African Americans a few basic rights. He did not call for abolition, but only to prevent slavery from spreading further than it already had. Why? Lincoln was, first and foremost, a politician. He surely knew that he could not win national office as an abolitionist. Let us not pretend, however, that he spoke as anything other than a white supremacist. And do you wonder why some people even today don't trust white liberals?

In Buffalo, Joe Biden Challenged an Idea: The Idea of White Supremacy

How much has changed? How much has not changed? Lincoln's first debate against Douglas showed the nation that it faced a political need to compromise with white supremacists, even as it faced a moral imperative to oppose their wicked philosophy. I wrote a few days ago about Biden's recent speech in Buffalo, New York opposing white supremacy. The press didn't pay much attention, did they? Are things better today than in 1858? Of course. Yes, slavery is now illegal, and African Americans are now supposedly guaranteed equal rights under the law. Still, have we come far enough? Or does Lincoln’s “moderate” view still rule our nation’s political and moral life?

In Buffalo, Joe Biden Challenged an Idea: The Idea of White Supremacy

Biden in Buffalo; White House YoutTube channnel

On May 17, 2022, President Joe Biden spoke at the Delavan Grider Community Center in Buffalo, New York, to commemorate the lives of the recent mass shooting in Buffalo that left ten innocent people dead and three wounded. The suspected shooter had been posting virulent white supremacist messaging. It appears that he traveled to Buffalo for the purpose of killing African Americans. After commemorating the victims, Biden spoke against the ideology of white supremacy. Readers of this blog know that ceremonial and commemorative speeches often advocate policies. For example, we might have expected Biden to speak out in favor of gun control. But he did not advocate a policy. Instead, he spoke about ideas—the pernicious ideas that drive the white supremacy movement.

Biden did, indeed, commemorate the victims’ lives. His main thrust, however, was to condemn the doctrine of white supremacy. This may be the key issue in current American public life, and it was high time for the president to address it forthrightly and forcefully. Biden did so during this speech. The United states’ conservative movement has become increasingly aggressive in pursuing specifically racial positions. The shooting marked the occasion when Biden ripped off the veneer that the United States can accept, compromise with, or tolerate white supremacy.

Do we realize how radical it was for Biden to repudiate white supremacy? For, as recently as my youth, large parts of the United States made it illegal for African Americans to attend quality schools, obtain home loans, or spend the night in public hotels. In today's post, I point out that Biden’s presidency arises from the fight for racial justice. Upcoming posts will examine previous rhetoric of white supremacy, so we can perceive how deeply that foul doctrine lies in American heritage. In other words, let's start with the present and work back to the past. Conservatives today no longer fear slave revolts, but the nation's diversification continues to trouble them. This sometimes leads white conservatives to fear that dark-skin people will dominate the United States. Thus, Biden talked about white replacement theory.


White Replacement?

What is white replacement? A number of leading conservatives, notably Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, have espoused the doctrine that immigration and social change endanger American culture. The implication—sometimes spoken and sometimes implied—is that American culture cannot survive if non-white people come to dominate. Biden, a white man himself, reminded his audience that pro-Donald Trump marchers had advocated white replacement doctrine:

“We heard the chants, ‘You will not replace us,’ in Charlottesville, Virginia.”

Continuing, Biden revealed that he ran for President precisely to oppose white supremacy:

“I wasn’t going to run, as the Senator knows, again for President. But when I saw those people coming out of the woods — of the fields of — in Virginia, in Charlottesville, carrying torches, shouting ‘You will not replace us,’ accompanied by white supremacists and carrying Nazi banners — that’s when I said, ‘No.’ ‘No.’”

“White Supremacy Is Poison”

Indeed, Biden called white supremacy a “poison.” A poison, we must remember, is always dangerous. A poison seeps through the body until it kills the host. A poison might be unseen until it is too late. Poison is a powerful metaphor:

“White supremacy is a poison. It’s a poison — (applause) — running through — it really is — running through our body politic. And it’s been allowed to fester and grow right in front of our eyes.”

President Trump: Are Neo-Nazis "Fine People?" 

Does White Supremacy Belong in America?

Using the power of the presidency—the bully pulpit of which Theodore Roosevelt spoke—Biden offered a simple solution. His solution was to wipe out the ideology. This is much different from the Democratic Party's usual tendency to offer technical, bureaucratic solutions. As the great conservative writer Richard Weaver said, “Ideas Have Consequences.” Policy alone, Biden implied, could not cure the United States’ problems. For the problem was not specific policy, but the ideology itself:

“No more. I mean, no more. We need to say as clearly and forcefully as we can that the ideology of white supremacy has no place in America. (Applause.) None.”

Morally, Biden is obviously right. Even diehard white supremacists often deny that they believe in white supremacy. To be sure, maverick Republican Liz Cheney accused her fellow Republicans of enabling white supremacy and urged them to stop. Yet, the ultra-conservative Cheney is a maverick only because she displays a semblance of integrity.

In "The Fire Next Time," James Baldwin Warned America Not to Hide from Evil

American politicians historically try to walk on a middle track to attract as many voters as possible. In contrast, unable or unwilling to admit that the white supremacist movement has any merit, Biden came down forcefully to wipe out that ideology. Yes, ideas have consequences. Will Biden’s relatively calm voice outweigh the fear-mongering, hate-filled, shrieking nonsense on cable news and talk radio?