Free Speech on Campus? It Is Still Threatened!

Robert George, a conservative speaker who opposes several transgender policies, spoke recently at Washington College. His topic was civility and free speech on campus. Ironically, two audience members heckled him to the point that he ended his speech.

This is wrong. College is about the free exchange of ideas.

I utterly disagree with George’s opinions about transgender issues. Nevertheless, the hecklers should have allowed him to speak.

Free Speech on Campus: The Other Side

It’s quite simple.

First, people came to the presentation because they wanted to hear George speak. Two students out of the crowd wrongly overpowered the rights of other students.

Second, the way to overcome speakers like George is to respond with a better speech, not to shout them down. Certainly, colleges and universities need to encourage diverse expressions of opinion.

Washington College's events calendar does show some diversity of thought in various exhibitions and speakers. At the same time, maybe they could do a better job of balancing conservative speakers like Robert George with liberal speakers, possibly on grouped programs. More balance might make potential hecklers amendable to discourse. Then, again, it might not. 

When I attended the conservative College of William and Mary from 1969-1973, the college routinely invited controversial speakers across the political spectrum. Among other opportunities, the administration gave me a chance to listen to firebrand lawyer William Kunstler and civil rights activist Julian Bond. These programs were well-attended, and students listened respectfully. (Yes, students asked hard questions, but that’s fine.) Student leaders invited a conservative alumnus to speak at an anti-Vietnam war demonstration. Again, the students heard him out. Sadly, in our angry, polarized era, we have now lost so much.

Free Speech Attacked on Campus: It Happened Again, at William and Mary!

Third, when people shout a speaker down, they implicitly admit that they lack counterarguments. They focus attention on their own rudeness instead of the speaker’s errors or possible bad faith. Good heckling is witty and tasteful. Good hecklers have a chance to display their moral or intellectual position when they shout out quick barbs that amuse without disrupting, In contrast, rude hecklers display only their crudeness.

Fourth, if there will be a question and answer session, it might be better to wait until then as opposed to heckling.

Fifth, conservatives have no moral authority when it comes to free speech on campus, as they have an equally ugly habit of blocking or protesting speeches by liberal speakers, sometimes violently.

The two Washington University hecklers are facing university discipline. Good.

Heckling is an art, not a bludgeon. Let people speak. Let them be heard. 

by William D. Harpine

_____________

Previous posts about heckling:

The Lost Art of Heckling: How to Heckle and Not Sound Like an Idiot

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

Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address: The Republicans Fooled Only Themselves

Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

                                                                                                                                                                          

The Most Destructive Speech in American History: Ronald Reagan’s First Inaugural Address

Ronald Reagan's swearing-in, Jan. 20, 1981

Before anyone gets riled up, I think that President Ronald Reagan’s First Inaugural Address, delivered on January 20, 1981 was a fine speech: noble in principle, thoughtful, democratic in the little-d sense, and a blueprint for American freedom. It was a speech to admire, delivered with surpassing skill by one of the most articulate presidents in American history. It has become a terrible shame, however, that the subsequent history of the Republican Party has reduced this wonderful speech into one incoherent slogan.

Did Reagan anticipate the iron machinery that he was setting in motion? I doubt it. One, out-of-context comment, subsequently transformed into a mindless slogan, has come to drive the Republican ideology:

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” [italics added] 

The lesson in this is that slogans aren’t ideas. Enthusiasts do not need to think when they chant a slogan. Ideas, however, require people to think before they speak.

Did Reagan really mean it? Yes and no. Context always matters. Let’s look at the context.

 

Context #1

Reagan did not say the government was always the problem. He did not say that government was bad. He said that government was bad “in this present crisis.”

The crisis to which Reagan referred was the burst of inflation under the Jimmy Carter administration, which was followed by a series of unpleasant economic shocks. Those shocks caused problems—I lived through them myself—but they only lasted a few years. But “government is the problem,” taken out of context, sounds like a long-term issue.

The Nunes Memo: Why Does Context Matter?

Context #2

However, before discussing those long-term issues, Reagan spoke up firmly against all forms of discrimination. A Republican of 2023 would most likely call Reagan “woke.” Dismissing special interest groups, Reagan said that the only special interest group that mattered was the American people, regardless of rationalism, ethnicity, or race. Indeed, even the most liberal politician of 2023 could utter this same passage and mean every word:

“Well our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries, or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we’re sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, ‘We the People.’ This breed called Americans.”

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

Context #3

Yes, Reagan promised to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, which, like many conservatives, he considered to be a potential threat to liberty. Note, however, that he did not stand for destroying or disrupting the government, but rather for an orderly redistribution of power. He stated his economic principle:

“It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the states or to the people.”

Note that he did not call for shutting down the government or defaulting on government bonds.

Unfortunately, like many conservatives before and since, Reagan neglected to list the government programs that he intended to reduce. So, although his promise was based on traditional American ideals of liberty, this speech laid out no specific program.


Context #4

Predating the concept of a “compassionate conservative,” Reagan insisted that reducing government power did not entail dumping people to flounder on their own. He did not speak for a Darwinian contest, in which the winners would announce themselves to surpass the losers. No, Reagan emphasized community responsibility. He said that we should love all our fellow Americans, help them when they were in need, and ensure that they have the chance to become self-sufficient. I fear that Reagan’s remarkable statement of values seems to have disappeared from the conservative movement of 2023. How sad. This is what he said:

“We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your make-up. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen -- and loving them reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they’re sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?”

Context #5

Ending this epic speech, Reagan reminded his audience that the United States of America can accomplish whatever we want to accomplish. Insisting that success required ambition and determination, Reagan assured the American people that the crisis of 1981 could be resolved: 

“It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together with God’s help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

“And after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.”

Context #6

Let’s look back at how Reagan began his magnificent speech. He started with the American tradition of orderly transfer of power. Former President Jimmy Carter himself sat in the front row to recognize Reagan’s ascension to the presidency. It was, Reagan reminded all of us, a momentous occurrence. It was a remarkable thing that the loser conceded and the reins of power were handed over smoothly, in accordance with the Constitution and the law, with no violence or disruption. As Reagan said:

“The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place as it has for almost two centuries and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-four-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.”

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

George W. Bush on 9/11: A Forgotten Vision

Yet, 40 years later, in January 2021, the losing candidate, Donald Trump, heir to Reagan’s party, refused to concede victory. Instead, swarms of his supporters attacked the Capitol to interrupt the counting of the electoral votes and halt the peaceful transfer of power. Reagan had commented that “few of us stop to think how unique we really are.” Sadly, we are no longer unique, as Reagan’s own party, and the conservative movement he proudly ensconced, has now utterly rejected that keystone of the United States Constitution.

Did It Work?

Did Reagan say “crisis?” Yes, he did. And now, in September 2023, Republicans in Congress are threatening to shut down the American government until someone meets their poorly articulated demands, on which they themselves do not even agree. Isn’t that a crisis? And does it not arise from the slogan, “government is the problem?”

While in office, Reagan cut domestic spending but greatly increased military spending. Overall, it’s questionable whether he articulated a clear program of how to reduce the federal government, much less to leave an ongoing program that could inspire his successors. So, unfortunately, even today, in angry voices that contradict Reagan’s affable style, Republican politicians continue to insist on massive cuts in increasingly unspecified government programs, in dollar amounts that they rarely state aloud.

Reagan’s speech was destructive and dangerous, not because it was a bad speech (it was a wonderful, inspiring speech), but because its ongoing influence today is now mired at the slogan stage. Republicans today have sadly forgotten the contexts that Reagan gave to this speech. “Government is the problem” is not a policy. It’s only a slogan. Unfortunately, slogans only take us so far.

Follow me at WHarpine@Twitter.com 

by William D. Harpine  

Earlier posts about Reagan’s speeches:

"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!" How Ronald Reagan’s One Sentence Changed Berlin

Reagan versus Trump: The Unifier and the Divider. Two Public Speaking Styles. Same Message, Different Songs

Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

Image: National Archives, via Wikimedia Commons

George Washington Plunkitt Explained about “Honest Graft”

Tammany Hall Headquarters

I encountered a wonderfully brazen historical speech by a crooked politician on the subject of “honest graft.” Yes. New York State Senator George Washington Plunkitt, a cog in the Tammany Hall machine in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, said that he only committed “honest graft.” Let’s take a closer look at Plunkitt’s moral inversion, his vision of honest graft:

“Everybody is talkin’ these days about Tammany men growin’ rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin’ the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There’s all the difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I have myself. I’ve made a big fortune out of the game, and I’m gettin’ richer every day, but I’ve not gone in for dishonest graft—blackmailin’ gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc.—and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics.”

So, Plunkitt started his talk by saying that there is honest graft and dishonest graft. He explained that the crooked ways in which he made his fortune differed from the crooked ways that other politicians made their fortunes. With no trace of shame, Plunkitt gave a moral argument to justify public corruption. But how, one asks, can he make such an argument? The answer turns out to be simple. Indeed, politicians today give similar explanations. Well, maybe not explanations, but excuses. Surprised?

Politicians and Their Excuses

Yes, crooked politicians love to make excuses, don’t they? They continue to make plenty of excuses today.

During Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s recent impeachment trial, his lawyer commented that the man’s behavior was “ratty,” but “if campaign donations were bribes everybody in this town would be impeached.” (I could only wish.) Paxton was acquitted.

After former White House advisor Peter Navarro was recently convicted of contempt of Congress, former President Donald Trump blamed, not Navarro, who had obviously broken the law, but his accusers:

“I can’t believe that these Fascist Monsters have so viciously gone after the great Peter Navarro for defying the totally partisan January 6th Unselect Committee of political Hacks and Thugs.”

Similarly, arguing that members of Congress should be able to engage in stock trading, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi patiently explained that:

“We are a free-market economy. They should be able to participate in that.”

Excuses and more excuses, from both sides of the aisle.

If we could peek inside the hallowed halls of American government, what might we see? Insider stock trading, lobbyists wandering around Congressional offices with envelopes full of cash, a revolving door to the K Street lobbying industry, free luxury vacations—surely you don’t think any of this is new. Do you?

I, like most voters, would like my politicians to run their cities, states, and federal agencies in the best interests of the people. When folks start to make a fortune in politics, I ask myself, why they didn’t just become bankers or real estate brokers, which are legitimate careers, instead of pretending to be public servants?


Plunkitt’s Bold Defense of Corruption

So, let’s go back a century or so and see if we can learn more about this “honest graft.”

Plunkitt, who was probably no more corrupt than most of his era’s politicians, but much more brazen about it, is reported to have given a talk in the early 20th century about “honest graft.” Now, “honest graft” makes about as much sense as “frozen, melted ice” or “nonviolent stabbing.” All the same, my thesis is to talk about how people make excuses, and Plunkitt’s speech is a doozy.

Tammany Hall was the Democratic Party’s organization in New York City, which became corrupt in the late 1800’s and was a major political force through the early 1930’s. Plunkitt, a member of Tammany Hall, bragged about being corrupt and said that corruption was fine.

In fact, Plunkitt said:

“Tammany was beat in 1901 because the people were deceived into believin’ that it worked dishonest graft. They didn’t draw a distinction between dishonest and honest graft.”

Plunkitt’s rhetorical tactics were as simple as they were bold. First, he created a meaningless distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. Second, he equated honest graft with simple cleverness, which, I guess, he thought we should all admire. Finally, he pointed out that the beneficiaries of honest graft tended to be grateful for the kind ministrations of the crooked politicians who helped them prosper.

Next, Plunkitt talked (boasted) about how he used insider information to make money. As a member of government, he spotted opportunities of which other people would be unaware. Suppose, for example, that the city wanted to build another of New York’s excellent parks:

“Just let me explain by examples. My party’s in power in the city, and it’s goin’ to undertake a lot of public improvements. Well, I’m tipped off, say, that they’re going to lay out a new park at a certain place.

“I see my opportunity and I take it. I go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared particular for before.”

So, he used insider information to buy valuable land at discount prices and sell it to the city for a profit. For another example, he learned that the city was selling a huge pile of granite blocks, left over from a street project. Plunkitt planned to buy the stones and sell them for a nice return. His opponents arranged for out-of-state bidders to compete with Plunkitt. Plunkitt outsmarted them. He went to his competitors privately and told them that, if they let him bid without competition, he would give them all the blocks they wanted for free:

“I went to each of the men and said: ‘How many of these 250,000 stones do you want?’ One said 20,000, and another wanted 15,000, and another wanted 10,000. I said: ‘All right, let me bid for the lot, and I’ll give each of you all you want for nothin’.

“They agreed, of course. Then the auctioneer yelled: ‘How much am I bid for these 250,000 fine pavin’ stones?’

“‘Two dollars and fifty cents,’ says I.

“‘Two dollars and fifty cents’ screamed the auctioneer. ‘Oh, that’s a joke. Give me a real bid.’

“He found the bid was real enough. My rivals stood silent. I got the lot for $2.50 and gave them their share. That’s how the attempt to do Plunkitt ended, and that’s how all such attempts end.”

Plunkitt’s insider trading schemes worked out great for almost everyone. He made money while his competitors got free paving stones. His conspiracy cheated no one except the unknowing taxpayers. (The auction’s purpose, of course, was to ensure that the city would get a fair price for its paving stones. Oops.)

Finally, Plunkitt frankly reviewed how Tammany bought votes by raising the pay of city workers:

“Another kind of honest graft. Tammany has raised a good many salaries. There was an awful howl by the reformers, but don’t you know that Tammany gains ten votes for every one it lost by salary raisin’?

“The Wall Street banker thinks it shameful to raise a department clerk’s salary from $1500 to $1800 a year, but every man who draws a salary himself says: ‘That’s all right. I wish it was me.’ And he feels very much like votin’ the Tammany ticket on election day, just out of sympathy.’”

Plunkitt did not, however, merely defend graft. Even worse, he made corruption out to be a positive civic virtue:

“The books are always all right. The money in the city treasury is all right. Everything is all right. All they can show is that the Tammany heads of departments looked after their friends, within the law, and gave them what opportunities they could to make honest graft. Now, let me tell you that’s never goin’ to hurt Tammany with the people. Every good man looks after his friends, and any man who doesn’t isn’t likely to be popular. If I have a good thing to hand out in private life, I give it to a friend. Why shouldn’t I do the same in public life?”

Plunkitt’s schemes were complex enough to confuse the average voter, who would easily understand that bribery and extortion would distort the government, but who might not comprehend the baffling intricacies of insider trading.

Of course, similar things go on today. Members of Congress openly trade individual stocks. This is legal if disclosed. (“Put the American public first,” is the futile yell of Congressional ethics reformers.) Lobbyists wander up and down the halls of Congress passing out envelopes full of campaign contributions. Cash preferred, of course. The idea is to find ways to cheat the taxpayers without actually getting arrested. 


Is There Such a Thing as Honest Graft?

As a businessperson, do you want to get a concession on federal property? Well, good luck, have you made enough campaign contributions? Do you want to be the architect on a state building project? Outstanding! Be sure to get an architect’s license, prepare good bids, and make sufficient campaign contributions. Do you hope that Congress doesn’t cancel funding for the new military airplane that your company wants to build? Just hire subcontractors from the home districts of powerful members of Congress. Does the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about wish to build a new submarine? Don’t forget to name it after the home state (Ohio, for example) of a powerful senator, not some non-political sea creature (Nautilus, Albacore). (As Admiral Rickover said, “fish don’t vote.”) Problem solved!

Is any of that good for the government’s budget? Of course not. When powerful figures make public decisions for their own benefit, everyone else loses. But it is good old, time-honored, honest graft. All of that stands proudly in Plunkitt’s tradition. The United States currently rates with a corruption index of 31, well behind Denmark at 10 but far ahead of Somalia. We can do better. 

It’s sad when politicians lie about their crooked schemes. I think it’s worse when they brag about them.


What Can We Do? 

What we can do is, we can vote! Don’t get cynical. Cynical voters make the crooks happy. Cynical voters are crooks’ best friends. Be sure to vote, and remember to vote for the most honest (or least crooked) candidates you can find. Support anti-corruption laws. Please. 

Oppose the Citizens United case, which pretty much legalized honest (and dishonest) graft in the United States. But vote! If you don’t vote, they will never care about you. These guys commit graft for one reason only, and that is because the voters don’t stop them. And always keep an eye on your government. When politicians like Plunkitt tell you that they are crooks, please believe them. Honest graft is still graft. The operative word in “honest graft” is not “honest.” The operative word is “graft.”

 

By William D. Harpine

_________________

Earlier Posts about corruption and political speech:

Jim Thompson, the Anti-Corruption Governor of Illinois: A Rhetorical Obituary. Thompson's Polarizing 1976 Campaign Was a Warning.

Al Franken, the Loss of Truth, and the Problem of Credibility

_________________

Theoretical note: “Honest graft” is an example of the rhetorical trope called “oxymoron;” that is, a self-contradictory phrase. When a badly planned 1980 mission to rescue hostages in Iran ended with a fiery helicopter collision, President Jimmy Carter called the debacle an “incomplete success.” Donald Trump once talked about “truthful hyperbole.” Those are classic oxymorons, cleverly phrased to conceal the speaker’s true meaning.

Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

Image: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

George W. Bush on 9/11: A Forgotten Vision

George W. Bush

From unity we grow strength, while division leads only to weakness.

When President George W. Bush addressed the Unites States on television the night of September 11, 2001, shortly after the terror attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, his theme was national unity. In the most famous passage of that speech, he said:

“A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.”

Nothing unites people more than a common threat. He did not talk about any one group or ethnicity or political faction. Instead, he talked about “American resolve.” He attributed the attacks to the forces that oppose “the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” The 9/11 attacks were, in Bush’s view, an attack against humanity’s most basic values.

As I re-read this speech, I found myself only able to mourn the United States’ loss of unity. We are now divided family against family, friend against friend. What has gone wrong?

Yes, Bush soon followed this value-laden speech with badly managed and cruel wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the repercussions of which still revisit us today.

But what has happened to our values, our idealism? For two decades after 9/11, a sitting president told a bunch of lies and tried to overthrow his election defeat. Millions of otherwise decent people support him in this. The Freedom Index now lists the United States of America as a “flawed democracy” because of our divisions and political instability. When we speak of American values, of liberty, of justice—of unity—do we still believe in them? Or not? 

By William D. Harpine

Earlier Posts: 

George W. Bush on 9/11: A Message of Unity; Have We Forgotten?

George W. Bush and the American Vision

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

© Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine