Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” Speech, a Lesson in Positive Justice

The freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear: those were the four freedoms that United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed as he concluded his January 6, 1941 State of the Union Speech to Congress. Roosevelt re-imagined government and world power as forces that would help people flourish. Unlike libertarians who just want governments to get out of the way, Roosevelt said that world governments should spread new freedoms. His controversial vision, which was dramatically new in 1941, shakes world and national opinion even today.


Roosevelt’s Vision

As Roosevelt spoke, World War II (which the United States had not yet joined) raged across three continents. The world was still shaking from the Great Depression, and Roosevelt rewrote the word “freedom.” Here is Roosevelt’s vision of Four Freedoms:

“The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

“The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

“The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

“The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.”

What motivated Roosevelt’s vision? First, the free enterprise economic system had collapsed in 1929 and the world, shaking from the fear of hunger and despair, increasingly turned to dictators to save them: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo. Never a good idea, but too many world citizens figured they had nothing to lose.


What Is Positive Freedom?

Now, the United States Constitution mostly protects negative freedoms: the government cannot do this; the government cannot do that. The government cannot establish a religion. The government cannot pass ex post facto laws. The government cannot force people to speak at their own trials. The government cannot randomly search your home or impose “cruel and unusual punishments.” And so forth. Those are negatives: things that the government is forbidden to do.

Roosevelt, instead, proposed positive freedoms: the freedoms that enable successful lives. While negative freedoms only ask the government to get out of the way, positive freedoms require group vision.

Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms gave a positive vision. He gave a vision of a world that could be free from the horrors that he felt had led to worldwide collapse. Can the reader disagree? How many people have died in religious wars? How often do cruel dictators suppress free speech? How often do nations turn to war only because they fear someone else? And does not want (hunger—homelessness—despair) become a terrible force that drives people to desperate acts?

So, although Roosevelt did lay out policies that he wanted Congress to support, his real point was to offer a new concept. How, he asked, could we restructure the world to give people more successful lives? That is a positive vision. It is a vision that resonates today. It is a vision that leads to sharp disagreements today.

Earlier Post: Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech: A Lesson for Our Own Time

Earlier Post: Ronald Reagan Spoke on the Fourth of July: Celebrating Freedom, Shared Values, and Diversity

Four Freedoms Today?

As 2023 draws to its close, nations across the world—Hungary, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and others unwisely turn away from republican government to adopt authoritarian attitudes. In January 2021, the United States itself threatened to abandon constitutional government. Poverty still wracks even the most prosperous nations, and the marketing and unpacking of armaments rattles the world’s peace. Authoritarian forces are banning library books in the United States. Countless American children (not to mention world children) go to bed hungry. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms remain a distant, still-unattained goal. 


A Commitment to Freedom

All the same, it is a speaker’s privilege to propose seemingly unattainable goals. Roosevelt projected a seemingly remote future in which the world would seek economic and political justice. Roosevelt gave a vision. Can we, in our coming new year, move forward, as a world, to improve all our lives? Or will we let fear and jealousy rule use? The world is richer than ever, but can we learn to respect one another? To help one another? To Roosevelt, this was a positive vision. It was not a vision of mealy-mouthed liberal weakness, but a vision of power and strength.

For, behind the Four Freedoms, Roosevelt pledged his nation’s moral and military vigor. Accordingly, he concluded his vision of positive freedom with these breathtaking words:

“Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

“To that high concept there can be no end save victory.”

Roosevelt taught a powerful lesson to a world that was shattered by poverty, injustice, and war. He gave a powerful lesson to a world that, in 1941, faced unspeakable disaster. His lesson reaches us in the 21st Century. Will we listen? Or not?

Earlier Post: Abraham Lincoln and the Definition of “Liberty:” A Lesson for Our Time

Let us never forget the disaster of the 1940’s, nor let us forget the horrors that “strong” leaders inevitably create. Let us never forget the massive sacrifices that eventually brought a smashed world to a shaky peace. My own father received two battle stars in World War II, serving in North Africa and southern France. He survived uninjured; some of his best buddies were not so lucky. My father-in-law was a combat-disabled World War II veteran, torpedoed by a Nazi submarine. My mother never again enjoyed Christmas, not after her 19-year-old brother lost his life fighting Nazis on December 26, 1944 at the Battle of the Bulge. Perhaps 50 million people died before the war ended. The largest part of the dead were massacre victims. If the nation, the world, returns to authoritarianism, it will have callously discarded their sacrifices. If we fail to uplift one another in a positive way, we will have discarded Roosevelt's lesson. 

For, as Roosevelt told us, freedom means more than just being left alone. Freedom is not “just another word for nothin' left to lose.” Freedom, Roosevelt said, means to live in a world of justice.

__________________

Research Note: Several scholars have written about positive versus negative values. Kenneth Burke's The Rhetoric of Religion is a good place to start. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine

Tweeters Need Research: The Sad Case of Governor Abbott and the Christian Right

Just as speakers need to check their facts, so do politicians on social media. After the Houston Chronicle published an impassioned editorial to remind readers that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were political refugees, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas posted this obnoxious post on X (formerly Twitter):

“Chron doesn’t know the story of Mary & Joseph. They weren’t 'refugees' (look up definition)

Read Luke 2:1-10 They were ordered by the govt to go to Bethlehem to register for the census.

Nice distortion. Doing Devil’s work.”

Wow! “Devil’s work!” Strong words from a mass-going Catholic and scion of the Christian Right, who, evidently, needed to recheck the Bible. Reinforcing his ridicule, Abbott added 3 emoji of faces laughing themselves to tears. 

Did Abbott Read All of the Gospels? 

But Abbott did not do his research. For the Holy Family’s refugee story is found, not in the Gospel of Luke, as Abbott imagined, but in the Gospel of Matthew. That is, traveling among Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, as described in Luke, did not make Jesus and his family refugees. According to Matthew’s gospel, however, they escaped their country and fled to Egypt to escape political persecution from King Herod. That is what made them refugees, but that story is not found in the Gospel of Luke! There are two stories of the birth of Jesus Christ in the Gospel, and Christians know to read both.

Earlier Post: Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself (P.S.: Speakers Need Research)

So, in the second chapter of Matthew (so you don’t need to read very far), we read the story of the Wise Men (or Magi). The Magi came from the east, following a star. (Surely Abbott has heard about the Star of Bethlehem? But, then, maybe not). The Magi told King Herod that:

“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” (Matthew 2:6 KJV)

This disturbed Herod, who figured that he, not some upstart from Bethlehem, was governor of Judea. So, forging a crafty plan, Herod told the Magi:

“And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.” (Matthew 2:8 KJV)

The Magi found Jesus and gave him gifts of “gold, and frankincense, and myrrh” (Matthew 2:11 KJV).  However, being warned in a dream, the Magi did not return to Herod and took another road home. Enraged, malicious, and fearful (like most dictators), Herod ordered that all boys under the age of two should be put to the sword (Matthew 2:16). This would, he figured, ensure that the future upstart governor would meet his end. 

Escaping to Egypt to Avoid Political Execution

The Holy Family foiled Herod’s plot, however, for Jesus, Mary, and Joseph became political refugees. Having been warned in a dream, Joseph collected his family and fled to Egypt to avoid Herod’s slaughter. They remained there, safe from political persecution, until the king died:

“And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

“When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:13-14 KJV).

After Herod’s death, Joseph received another dream (many dreams in this story) that Herod had died. Joseph took his family to Nazareth, and the gospel narrative continued.

Earlier Post: Romans 13, Jeff Sessions, and the Cultural Heritage of Conservative Immigration Policy

Research Is Important

So, let the reader recognize Governor Abbott's astonishing arrogance. Not only did he fail to make even the most minimal effort to look at the biblical accounts of Jesus’ birth, but he snarked at the Houston Chronicle’s writers, who obviously had read the Bible. Abbot said: 

“Nice distortion. Doing Devil’s work.”

Just as speakers need research, so do politicians who post on social media.

Nativity Scene, Shepherds on Left, Magi on the Right

It is, on the one hand, bizarre that Governor Abbott, who loves to appeal to conservative Christian voters, did not know the familiar story. After all, almost every Christmas creche scene features the Magi (Gospel of Matthew) visiting the baby Jesus, lying in a manger (Gospel of Luke), right next to the shepherds (Gospel of Luke) who also paid a call. Still, on the other hand, Abbot’s mistake reminds us of the object lesson: that we should check our facts before we speak.

The sad part is that Abbott’s obviously cruel, inaccurate account of the Bible story might gain him votes from the Christian Right. 

______________________

P.S. The underlying complexity, of course, arises because a narrative of Jesus’ birth only appears in two places in the Bible. In Matthew, we encounter the Star of Bethlehem, the Magi (or Wise Men), the flight to Egypt, and the slaughter of the innocents. In Luke, we read the Magnificat. We then find (still in Luke) that Jesus was laid in a manger and was visited by shepherds, following which the family traveled peacefully to Jerusalem and Nazareth. Abbott is aware, obviously, that the Gospel of Luke does not feature any political refugees. If only Abbott had also read Matthew, the very first book of the New Testament! 

The Magi, of course, were priests of the Zoroastrian faith.

As the reader can see, the different accounts of Jesus’ birth are, well, different, and I will let theologians argue about whether they are, or are not consistent, as well as whether they do, or do not, possess any verifiable historical accuracy. Anyway, today (December 30) is the traditional fifth day of Christmas (the count starts on December 26 for some traditional reason), so, maybe, if you are lucky, your true love will give you five golden rings today. One can always hope!

The Chronicle gave a polite, well-argued response to Abbott’s attack. 

My wife, Dr. Elaine Clanton Harpine, bough the pictured lovely, hand-carved nativity scene while she was still in school.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine

Nativity Scene Image: William D. Harpine, © 2023

President Ursula von der Leyen Attacked Antisemitism

On December 11, 2023, during the lighting of the Euro-Chanukah, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen quoted the traditional saying:

“The darkness of the whole world cannot swallow the glowing of a candle.”

This European ceremonial lighting marked the start of the Jewish celebration of the lights. Addressing the horrors of antisemitism, von der Leyen redefined the controversial concept of diversity. Drawing unity from diversity, she stood in the long tradition of speakers who find truth in the rhetorical trope of paradox.

Von der Leyen began her brief speech by extending the Jewish tradition to all peoples:

“Chanukah is of course an ancient Jewish tradition. But I believe it speaks to all human beings.” [italics added]

Von der Leyen’s simple statement contradicts our usual concept of diversity. For we most often say that we must find a way to create unity despite diversity. She insisted, instead, that diversity creates unity.

A paradox reveals hidden truths behind a seeming contradiction. Diversity and unity would seem to undermine one another. Yet, von der Leyen insisted that religious diversity created unity in European political affairs, that it pulled Europeans together. Thus, antisemitism becomes, in contrast, a cruel force that tears Europeans away from one another.

Having stated that basic value, von der Leyen remarked about the horrifying rise of antisemitism in Europe:

“An old evil is resurfacing in Europe. Swastikas have been painted on the homes of Jews. Synagogues have been vandalised. Jewish children have been locked in their schools because the streets are not safe for them.”

Earlier Post: Donald Trump's Awkward Speech about Antisemitism

Von der Leyen reminded her audience that the festival represented Jewish freedom of religion against persecution. This argument led her to speak for a public policy, she advocated protecting all places of worship, beginning with synagogues. She also advocated policies that suppressed hate speech on the Internet. Like many ceremonial speakers before her, she used values to support a political program.

Finally, von der Leyen returned to her opening paradox, to find “unity in diversity:”

“Europe stands for ‘united in diversity’. For centuries, European Jews have shaped our common heritage. Think of Marc Chagall and Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Rahel Hirsch and Hannah Arendt. And you still do shape our common heritage. This is why we will create a new award to celebrate Jewish cultural heritage. Because Jewish culture is a blessing to Europe, and we should all know more about it.”

Opposition to diversity, in general, and antisemitism, in particular, does not just strike at Europe. For, in the United States of America, the very concept of unity has openly created anger and discord. Von der Leyen did not merely say that we should accept diversity. She said that diversity created unity. She said that the fact that we have different religions and beliefs creates strength, not division. It was antisemitism, she insisted, not diversity, that drove people apart.

This thought led von der Leyen to look toward a hopeful future in which we would return to an “age-old value:”

“We must bring new energy to our age-old value of unity in diversity. This is also the spirit of Chanukah. It is not only a celebration of the past but a time to renew our hopes for the future with the confidence that ‘weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning’.”

Her quotation was from Psalm 30 in the Hebrew Scriptures. At no time did von der Leyen deny the growing horrors of antisemitism. Instead, she looked for hope by returning to ancient values.

As a United States citizen, I found myself struck by the calm, morally assured vision that von der Leyen brought to the growing religious and political conflicts that seek to disrupt the modern world. She redefined how we think about diversity. She gave a rhetorical lesson that the entire world can heed. Are we listening?

Earlier Post: Ursula von der Leyen Warned Us of the Totalitarian Winds

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

___________________

Theoretical note: A trope (such as “paradox”) is a linguistic device that changes the way we use or think about a word or phrase. This article gives a quick rundown of tropes. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine

University Presidents Needed Better Communication Skills during the Congressional Hearing. Here Are Some Tips.

Harvard University

“What action has been taken against students who are harassing and calling for the genocide of Jews on Harvard's campus?”

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asked that seemingly simple question of Harvard President Claudine Gay.

At the December 7, 2023 congressional hearings to investigate antisemitism on campus, three top university presidents were called on the carpet and lambasted by Stefanik because they upheld the right of certain students to express deeply unpopular opinions. In particular, some anti-Israel students were speaking and demonstrating for a holy war and the destruction of Israel. Many Jewish students were feeling threatened, to say the least.

In accordance with the law, the university presidents were right, and the Republicans were just plain wrong. Free speech in America is almost absolute, and hate speech, pretty much no matter how awful, is legal. There is no hate speech exception to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the university presidents allowed themselves to be bullied. They made factual but ineffectual responses to the Republicans’ questions. The public is in an uproar and almost everyone, from left to right, sides with Stefanik against the university presidents. What could the presidents have done better?

Let’s look at a few examples. I’ll focus on the well-publicized, much-maligned performance of Harvard President Claudine Gay. Dr. Gay needed to be more precise on the facts, while she also needed to reset the abusive process while projecting more confidence.

When someone asks a question, phrase the responses precisely. 

Stefanik asked Gay:

“Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard’s code of conduct or is it allowed at Harvard?”

That sounds like a fair question, doesn’t it? Gay droned her rote response:

“We embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. It’s when that speech crosses into conduct that it violates our policies against bullying ….”

At that point, Stefanik interrupted and shouted that anti-Jewish hate did cross that boundary. Now, under the First Amendment law, which applies to colleges and universities under various court rulings, Stefanik was wrong. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the First Amendment protects hate speech.

Previous Post: Elise Stefanik Was Wrong, and Hateful Speakers Are Allowed on Campus

Calling for genocide is horrible, but it is not an immediate, specific threat, and therefore it’s constitutionally protected speech. Gay’s response was right out of the legal handbook and was, I imagine, briefed for her by Harvard’s legal department.

Unfortunately, Gay’s response sounded vague and impassive. She droned legal platitudes in a slow, distracted voice. Could she have done better? Well, yes, she could have done much better. Try this, for example:

Hypothetical response: “As an institution of higher education, Harvard is absolutely required to obey the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. The courts have emphatically ruled that even extremely horrible speech is protected by the First Amendment. In fact, we cannot make a rule that prohibits vile and offensive speech, because the courts have ruled over and over that hate speech must be allowed.”

That would be a better response because it states the reasoning behind the rules that Harvard follows. 

Challenge the abusive questioning process.

However, as the reader will recall, Stefanik had interrupted Gay, blocking her attempt to respond. That abused the communication process. So, here is another hypothetical response. After being interrupted, Gay could have said:

Hypothetical Response: smile and ask, “I would very much like to answer your question. May I do so?”

If that doesn’t work, it would be time to get a bit more vigorous, but still sounding self-disciplined:

Hypothetical Response: “Congresswoman, you are asking important questions and short, glib answers are not going to be adequate; may I please answer your question?”

More forceful hypothetical response: 

Hypothetical Response: “Congresswoman, with due respect to your high office, why are you asking important questions if you won’t let me explain my answer?”

Or, if that doesn’t work:

Emphatic Hypothetical Response: “Congresswoman, you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the First Amendment is part of the Constitution. Since you studied government at Harvard, I expect you to understand the First Amendment. May I explain how the courts have ruled on these questions?”

If the speaker gets badly irked:

Hypothetical response: “Congresswoman, you are asking questions that I’d like to answer thoughtfully. But every time I try, you interrupt and shout at me. May I please answer your question?”

 
If you are being vague, explain why you cannot be specific. 

Speakers, like Dr. Gay, need to be careful when they use technical terms. Otherwise, their arguments get lost. Gay confused her listeners with a technical term about education law. Stefanik asked: “What actions have been taken against those students?” Gay’s response:

“Given students’ rights to privacy and our obligations under FERPA, I will not say more about any specific cases other than to reiterate that processes are ongoing.”

The overall public neither knows nor cares about FERPA. However, everybody in higher education has been drilled about FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974). When I worked at universities, we were all required to pass periodic FERPA training. This federal law strictly protects student privacy. Among many other things, FERPA covers student disciplinary procedures, even in extreme cases, and university personnel may not violate student privacy by sharing the results or processes of student discipline.

I had plenty of experience with this. Even parents are often ineligible to see their children’s records (Congress passed a bunch of arcane rules about parents’ rights.) I sometimes had to tell parents that I could not answer questions about their children. Remarkably, when the FBI and Navy recruiters came to ask us about various students over the years, they needed to show the university’s records office that they had the student’s written permission or a lawful subpoena. Seriously. Worse, I served on university disciplinary boards for years. FERPA makes the disciplinary procedures confidential. FERPA is one tough law. 

Anyway, after hearing about FERPA, Stefanik soon gave this angry response: “This is why I’ve called for your resignation, and your testimony today, not being able to answer with more clarity, speaks volumes.” That was nonsense. There was no reason for Dr. Gay to put up with that. Try this:

Hypothetical Response: “Congresswoman, I am not responsible for the laws Congress passed to protect student privacy. These disciplinary procedures are totally confidential under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. I didn’t pass the law; Congress did. I regret that it is illegal for me to answer your question. If you don’t like the law, you, and not I, are in a position to change it. That’s because you’re in Congress, and I am not. I don’t see why you want to fire me just because you don’t like a law that Congress passed.”

That specific answer would, I would hope, at least calm Stefanik’s bullying. 


Change the ground of the debate

The winner of a debate is the side that sets the ground. That is, the winner is not necessarily the side that has the best issues, but, more often, the side that decides what questions to ask. Stefanic laid her groundwork by making wild accusations and refusing to let Dr. Gay explain her answers. On that ground, she will win every time. Gay sounded awkward and intimidated, and her answers were just too safe.

You can’t stop a congressional bully by uttering vague platitudes that your lawyer fed you. You need to be specific. You need to reset the debate on your own ground. Put the burden back on Congress, where it belongs. How about:

Hypothetical Response: “The things that are going on are often awful, but we at Harvard must follow the law. If you don’t like the law, if you are against a high level of free speech and assembly, if you don’t think students should have a legal right to privacy, which of us is in a position to change the law? Because it isn’t the President of Harvard.”

I’m sure that Stefanik would continue to yell, but the debate would now be on more even ground.


Delivery

Also, delivery matters. Cicero said so thousands of years ago. It’s still true. Dr. Gay was quiet and hesitant, and she seemed flustered. Of course that doesn’t work. You can’t be obsequious in front of a bully any more than you can lie down in front of an angry German shepherd. Dr. Gay needed to speak up. She didn’t need to shout like Stefanik, but she needed to sound confident and self-assured. Stop leaning into the microphone. Sit up straight. Take your glasses off and wave them around. (That worked for President Dwight Eisenhower, who was also soft-spoken.) Have a copy of the Constitution in your hand (preferably on yellowed fake parchment) and rattle it in front of the microphone. Get off the defense. Defensive speakers lose. Take charge. Sound like you are in charge. Help the audience see that Stefanic was behaving poorly. Presentation counts.

Stefanic was trying to use Gay for a stage puppet, so don’t sound like a puppet.


Counterplay

Anyone who has followed Republican politics, even at the most superficial level, could have predicted everything that Stefanik said during this hearing. Gay did not sound as if she cared about the Jewish students. Her responses were vague and sounded guarded. She needed to say more to show she cared. Dr. Gay needed counterplay. 

Gay also needed to show that she cared about Jewish students who felt intimidated by campus demonstrations. Harvard had already established on-campus programs to deal with antisemitism and these were well publicized on campus. Gay should have talked more about programs for students who felt victimized by campus events.

Indeed, she should have set up even more such programs, however hastily, before she traveled to the Capitol. Have these universities done enough to protect students and to guarantee a safe learning situation? I think not. Jewish and other students have every reason to be distressed, even though this ridiculous congressional hearing didn’t get to any authentic issues. I’ll try to write soon about communication solutions that are legal and might help the situation.

Gay could, and probably should have, given a pre-Congress, on-campus, open-to-all speech in which she criticized demonstrators who had become hostile, while, at the same time, making sure that the campus understood that the demonstrators had strong First Amendment rights. (She had already given written statements to the Harvard community, although they were probably too vague to punch through the controversies.)

Hypothetical campus speech: “I deplore these awful demonstrations and I condemn their message, but I will defend to my last breath the protestors' constitutional right to assemble  and speak as long as they are peaceful. I will defend any of your rights the same way.”

Too late for all of that. Propaganda won, I guess.


Conclusion

But did propaganda need to win? On the one hand, academic people tend to be diffident. Even aggressive academics, like university presidents, tend to be more controlled than the general public. On the other hand, many politicians are confrontational. That does not mean that the university presidents needed to disintegrate as they did. There are many ways to confront bullies, and they don’t require a person to act like a bully in return. Maybe my ideas will help a congressional witness in the future.

I will end with a personal story. 

After retiring from his career as an attorney with the Department of the Interior, my father did volunteer legal work with the American Association of Retired People. His role was to represent indigent Americans who had been unjustly deprived of their Social Security benefits. It was a hard job, with wins and losses. President George H. W. Bush gave him a Points of Light Award for his service. In the course of his work with the AARP, my father testified before a congressional committee. A conservative southern congressman went off on a rant about useless government bureaucrats and wasteful government spending. (You’ve heard all that many times, I’m sure.) This irked my father, who responded like this:

I am proud of my government service. I am proud of my service in the Army during World War II and Korea. I am proud of my two battle stars. I am proud of my 25 years with the Department of the Interior.

The congressman apologized.

So, bullies don’t need to win. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine

Image of Harvard University: David Adam Kress, Creative Commons License

Elise Stefanik Was Wrong, and Hateful Speakers Are Legally Allowed on Campus. Universities Can't Stop Them Even if They Want to.

Bill of Rights, National Archives

Anti-Israel protestors on university campuses are sometimes saying terrible, evil, awful things. As we learned in yesterday’s congressional hearings, some members of Congress want universities to stop that.  Sorry, nope, universities have no legal power to stop peaceful speech or demonstrations, no matter how offensive they might be. The Constitution protects even the vilest protests. Can Harvard President Claudine Gay, who was vigorously questioned in yesterday’s hearing, actually stop, restrict, or punish anti-Israel or anti-Semitic protests? No. That would actually be illegal.

As the Massachusetts court system explained in 2017:

“The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and the press. There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.”

At yesterday’s hearing, several Republicans, notably including skilled conspiracy theorist Elise Stefanik, lambasted three university presidents because they had failed to stop angry anti-Israel, anti-Jewish demonstrations. She accused the presidents of a “lack of moral clarity.” Don’t those demonstrations violate the code of conduct, she asked? Are the protestors being punished? Why are universities allowing hate speech? In turn, the university presidents responded by mumbling, explaining complexities, citing the privacy laws that Congress itself had passed, and evading the questions. After my many years of experience in higher education, I can assure you that the presidents carefully parroted everything the university’s legal team told them to say. Stefanik stomped on them as if they were bugs and she was the exterminator. Members of the public and press, from left to right, have almost universally sided with Stefanik and against the universities. 

There’s only one problem: under American law, the university presidents were absolutely correct. Stefanik was embarrassingly wrong. Hate speech is awful—that’s why we call it hate speech—but the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment erect an almost impenetrable shield that protects people who express their views, even when those views amount to hate speech. In our system of government, the only cure for evil speech is to respond with truthful, noble speech. Since almost all universities accept federal financial aid, they are, in general, just as obligated to protect free speech, including wicked speech, as any government agency. Exceptions are few, few, few.

So, let’s look at the law. The First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It says, “no law.” It does not say, “no law unless we are offended.” The Fourteenth Amendment carries the same protection to the state level. Free speech specialist Crag R. Smith points out that speech, including hate speech, falls under the First Amendment’s protection. If hate speech represents a viewpoint, the Constitution protects it. Smith mentions the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which ruled that an Ohio law against violent speech was unconstitutional. In that case, the Supreme Court vacated the conviction of a member of the Ku Klux Klan who threatened to commit violence against certain groups of people. 

In the Brandenburg case, a group of armed Klansman said things like this: they threatened to bury Black people, they said “Send the Jews back to Israel,” and they stated that a Black man would need “to fight for every inch he gets from now on.” These were obviously awful things to say, but they did not embody any direct threat to a particular person and, therefore, ruled the Court, the Constitution protected them. Indeed, the court stated that “A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” [italics added] 

“Imminent lawless action” is an extremely rigorous standard; otherwise, free expression of offensive speech must be upheld. The Court’s ruling was unanimous.

In a more recent case, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court found that the First Amendment protects such hateful symbols as cross burning and displaying Nazi symbols. The court firmly ruled that the city could not outlaw cross-burning under the stated reasons, although cross-burning could be prosecuted as trespassing, arson, or whatever, according to the circumstances. 

Earlier Post: Conservatives Think Controversial or Offensive Speakers Should Appear on Campus


Overall, as The Law Dictionary summarizes, no law in the United States restricts hate speech:

“In the United States, there are no laws against hate speech. Due to rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, a person can say just about anything he or she wants to another person or group. By itself, such speech is allowed to take place without penalty under the law.

“A person hurling insults, making rude statements, or disparaging comments about another person or group is merely exercising his or her right to free speech. This is true even if the person or group targeted by the speaker is a member of a protected class. According to U.S. law, such speech is fully permissible and is not defined as hate speech.”

Similarly, attorney Lee Rowland shows that students and faculty on campus have free speech rights, and these rights do not bend when speech becomes hateful, disgusting, or offensive:

“As a general matter, when people use the term hate speech, they’re often referring to identifiably hateful, often racist or sexist speech that demeans people based on characteristics they can’t change. Under the First Amendment, that language, no matter how disgusting or offensive we find it, and I certainly do, is still protected. That doesn’t change on a public campus.”

Since no right is absolute, there are a few exceptions. In terms of college campuses, Smith points out that hostile environments create a different situation. If you are subjected to harassment in the workplace or in class, where you have no recourse to leave, you are protected. In those cases, the victim is trapped in what is called a “captive audience,” where protection against harassment is available. Harassment is one of the very few exceptions to absolute freedom of speech. We’ve already talked about “imminent lawless action.”

Earlier Post: Conservatives Object to a School Song about Rainbows

Under the United States of America’s Constitution and laws, as repeatedly emphasized and supported by federal courts, we have almost unlimited rights to express political opinions and other opinions. It makes no difference how awful or offensive other people might find them. The fact that anti-Semitic speakers appear on campus and speak, wave signs, and shout that Israel should be destroyed makes the students wrong, but it does not mean that the university itself is anti-Semitic. It only means that people have a Constitutional right to speak. And universities have no legal right to stop them.

__________

P.S. I will soon post more about this topic, including suggestions as to how the university presidents could have responded to Stefanik more effectively. 

__________

Important note: I am not an attorney, and this essay is not legal advice. My only purpose is to comment on the rhetoric of this dispute, and not to tell you what you should or should not do if you face a free speech situation. Free speech law is complicated; no right is absolute, and there are exceptions to all our rights. I am not qualified to guide you on those issues. If you have a free speech decision or need accurate information about your rights, see an attorney. As my late father (who was an attorney) liked to say, “Don’t do something and then ask me if it was legal. Ask me before you do it!” 

It could be noted that Harvard, like many schools, promises free expression to its students and this, as I understand it, is a legal obligation. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright ©, William D. Harpine

Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech: A Lesson for Our Own Time

Today is the anniversary of Japan’s December 7, 1941 attack on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor. The next day, December 8th, President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke in Congress to ask for a declaration of war. His speech’s eloquence has often been admired. Let us instead, look, today, at Roosevelt’s supreme, absolute expression of confidence. Together with that absolute confidence, Roosevelt promised that the United States would never again be vulnerable to treachery. A nation’s first requirement is to offer security to its citizens. As the United States today faces terrible threats both from within and without, let us remember that key message. Roosevelt’s speech had a message for us in 2023, if we are willing to listen.


The Promise of Victory

At the time of crisis that December 7 created, Roosevelt saw no need to persuade Congress that we were at war. The war had come. Instead, Roosevelt promised that the United States of America would use all its resources and efforts to defeat the enemy. He proposed a commitment:

“No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.”

That simple statement reminded Congress—and the people—that the road to victory would be long. He stated the “righteous might” of Americans, while promising an outcome of “absolute victory.”

At the same time, I cannot help but to be impressed by Roosevelt’s expression of humility: he did not arrogantly say that he had the right to speak for all of America. Instead, he said that “I believe.” He stated his belief that he was following the people’s will, not that he had a right to change their will to agree with his. A leader, not a dictator.

Never Again!

Also, and equally striking, Roosevelt promised that the United States would forever more protect itself against similar unprovoked attacks. He did not just commit himself, but all future leaders to safeguard the United States of America:

“I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.” [italics added]

Sadly, not all presidents since remembered Roosevelt’s promise. The September 11 terrorist attacks against New York and Washington caught us flat-footed. I fear that we are not taking enough precautions about the insidious attacks against our elections that foreign actors launch using social media. The Mueller Report, which examined Russian interference in the 2020 election, documented those attacks with great precision; sadly, however, his message was lost in a cacophony of political turmoil. 

A nation like the United States of America must protect its values of representative government and personal liberties during wartime. That poses a difficult challenge, and no president has met it with perfection. Roosevelt recognized, however, that every government must protect its people against foreign invasions. His warning passed through his own time to the future, and we, today, are the future.

Later today, I intend to write about Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s reminder that, ever since World War II, the leadership of the United States has been fundamental to world order and the fight against oppression. That is another part of Roosevelt’s message that we may have forgotten: to be “righteous.”  

Take a moment, please, to remember the 2,403 Americans who died at the Pearl Harbor raid, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans, including my teenage uncle, whose lives were lost fighting in the war that followed: not to mention the millions of service people, including my father and father-in-law, who served during the terrible, worldwide conflict. Let us also remember that cruelty can give way to hope, as the United States has today become fast friends with our former enemies of Japan, Italy, and Germany. Is not peace with justice the cure for war?

by William D. Harpine

________________

Earlier Post, discusses Roosevelt's use of epideictic speech methods:  Franklin Roosevelt's War Message, December 8, 1941

________________

Research Note: There are many excellent academic studies of Roosevelt’s speech. This superb article by Herman Stelzner, which was required in communication graduate schools back in my day, is a classic: Hermann G. Stelzner (1966) “'War Message,' December 8, 1941: An Approach to Language," Speech Monographs, 33:4, 419-437. Although it is behind a paywall, many large libraries can access it from their databases. 

Copyright ©  2023, William D. Harpine

Hitler, the Harbinger of the Modern Christian Right, Gave His Inaugural Speech

When he gave his inaugural speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933, the day he assumed power as Reich-Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler laid out a comprehensive economic, political, and religious program. As the founding member of the modern Christian Right, Hitler insisted that Germany could be saved, not by Marxism’s materialistic philosophy, but only by unselfishly sharing Christian values. His speech laid out a moral calling. It was a twisted moral calling, but his moral calling bore enough similarities to the Christian Right of today that it is worth a look. . 

To be sure, Hitler’s version of Christian morality never mentioned mercy, forgiveness, salvation, or generosity. Instead, Hitler talked about Christianity as a social grouping. The nation could achieve unity and solidarity by working from a religious heritage. Christianity was, to Hitler, first and foremost, a movement that could correct the movement toward Marxism. Adherence to Christian groupings could, he explained, bring individual families into solidarity. Christianity could enhance national loyalty. Hitler’s Christianity was about unity as a common people. Other religions were rejected as incompatible with the unity that Christianity could provide. In contrast to Marxism, which was materialistic, Christianity could, Hitler explained, move the German people into a sense of commonality: “Volk,” as he said.

Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us What We Should Have Known All Along: There Are Two Different Christianities

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

From context, Hitler’s inaugural address promised to restore Christian virtue to correct what he called the damaging encroachments of democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, all of which he painted with the same brush. The speech laid out a strict dichotomy: atheism or Christianity (as Hitler defined Christianity), no other ground being conceivable. 


Marxism as the Disease?

To Hitler, Marxism was the disease that rotted the German public. Hitler’s thesis was to advocate the so-called Enabling Act, which effectively dissolved the German legislature and gave the chancellor’s cabinet almost unlimited political power. The law’s necessity lay in what Hitler said was the post-World War I Weimar Republic’s decision to adopt Marxist rule:

“In November 1918, the Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a Revolution. The monarchs were dethroned, the authorities of Reich and Länder removed from office, and thus a breach of the Constitution was committed.”

Indeed, steeped in religious symbolism, Hitler called Marxism “this demonical doctrine.”

Marxism, Hitler insisted, eroded German will by driving people toward material goods rather than encouraging loyalty to nation and family. Hitler laid out a stark contrast between the evils of Marxism, which he contrasted with the noble foundations of (his version of) Christian morality. He called those opposing views “irreconcilably opposite.” Indeed, he insisted that liberal philosophy of any kind inevitably led to “communist chaos:”

“Filled with the conviction that the causes of this collapse lie in internal damage to the body of our Volk, the Government of the National Revolution aims to eliminate the afflictions from our völkisch life which would, in future, continue to foil any real recovery. The disintegration of the nation into irreconcilably opposite Weltanschauungen which was systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism means the destruction of the basis for any possible community life.

“The dissolution permeates all of the basic principles of social order. The completely opposite approaches of the individuals to the concepts of state, society, religion, morality, family, and economy rips open differences which will lead to a war of all against all. Starting with the liberalism of the past century, this development will end, as the laws of nature dictate, in Communist chaos.” [italics added]

Liberalism, communism, democracy, moral evil—in Hitler’s terms, these were all the same disease. Could Christianity cure that disease?


Christianity as the Cure?

Indeed, to resolve Marxism’s horrors, Hitler insisted that Christian moral values would permeate the Reich’s government. Christianity would, Hitler said, reinforce family loyalties while encouraging patriotism. Atheism would have no part. Indeed, his government would employ Christians exclusively:

“The advantages in personnel policy which might result from compromises with atheist organizations do not come close to offsetting the results which would become apparent in the general destruction of basic moral values.

“The National Government perceives in the two Christian confessions the most important factors for the preservation of our Volkstum. It will respect any contracts concluded between these Churches and the Länder.”

Thus, Hitler laid out a strict dichotomy between Christians and atheists, as the only two possibilities that the Reich could envision. (The “two Christian confessions” were, presumably, the Catholic and Protestant faiths.)

To implement his approach, Hitler did not support the separation of church and state, but, rather, an “honest coexistence:”

“The Government’s concern lies in an honest coexistence between Church and State; the fight against a materialist Weltanschauung and for a genuine Volksgemeinschaft equally serves both the interests of the German nation and the welfare of our Christian faith.” [italics added]

Hitler’s religious views extended to foreign policy towards the Vatican, the headquarters of the Roman Catholic faith. This was not merely a political convenience; no, on the contrary, the Christian faith must be, Hitler emphasized, the nation’s “unshakable foundation:”

“Similarly, the Reich Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the ethics and morality of the Volk, places great value on friendly relations with the Vatican and attempts to develop them.”

That is, although Christian sects had long squared off against one another, Hitler’s goal was religious unity. A conflict between Christian churches could only weaken his political control. It was not Hitler’s purpose to take sides in doctrinal disputes (about which he could not have cared less), but to use the Christian faith to survey common ground and encourage German nationalism.

Overall, like many American and European conservative speakers today, Hitler harshly attacked communism while offering the Christian faith as the exclusive saving alternative.

The Christian Right

The Christian Right of today continues to view Christianity as spiritual warfare. Instead of emphasizing moral social behavior, Christian Right leaders often talk about a war between Christians, defended by conservative leaders, and demonic forces, supposedly defended by liberals. For example, minister Paula White said this about Donald Trump:

“Let every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus.” [italics added] 

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

White unwittingly echoed Hitler’s definition of Christianity, making Christianity a force that protected people from liberal values. Similarly, Rev. Robert Jeffress prayed (on Twitter!) about warfare between liberals and Christianity:

“Thank God for a President like @realDonaldTrump who is intent on protecting our great country from anarchists who are trying to destroy it. As the Bible says, ‘Sin is lawlessness’ (1 John 3:4).”

If such views are popular today, is it any wonder that Germany, which was in 1933 still wracked by the Great Depression, found Hitler’s view so inspiring? Hitler roundly condemned communism, which, in the wake of Stalin’s purges, was renowned for violence and cruelty. Renouncing Marxist materialism, Hitler spoke for German unity based on nation, family, and the Christian faith. 

Conclusion

Avoiding doctrinal disputes, Hitler expressed profound acceptance of all versions of Christianity. That made perfect sense, as it was Christianity’s social power, not its teachings, that moved him to speak. 
Thus, Hitler found Germany’s salvation, not in physical power, but in a common religious perspective.

In his personal life, Hitler was no more active in religion than, for example, American presidents Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, who were both darlings of the American Christian Right. Indeed, at no time in the speech did Hitler take a stand on such Christian values as compassion, forgiveness, mercy to foreigners, or the like. Instead, Hitler twisted Christian morality to become the salvation of a nation that faced, he said, great danger from Marxist wickedness.

So, Hitler’s speech was not about what Christianity was for. His speech was about what Christianity was against, and what it was against was Marxism. Similarly, Hitler downplayed the Enabling Act’s destruction of democratic checks and balances. Instead, he called Germans to national unity and moral recovery.

Conservatives have long called their opponents communists, regardless of any conflicting details. In 1933, this was absurd on its face. The Weimar Republic, although incompetent and ineffectual, was no more a Marxist organization than was Nazism. Although Hitler’s speech made only vague references to Judaism, it is remarkable that he found morality only in the Christian faith, ignoring the larger Judeo-Christian tradition. Of course, although the Holocaust would not adopt its full horrors for another eight years, Hitler had long before laid out his deep hatred of German Jews.

Unfortunately, false dichotomies can kill. Just over 12 years after this stirring speech, Hitler’s Reich collapsed in disgrace, its promises shattered by war. Hitler committed suicide, leaving Germany in a smoking ruin. His name today is a synonym for evil. 

Hitler’s rhetorical success sounds a stark warning for our own century. Germany in 1933 was industrialized, a center of religion, philosophy, education, music, and art. If Hitler could convince Germany to quash democracy with a single vote of the legislature, to make Christianity a unifying political force, to implement a stark dichotomy, a sort of spiritual warfare, between Christianity, on the one hand, and Marxism on the other, excluding all possible room in the middle—well, if that kind of rhetoric could work in Germany, it could work anywhere. It could work, once again, in western Europe. It could work in the United States of America. How slow we are, indeed, to remember history’s simplest lessons.

By William D. Harpine

_______________

P.S. Historical predecessors of the Christian Right are not hard to find. See this example.

_______________

Copyright © William D. Harpine

President Biden Gave a Speech for Two Turkeys and Used it to Draw Our Nation Together in Common Cause

Joe Biden, White House photo

A standard and absolutely ridiculous United States custom is for the President of the United States to kick off Thanksgiving season by offering a presidential pardon to two turkeys. This year, the turkeys were named Liberty and Bell. Rising above the silly situation, Biden used the opportunity to give a short speech to remind us of American values and ambition. He asked us to work together. He gave a good message. Is anyone listening? For Biden reminded a nation (a nation that is not listening) of this great commonplace:

“… let us remind ourselves that we are blessed to live in the greatest nation on this face of the Earth. (Applause.)”

Biden wandered happily along, praising the Liberty Bell, honoring Americans who have passed away, and praising the farmers who provide the magnificent harvests for which we are so grateful today.

Critically, however, Biden ended his speech by asking Americans to overcome the divisions that have marked us so harshly:

“And let’s remember: We are the United States of America, and there is nothing — nothing, nothing — I mean this sincerely — nothing beyond our capacity when we work together. We’ve never come out of a situation, a bad circumstance not — without being better off when we come through it. And this is always who we are as Americans.”  [italics added]

As American politics are increasingly wracked, not only by political conflict, but by increasing numbers of bizarre conspiracy theories, Biden reminded all of us that we can accomplish anything “when we work together.” With so many Americans today denigrating the very concept of government, Biden’s message that we need to work together in unity resonates with depth and power.

Of course, a simple speech honoring two turkeys attracts little attention from the public. Is that Biden’s fault? Or is it ours? Should he have made his point on a better occasion? Should he have spoken more forcefully? Or should we and the press listen more carefully? The press meekly notes that the president participated in a silly ritual. Ignoring the values lesson, Fox News obsessed that Biden mixed up entertainers Taylor Swift and Britney Spears.

President Biden expressed an important value, the value of common cause, but his mild, positive speech could hardly compete with the cacophony of conspiracy theories about the January 6th Capitol riots or Donald Trump’s wild promises to imprison his political opponents. While manufactured outrage dominates our political discourse, simple patriotism fades into the distance. Is it too late? Or can we, indeed, accomplish anything if we work together? Or, is no one listening?

by William D. Harpine

Earlier Posts:

Joe Biden's Juneteenth Speech Used Values to Support Policies

Was Biden Divisive When He Defended Constitutional Government?

________________

Alternate transcript of Biden's talk. 

________________

Copyright © William D. Harpine

Ursula von der Leyen Warned Us of the Totalitarian Winds

Ursula von der Leyen

Sometimes even the tritest metaphor brings great power to a public speech. Metaphors express our values. So, we might ask, how are the winds of history blowing? What about the attacks that totalitarian regimes launch against seemingly stable democracies? On October 19, 2023, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC. She warned the assemblage that freedom was under worldwide attack. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the outbreak of violence between Hamas and Israel especially alarmed her. Winds, she said? No, she insisted, the attack on freedom was at “gale force:”

“The winds are not just blowing today. Today, they are at gale force. Our democracies are under sustained and systemic attack by those who abhor freedom because it threatens their rule. For more than 600 days now, our friends in Ukraine have been fighting and dying for their freedom against Russian aggression. And now, Israel has suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history, and the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust.” [italics supplied]

Von der Leyen pointed out the common barbarity of Hamas and Russia in their terrible wars:

“Russia and Hamas are alike. As President Zelenskyy has said their ‘essence is the same”. Both have deliberately sought out innocent civilians, including babies and children, to kill and take hostage.”

Continuing her argument, von der Leyen insisted that the winds of evil can be stopped. The defeat of representative government is not written in stone. As she reminded the Institute, the democratic nations defeated fascist forces around the world during World War II:

“We have not forgotten that in World War II, democracy won over fascism and autocracy. This triumph set the foundation of our peace order. And this is not only about the past, but it will also define our future.”

So, von der Leyen was right. We must learn from the past. We look to the past to understand the future. We rely on our basic values. So often, people think that authoritarian and fascist governments are stronger than the world’s democracies and constitutional republics. History emphatically refutes that view. She reminded her conservative audience that the historical lesson rings true today.

In the United States Congress, support for the Ukrainians is under emphatic attack from major Republican leaders, while a few Democrats have expressed reluctance about supporting Israel in its fight against Hamas. Surely, while she never mentioned names, von der Leyen timed her speech well.

Why Do Republicans Praise Vladimir Putin in Their Speeches?

The foreign policy implications of current world conflicts are complex, and I have no foreign policy expertise. Still, can we remember von der Leyen’s metaphor, that “gale force” winds are attacking the world order that has brought us prosperity and which has kept us free from World War for decades. She stated to all of us that history is on the side of freedom. She reminded us that vicious, murderous regimes bring their countries to bad ends.

The Hudson Institute is a conservative think tank that is sometimes associated with the neocon movement. Von der Leyen, a voice for European conservativism, called for unity, not discord, between Europe and the United States and the struggle for freedom. Her simple metaphor of “gale force” winds reminds all of us that we face horrible challenges.

European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Peace, justice, and prosperity must always be supported by wisdom. The speech received little attention in the United States, despite the influential audience to which she addressed it. The American press is more interested in Biden’s gaffes or Donald Trump’s temper tantrums. Von der Leyen ignored the squabbling details of American and European politics, relying instead on moral values drawn from history.

Indeed, calm, reasoned, and thoughtful rhetoric should never go out of date. As we face terrifying winds, let us acknowledge them, at the same time that we remember the blessings of living in free countries.

______________

P.S. Von der Leyen, a conservative German leader, faced up to her nation's Nazi past in this speech. I'd love to hear more American conservatives rise above our own past. What do you think? 

by William D.Harpine

© Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

Image: European Union, via Wikimedia Commons

Joe Biden Reminded Us That America Can Do Anything - If We Work Together!

Joe Biden

Pessimism and a shroud of doom and gloom reign across the United States of America. That is why it is remarkable that President Joe Biden ended his October 20, 2023 White House speech about American policy toward Ukraine and Israel by reminding Americans that our nation remains powerful.

And look at the gloom! The Republican Party’s majority caucus in the House of Representatives removed their own Speaker of the House, offering no viable alternative, and consequently shut down the legislative process. Surveys by the prestigious Pew Research Center show that Americans in general, and especially Republicans, are losing confidence in the nation's ability to move forward and make their lives better.

Let’s first look at the speech’s ending. So often, the ending states what the speaker cares about the most. Biden ended his speech by pointing out that America is great. Great, he insisted, not only in power, but also in character: 

“In moments like these, we have to remind — we have to remember who we are. We are the United States of America — the United States of America. And there is nothing — nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together.”

That is such a simple point, is it not? The United States has vast natural resources, a time-tested constitutional system, formidable natural barriers against invasion, the world’s greatest system of higher education, superb port cities, and astonishing industrial capabilities. We were the Arsenal of Democracy in World War II. We are the nation that built the Interstate highway system. Our light has been the world’s beacon of freedom for centuries. Our power today has diminished, not because we have lost our capabilities, but from a crisis of confidence.

Was Biden Divisive When He Defended Constitutional Government?

Yet, today, we no longer think we can accomplish anything. Terrified to start new programs, horrified by change, increasingly intolerant, the United States acts as if we can hide inside our shell and everything will be fine. Biden reminded us otherwise:

“American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances are what keep us, America, safe. American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with.”

For, as Biden implied, if we lose our uniting values, what do we have left? Political pundits across the spectrum have praised this October 20 speech for its bold statement of policy. Nevertheless, the cruel futility of isolationism increasingly splits our nation apart. Fox News host Brit Hume commented that: “I think it may be remembered as one of the best, if not the best speeches (sic) of his presidency.” Yet, reluctant to aid Ukraine, Republican Senator J. D. Vance called Biden’s speech “completely disgraceful.” 

That is why we need to focus, first and foremost, on the values that Biden underlined: commitment, confidence, moral judgment, and national responsibility. In my youth, these values would have been indisputable. What has gone wrong?

Since I am not a foreign policy expert, I cannot predict which specific foreign policies are the best. Like most people, I love peace. I do know, however, that anger and pessimism can never play the role that only wisdom can fulfill.

Professor Jeffrey Tulis wrote about the rhetorical presidency, that is, the way presidents have to bypass Congress and take policies directly to the public. In this speech, Biden took it a step further by asking us to take common cause and work together 

My father, father-in-law, and uncle were part of the generation that won World War II. All three paid a price. That generation knew that the United States could do whatever we set out to do. If anything, the United States’ economic and political capabilities have grown far stronger than in 1941. In this vital speech, President Biden carefully reminded us that we are losing, not ability, but confidence, the ability to work together for the common values that we all purport to share. That, and not Biden’s specific policies, represented the speech’s heart. Are we listening? 

By William D. Harpine

_____________

Earlier Posts:

President Joe Biden Appealed for Unity in His 2022 State of the Union Speech. Is It Too Late?

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

© Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

Image: White House photo

Kamala Harris' College Speech: Voting is the Way

Kamala Harris

Vice President Kamala Harris told a college group that, to fight for our freedoms, we need to vote. Speaking on October 12, 2023 at The College of Southern Nevada, Harris offered two points in favor of voting. Let us hear what she said, for the United States is a representative republic, and our most basic responsibility is to vote. During the roundtable, Harris gave a speech to persuade, and she brought up a value and a policy to show her audience why young people need to vote. The value justifies the policy; the policy, in turn, affects our lives. 

Harris first point was a value. She pointed out that Americans have died in the struggle for voting rights, and that, when we vote, we honor their memory. If people were willing to risk, and, indeed, to sacrifice their lives to give us the right to vote, the least we can do is show up on Election Day:

“But voting — and here’s the thing: You know, we will talk often about the importance of voting in the — the historical context of the fact that people marched, fought, shed blood, and died for the right to vote for so many of the people who are here.”

Harris then explained her second point, a point of policy. Her second point was that elections make a difference. Yes, we can demonstrate, or write letters to the editor, or post ridiculous comments on social media, but our leaders ultimately only care about votes.

If we want to influence our country's direction, the ultimate way to do that is to vote. If you wave a sign in your yard and don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter. If you sail in a boat rally, and don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter. If you wave a flag from your porch and don’t vote, well, what is the point of waving the flag? Your opinion only matters if you vote. Our government depends on what the voters say on Election Day. If we want to achieve our policy goals, we need to vote. There is no substitute:

“The other thing that we should know is that elections matter. When you vote, you have the ability to determine the outcome of who will be making decisions on issues like we have discussed. And there’s so many leaders surrounding issues like immigration, on issues like the climate crisis, on issues like what the President and I have been fighting for to reduce student loan debt — (applause) — on issues —

“On a variety of issues that we will discuss today, almost every one of them will ultimately be decided by the people who vote in their numbers on the issues they care about. Right?”

Think about it. We read about opinion polls, whether the public prefers this candidate or that candidate, whether the public likes this issue or that issue. Those polls ultimately make no difference. All that matters is this: how do people vote?

Contrary to what people often think, political campaigns have little effect on voters’ opinions. Few Trump supporters will watch a television commercial, change their minds, and vote for Biden. Few Biden supporters will watch a television commercial, change their minds, and vote for Trump. The main reason for political campaigns is to encourage one’s supporters to vote. It’s the votes that matter.

The United States of America’s survival and success depends on whether people show up and vote. In the 1860s, voter turnout was often more than 80%. We've really sunk since then, haven't we? Yes, your vote is only one among many, but it is the many votes that count.

So, no matter what political views you do or do not believe, your most basic obligation as an adult American citizen is to vote--to vote every time, in every election, and to treasure that right on which all of our other rights rely.

Harris’ speech reached out to young adults—the group with the lowest voter turnout—and encouraged them to participate in our great republic. She gave a value, to honor those who gave us that right. She gave a policy, that we need to vote to achieve our national goals. What better purpose can a speech serve?

by William D. Harpine

________________

Kamala Harris' Speech at West Point: Tradition and Innovation

Kamala Harris Acceptance Speech at the Virtual DNC Convention: Breaking Ground with Caution

Stephen Breyer's Retirement Speech Reminded Us That the United States Is an Experiment

________________

© Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo