Words Make a Difference: Barbara Jordan Asked about "We the People"

Barbara Jordan with the House Judiciary Committee

Texas Congressional Representative Barbara Jordan mused that, when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, she (a Black woman), was not included in “we the people.”

Jordan, one of the first African American women in Congress, began her speech by establishing her identity as a citizen of the United States. Jordan spoke on July 25, 1974, during the impeachment hearings of the House Judiciary Committee. The committee was reviewing evidence that President Richard Nixon had, among other offenses, committed obstruction of justice during his re-election campaign—a felony under federal law. As the evidence became overwhelming, Nixon eventually resigned in disgrace to avoid certain removal from office.

The issue with which Jordan began was, who is included in the Constitution’s phrase, “we the people?” Who belongs to “the people” of the United States? Yet, today, United States citizens still ask who counts as “we the people. “The answer should be obvious. Unfortunately, it is not always obvious.

To understand Jordan’s answer, the Constitution of the United States expresses a value: government arises from the people. The right to govern does not come from aristocrats or the rich and powerful, but from the people themselves. Sadly, however, our nation has always struggled to ask, “who are the people?” Do Black people count as people? Japanese Americans? Mexican Americans? Native Americans? Immigrants?

By the Constitution’s stated values, Jordan should have been included all along among “we, the people.” Sadly, we all know otherwise.

So, Jordan began by quoting the Preamble:

“Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: ‘We, the people.’ It’s a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that ‘We, the people.’ I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in ‘We, the people.’”

Jordan’s wry humor—“just left me out by mistake”—reminded everyone how easily values and practice can function separately. She reminded the committee, in fact, reminded the nation, of the long struggle for freedom. All the same, on that day in 1974, Jordan (who was once omitted from “we, the people”) now sat in judgment of the nation’s wayward president. She supported the Constitution that once excluded her. She spoke against any assault against the Constitution’s protections:

“Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.”

Thus, Jordan established her credibility, her bona fides, to investigate the conduct of the President of the United States.

As rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke points out, our sense of identity, the question of who and what we identify ourselves with, underlies all persuasion. Jordan's stark humor and statement of utter loyalty establish, first and foremost, her identification. She was one of “we, the people,” fully committed to the Constitution, and ready to investigate and pass judgment on a president who threatened constitutional government.

Jordan then recited Nixon’s crimes, his offenses against constitutional government. What mattered most, however, is that she began by defining who she, Barbara Jordan, was. Her question, however, remains: do we still include everyone in “we, the people?”

by William D. Harpine

_______________

Earlier Posts

Adam Schiff's Opening Statement on Impeachment Laid Out a Case and Pre-Empted Republican Arguments

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

_______________

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: U. S. House of Representatives, via Wikimedia Commons

Joe Biden Told the Governors that American Can Accomplish Anything: A Look at Audience Adaptation

Joe Biden, White House Photo

“I’m more optimistic about this nation’s future than I’ve ever been.”

So said United States President Joe Biden in a brief speech to the National Governor’s Association Winter Meeting, delivered in the White House East Room on February 23, 2024. He offered a message of pride and optimism. He adapted to his audience to seek unity, encourage joint effort, overcome disagreements, and solve problems.


Biden Reached Out to His Audience

Biden’s audience was an assemblage of state governors. Many of them were Republicans, while Biden is a Democrat. Unlike Congress, however, governors actually need to get things done. They are, after all, responsible for the administration of their own state governments. The cycle of “no, no, no” that often dominates legislatures doesn’t work for governors, because the public looks to them to administer their states’ affairs. That feature of governorship can make them more amenable to a productive message.

So, Biden said:

“Governors know the measure of success isn’t how many partisan points we score. It’s: Did we fix the problem? Did we fix the problem?”

Biden pointed out that, although people can argue about policies, they can still agree on common goals:

“We disagree on how to fix the problem many times. We’re all here for one reason: to fix the problems — to get things done for families, for communities, for the country.’”

The United States Has Great Capacity for Good

Can the nation fix those problems? In a political atmosphere of negativity, Biden stressed that the nation can, indeed, accomplish its goals:

“I mean this sincerely, from the bottom of my heart. We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake. Nothing, nothing, nothing is beyond our capacity.

“When have we ever set a national goal we failed? When? When have we ever come out of a — not come out of a crisis stronger than we went into the crisis?”

Biden had a point. Indeed, we all learned in high school that President Franklin Roosevelt made the United States of America the “arsenal of democracy” in World War II. The Federal Reserve points out that “the dollar remains by far the dominant reserve currency. The United States’ dollar is the world’s reserve currency.” As our nation sinks into rancor, helplessness, and anxiety, Biden offered confidence and hope. He emphasized that the United States of America, a nation of boundless ability, is still the world’s leader. 

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


Are We Working Together?

Joe Biden Speaking to Governors Association

We might never all agree: the United States is a huge, diverse nation. Can we nevertheless find common cause? Biden reminded us that success requires joint effort:

“Nothing is beyond our capacity if we work together. So, let’s keep working together. Because you’re the best hope we have — the governors.”

That is a big if: “if we work together.” Biden reminded us that we can never accomplish our goals if we are constantly tearing each other apart. As I look around, I still see most Republicans denying something so simple and obvious as the 2020 election results. The Republicans can’t even manage to vote in favor of their own border control bill. Biden did not ask the governors to agree with him; he asked them to work together toward common goals.


Getting People to Listen?

This all leads me to wonder why Americans rarely listen to Biden’s simple, obvious lesson—the need to work together? In part, probably, old ethnic and economic disparities rise against us, again and again. In part, some members of Congress seem more beholden to narrow interests than to the nation’s good.

What is to be done? First, Biden wisely chose an audience of governors. Public speaking is all about the audience. Temporarily bypassing Congress, Biden reached out to an audience that needs to accomplish things. He focused on the governors’ shared need to get things done.

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

 
Second, however, Biden and his surrogates simply need to get the message out more often. An audience of governors is great—vital—central—but not enough. Many people too easily shrug off a message of cooperation and goodwill, welcome though it is. Still, Biden sits in what President Theodore Roosevelt called “the bully pulpit.” Part of sitting in the bully pulpit is just to climb out of the background and address the public, over and over, to send the welcome message far and wide. That is, as I wrote earlier, how President William McKinley persuaded the public to adopt the peace treaty that ended the Spanish American War. If President Biden has a good message, and I think he does, he needs to pound it into the nation’s thoughts.

Overall, Biden suggested simple attitudes: working together. Seeking common cause. Negotiating differences. Working for the whole nation, not just a tiny piece of it. Adopt those simple attitudes, President Biden implied, and no one can stop us.

Was he right? Or is it too late? Post your thoughts in the comments.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright ©  2024, William D. Harpine

Images: Official White House photo; White House YouTube page

Harry Belafonte: Art and the Human Soul

“Some who’ve controlled institutions of culture and commentary have at times used their power to not only distort truth but to punish the truth-seekers…. And on occasion, I have been one of its targets.”

So said actor and singer Harry Belafonte in a November 8, 2014 speech in Hollywood, California while accepting the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. He spoke at the sixth Governors Awards ceremony. Belafonte spoke of art’s ongoing struggle, for and against racism. He reminded us that art has power, and that art can direct its power either to good or ill. He reminded us of the resolution needed to challenge injustice. Using the basic organizational method of comparison and contrast, Belafonte showed that art changes lives, and that artists make a choice when they use that power. As Black History Month continues in February 2024, let us remember Belafonte’s courageous insight.


The Birth of a Nation: Art for Evil Power

So, Belafonte began by talking about the powerful 1915 film, The Birth of a Nation. Belafonte began by noting the film’s astonishing creativity:

“By all measure this cinematic work was considered the greatest film ever made.”

Of course, we all know that The Birth of a Nation offered a radically conservative view of the American Civil War and celebrated the rise of the murderous Ku Klux Klan.

To Belafonte, The Birth of a Nation treated art’s awesome power to affect human behavior. After Americans watched the movie’s stunningly inaccurate and immoral version of Confederate history, violent anti-Black race riots swept across the United States of America:

“The power of moving pictures to impact on human behavior was never more powerfully evidenced than when, after the release of this film, American citizens went on a murderous rampage. Races were set one against the other. Fire and violence erupted. Baseball bats and billy clubs bashed heads. Blood flowed in streets of our cities; and lives were lost.”

Belafonte pointed out that President Woodrow Wilson was one of The Birth of a Nation’s biggest fans. Wilson’s powerful endorsement made The Birth of a Nation, with all of its racist tropes, even more persuasive to a gullible public:

“The film also gained the distinction of being the first film ever screened at the White House. The then-presiding President Woodrow Wilson openly praised the film, and with the power of this presidential anointing, validated the film’s brutality and its grossly distorted view of history.”

Tarzan, the "Porcelain Adonis"

The Birth of a Nation was not the only racist film in the United States’ history. Belafonte remarked on his 1935 viewing of a Tarzan movie. He was stunned by Tarzan’s supposed racial superiority:

“Tarzan was a sight to see. This porcelain Adonis, this white liberator, who could speak no language, swinging from tree to tree, saving Africa from the tragedy of destruction by a black indigenous population.”

Recognizing movies’ power to alter racial attitudes, Belafonte remarked on the brazen, anti-African racism that Tarzan conveyed:

“Through this film, the virus of racial inferiority, of never wanting to be identified with anything African, swept into the psyche of its youthful observers. And for the years that followed, Hollywood brought abundant opportunity for black children in their Harlem theaters to cheer Tarzan and boo Africans.”

To broaden things out, Belafonte noted the broad racism of American filmmaking:

“Native American[s], our Indian brothers and sisters, fared no better. And at the moment, Arabs ain’t lookin’ so good.”

Young Harry Belafonte Singing

Art and the Moral Encounter

Films like The Birth of a Nation and Tarzan the Fearless inspired too many viewers toward racism and evil. However, to Belafonte, they were springboards (reactions, maybe) to moral rebellion:

“It was an early stimulus to the beginning of my rebellion, rebellion against injustice and human distortion, and hate. How fortunate for me that the performing arts became the catalyst that fueled my desire for social change.”

Belafonte cited his mentor, Paul Robeson, and authors Langston Hughes, Maya Angelou, and James Baldwin, among others, as artists who “inspired me” and became his “moral compass.

This led Belafonte to quote Robeson that "Artists are the gatekeepers of truth. They are civilization’s radical voice."


Is Art Now Speaking in a More Inspiring Voice?

Belafonte expressed his gratitude that he had lived long enough to see more positive filmmaking. Talking about recent films, he explained that:

“…today’s cultural harvest yields a sweeter fruit: Defiant Ones, Schindler’s List, Brokeback Mountain, 12 Years a Slave, and many more.”

Belafonte emphasized the power that art has to help us understand human nature:

“… all of this [is] happening at the dawning of technological creations that would give artists boundless regions of possibilities to give us deeper insights into human existence.”

So, overall, Belafonte condemned the harsh racism of past filmmaking, while praising the deeper, more discerning films that have appeared recently.


A Call to Moral Action

Concluding, Belafonte urged artists of every genre to become “visionaries” to uplift people’s souls and to influence the world to do what is good, to see the better side of human nature:

“Perhaps we, as artists and as visionaries for what’s better in the human heart and the human soul, could you influence citizens everywhere in the world to see the better side of who and what we are as a speci[es].”

What lessons can we learn from Belafonte’s speech? Yes, we learn brilliant artists can speak either for evil or for good, according to their preferences. Belafonte’s opening example, The Birth of a Nation, reminded us that art can shape reality and human behavior, equally for evil or for good. How will artists exercise their passions? That is a moral choice.

How can we understand Belafonte’s rhetorical approach? Belafonte made his point by contrasting the wickedness of two powerful movies against the hopefulness of a coterie of great artists. We can see the good most clearly only after evil's persuasive power has shocked us to the core. 

Was Belafonte too optimistic? He rightly pointed out newer films that take a broader, more humane perspective. Nevertheless, Tarzan has not disappeared from the screen, while female white goddesses like Sheena, Queen of the Jungle sometimes arise to rescue central Africa. I also wonder about 2005's Lord of War. Although that film places the onus on white Americans and Europeans, it continues the view that Black Africans live amidst unrelieved ignorance and corruption. So, I have not become totally optimistic. 

In this speech, Belafonte commissioned the nation’s—the world’s—artists to use their power to bring out the best that humanity has to offer. He documented a problem, and a promising solution followed. He warned us about the evil that art can produce, and yet he balanced that warning with hope. 

by William D. Harpine

________________

Remembering Black History Month, here are a few of my previous posts about historical African American Speakers: 

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech about Mountains

Fannie Lou Hamer, "Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired," Gave a Voting Rights Speech in Narrative Style

Stokely Carmichael in 1966: Civil Rights Laws Enforce Rights that Already Exist

Tyler Perry at the 2019 BET Awards: "Helping Someone Cross" as a Metaphor for Reaching Out to Help

________________


P.S. Harry Belafonte and Petula Clark caused a brief dustup in 1968 when they rendered a powerful duet of Clark's antiwar song "Path of Glory" on television; Clark touched Belafonte on the arm. This interracial touching aroused great offense in some quarters. Clark refused to delete the scene. 

Thanks to AmericanRhetoric.com for publishing a transcript of this great speech.

How racist was The Birth of a Nation? Well, in one series of scenes, the audience sees the Reconstruction-era South Carolina legislature dominated by African American lawmakers who drink moonshine on the legislative floor, stand up to speak while chewing on a chicken leg, and intimidate white women in the gallery. Is that racist enough?

The Tarzan movie that Belafonte viewed in 1933 was presumably Tarzan the Fearless, maybe Tarzan the Ape Man. Both films depict outrageously stereotypical views of Africans. 

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Library of Congress, Carl Van Vechten collection,

 public domain, not to be altered in any way

Dr. Margaret Chan Organized Her Public Health Speech for Success

“Public health constantly struggles to hold infectious diseases at bay, to change lifestyle behaviors, and to find enough money to do these and many other jobs.”

As Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization spoke at the 69th World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, on May 23, 2016, she demonstrated how important organization is in public speaking. Dr. Chan, a physician of joint Chinese and Canadian nationality, illustrated just how crucial the organizational structure of a speech is to informing and persuading people.

Her speech is still timely today, as public health authorities at this very moment struggle to make the public accept basic public health measures such as vaccination and social distancing to cope with endemic and deadly COVID-19 and RSV viruses that devastate the population. Indeed, many nations, including the United States, continue to suffer from needless public health disasters.


Chan Used Organization to Persuade the Audience

Her speech’s organizational structure brilliantly offered the audience positive thoughts about public health, which, in turn, gave a positive approach to the great public health challenges that lay ahead. She started with public health’s recent accomplishments, warned of current public health threats, and finally returned to a hopeful approach to public health. Her speech structure helped show that, since public health has triumphed in the past, we can believe that it can help us in the future.


Chan Stated the Problem

Starting her speech, Dr. Chan briefly noted that public health faces an endless battle for resources and public acceptance. In her speech, she made a two-fold point: public health measures have greatly improved human lives across the world, and yet the changing world landscape poses increasingly dire public health threats.


Chan Reviewed Public Health’s Triumphs

Dr. Chan immediately moved to public health triumphs: “Sometimes,” she said, “we need to step back—we need to step back and celebrate.”

Yes, she was right. Since public health has faced constant public and political pushback—for centuries—it is important to look at what has been accomplished. Wisely, Dr. Chan talked only about the most recent public health accomplishments. She began with the Millennium Development Goals, a United Nations program to wipe out extreme poverty, reduce the deaths of young children, improve childbirth safety, and fight endemic contagious diseases, while improving the environment. These were truly ambitious goals. Dr. Chan said:

“Commitment to the Millennium Development Goals brought focus, energy, creative innovation, and above all money to bear on some of the biggest health challenges that marred the start of this century.”

Delivery of Malaria Treatment

Dr. Chan quickly focused on the resulting dramatic reductions in needless deaths:

“We can celebrate the 19,000 fewer children dying every day, the 44% drop in maternal mortality, and the 85% of tuberculosis cases that are successfully cured.

“Africa in particular can celebrate the 60% decline in malaria mortality, especially since the African Leaders Malaria Alliance, supported by partners, did so much to make this happen.”

These are stunning accomplishments from the multinational public health measures. Indeed, seeking to gain increased support for public health, Dr. Chan forcefully reminded the audience that cooperative efforts have brought so much that is good.

WHO's Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Spoke for Public Health in a Positive Way During His Coronavirus Briefing

The Need for International Efforts

In the modern world, Dr. Chan insisted, public health threats rarely remain in any single region. Worldwide effort is therefore the only solution. She pointed out that air pollution drifts across the world, while superbugs travel with international commerce, and unhealthy foods are marketed internationally. The effects can be striking:

“Few health threats are local anymore. And few health threats can be managed by the health sector acting alone.”

Dr. Chan then focused on the hardest issue of all, the human-caused disasters that spread poor health across the world:

“As the international community enters the era of sustainable development, the global health landscape is being shaped by 3 slow-motion disasters: a changing climate, the failure of more and more mainstay antimicrobials, and the rise of chronic noncommunicable diseases as the leading killers worldwide.”

Refusing to call these disasters the natural consequence of human growth or biological evolution, Dr. Chan instead reminded the audience that these public health concerns were the consequences of short-term economic policies:

“These are not natural disasters. They are man-made disasters created by policies that place economic interests above concerns about the well-being of human lives and the planet that sustains them.”

For example, she noted that food companies make more money from processed foods than from fresh produce, and that fossil fuels generate great wealth in producing nations. Yet, as she had shown, these economic factors contribute to ongoing public health failures.


Yet, Let Us Move Forward

Still, consistent with her positive theme, Dr. Chan concluded her speech, not by wallowing in the horrors of modern public health failures, but by, once again, pointing to the ways in which advanced public health can continue to save millions upon millions of human lives:

“WHO, together with its multiple partners, is poised to save many more millions of lives. I ask you to remember this purpose as we go through an agenda that can mean so much for the future.”

The Organization Theme

This speech represented a psychological approach to rhetorical organization. The speaker began by praising public health's massive recent accomplishments. It was her deliberate rhetorical choice to emphasize, not historical triumphs like the polio vaccine, but the most recent triumphs in overcoming disease. The bulk of her speech revealed the public health problems that the world faces today—problems exacerbated by poor international policy decisions. She did not shy away from problems that her own nation, China itself, had produced, like excessive burning of fossil fuels. She ended on a positive note, urging the audience to move forward.

Public health depends on public attitudes. Today, my own nation, the United States of America, has been ravaged by the novel coronavirus, while much of its population succumbs to bizarre conspiracy theories, refusing to accept vaccination and other basic public health measures. The United States ranks near the bottom of the industrialized world for maternal and child mortality, and, worse, we seem to be declining. Shockingly, The Commonwealth Fund notes that, “The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries.” The biggest problem in public health is communication and persuasion—not science (the scientists are doing their jobs).

Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

Dr. Chan’s message was just one speech to one audience, but she modeled how to overcome our thought barriers and improve public health.

In a more general way, public speakers often underestimate how important it is to organize a speech psychologically. In this case, Dr. Chan led her audience through a psychological process: past triumphs, present despair, and (ending with a call to action), future triumphs. She showed her audience that there was a way to overcome the massive public health threats that the world faces. Did the world listen in 2016? Are we listening today?

By William D. Harpine

_______________

P.S. ­ Dr. Margaret Chan has been involved in occasional political controversies. That might be inevitable for someone of her prestige and influence, yet the public often focuses on political issues while ignoring the massively important lessons that she was trying to teach.

Also, while Dr. Chan gave such a thoughtful speech, American public health officials have, in recent years, done a mostly terrible job of communicating with the public. I’ll see if I can write about that in a future post.

Thanks to the good people at AmericanRhetoric.com, a website founded by my late classmate Dr. Martin J. Medhurst, for finding and posting this important speech.

Copyright 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: United States Department of Health and Human Services, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Kamala Harris: "Investing in the Potential and the Greatness”

Kamala Harris

Speeches reflect our values. During her February 9, 2024 speech in Washington DC, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke to a group of community leaders about violence intervention. She sharply distinguished between leadership that destroys and leadership that uplifts. She asked us to refocus our values. Her values, her vision, led her to speak for a broader, more positive approach to policy. Harris said that reducing community violence meant not only “to reduce harm,” but also:

“…investing in the potential and the greatness.”

Looking forward to the good instead of looking back to the evil! That was a powerful thesis, for, after all, we often do tend to dwell on evil and wickedness, neglecting to look at the path forward to controlling community violence.

Directing her attention to one of the audience members, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, Harris pointedly refuted the idea that a strong leader must be a harsh leader:

“And I’ll say that, you know, Governor, you and I have talked about this. I think there’s a certain perversion that has taken place over the last few years in our country that would suggest that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down instead of what we know, which is that the true measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up.”

I suspect that she was referring obliquely to Donald Trump. She had a point. In times of stress and trouble, populations often turn to a leader who is powerful, strong, or even intimidating. They often look for leaders who will suppress their enemies, real or imaginary. History bodes poorly for that approach. After all, no rational person could think that Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot made their nations secure or gave their citizens better lives. In the short run, the dictators crushed their opponents; in the long run, they protected no one.

Kamala Harris delivers February 9, 2024 speech

Harris said that, in contrast, a real leader seeks to learn about what people need. A real leader seeks to raise up everyone's life circumstances:

“That the characteristic of real leaders is the character that has some level of curiosity, concern, and care about the suffering of other people, and then takes it upon themselves, as part of their life’s work and mission, to uplift the condition of other people.”

Let us suppose, for example, that the United States expels desperate refugees or takes the right to vote away from minority individuals. Will that make our country stronger? No. Will taking away other peoples’ rights make anyone better off? Of course not. There is another route, Harris said: real leadership means to “inspire so many people.”

Continuing her speech, Harris endorsed the group's program to identify potential community violence. She suggested, instead, to find ways to prevent or deal with the problem, alleviate people's pain, and move forward to a safer society. Unlike many speakers, she rested her argument on values, not statistics, on vision, not anxiety. She advocated a new policy vision by shifting our values away from fear and threat, and toward hope.

Can there be a better use for the gift of speech, than to help the audience become better versions of themselves? Can we not invest “in the potential and the greatness?”

by William D. Harpine

Earlier Posts

Kamala Harris' Speech at West Point: Tradition and Innovation

Kamala Harris' College Speech: Voting is the Way

Kamala Harris Gave a Simple Message about Keeping Children Safe from Guns. Is It Enough?

Copyright © 2024, William D Harpine

Conspiracy Theories and the Burden of Proof

Recently, media personality and former licensed psychologist Dr. Phil (Phillip Calvin McGraw) propounded a conspiracy theory about Chinese immigrants:

“If they’re working in farming, if they’re working in industry, I promise you they are expected to do certain things. Are they spying? Are they sending seeds back from farming to China? Are they getting plans from industries they’re working on?”

Dr. Phil was off track. The person who wants to challenge existing policies or beliefs carries the burden of proof. Critical thinking fails when public figures, or the public at large, ignores that long-tested standard of argumentation. When reason collapses, so does the republican system of government. In 2024, our leaders face a constant battle to disprove bizarre conspiracy theories—when there is no reason to believe the conspiracy theory to start with. And questions are not proof! 

Notice that Dr. Phil only asked questions. He proved nothing. That is how conspiracy theories hatch from their rotten eggs. Questions and conjectures never prove anything. Never have, never will. They’re just questions. If you make a point, prove it! Burden of proof is the most basic principle of dialectic, without which critical thinking falls to pieces.

Presumption

The burden of proof must overcome presumption. When we presume that existing policies and beliefs are correct, that doesn’t mean that they are. It only means that to expect the present system to defend itself against every wild accusation leads to chaos. Society would collapse in confusion. Analagously, in a United States law court, the court presumes that the defendant is innocent. That doesn’t mean that there is any evidence that the defendant is innocent! It just means that to draw random people into court and require them to prove that they never committed this or that crime would surely cause injustice. Can you, dear reader, prove with evidence that you were not the masked bandit who robbed a liquor store on January 8, 2013, at 7:50 PM? Probably not. However, fortunately for all of us, the court presumes that you are innocent.

Likewise, we presume that only living people cast ballots. We presume that the people who count election ballots under supervision, following the provisions of law, will count them accurately. Does that mean that the ballots are absolutely accurate? Of course not. Instead, it means that people who challenge the ballots have the burden of proof. Let’s turn to that key idea.


Burden of Proof

In Elements of Rhetoric, Bishop Richard Whately showed us how to adapt the idea of burden of proof from common law courts.

In public policy, burden of proof has two contexts. First, anyone who challenges existing policies and beliefs has the burden to prove that those policies and beliefs are wrong. When, and only when, appropriate and solid evidence has been produced, yes, someone needs to defend the present policies and beliefs. The second is that a person who makes a factual claim has the burden to prove it. You can’t just say, “I think that the Mafia killed John Kennedy, and you need to prove that I am wrong.” That unwisely shifts the burden of proof. Likewise, you can’t just ask, “are the migrants actually Chinese spies?” Questions prove nothing.

So, did dead people vote in 2020? Good question, what is the proof? Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani commented, after Donald Trump lost in Michigan in 2020: “we’re going to be looking at dead persons’ ballots, which may actually be very, very substantial.”

Does that prove anything? No, of course not. It’s random speculation, akin to a question. Giuliani did not say that he could prove that dead people voted. He said that he was going to look at it. He also said that it “may” be substantial. In other words, he tried to reverse the burden of proof, when he, in fact, had no proof to offer. Questions and conjectures prove nothing. Not ever.

In any case, when FactCheck.org asked the Trump campaign to prove that dead people voted, they revealed only one case of a single dead person who voted (for Trump!)

Indeed, FactCheck.org was generous. After all, Giuliani had never accepted his burden of proof, and there was, under the rules of dialectic, no need whatsoever even to respond to his question. A sufficient response would be to say, “prove it!” If someone says that mail-in ballots were forged and that the proof is coming soon,” the first response is to say, “you have not fulfilled your burden of proof. I’ll wait until you show evidence, and then I’ll respond.”

Fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact.org and FactCheck.org perform a noble, thankless service and I wish people would pay more attention to them. Unfortunately, however, fact-checkers by their very nature accept the conspiracy theorists’ reversal of presumption. It is not the fact checkers job to prove that conspiracy theories are wrong. It is the conspiracy theorists’ job to prove their claims. If we fact-check an unproven claim, sometimes all we accomplish is to reset the debate on the ground that liars and scoundrels have chosen for themselves. Actually, all a fact checker should need to say is, “Dr. Phil asked whether Chinese spies are crossing the border, but he provided no evidence that they are.” Or, “Donald Trump claims that there was a ballot dump in Pennsylvania, but he never proved it.” Wait for the burden of proof; if the proof never comes, then, well, case closed. And insist that the case is closed. Poof.


Conspiracy Theories

People do ask many questions these days. Are there questions about the 2020 election? Were mail-in ballots cast fraudulently? Did dead people vote? Are immigrants crossing the southern border to spy for China? Or, going back, can Barack Obama prove that he was born in the United States?

As Professor David Zarefsky pointed out in 1993, conspiracy theories are as old as American politics itself. Conspiracy theorists (like Rudy Giuliani or Dr. Phil) often claim that their opponents have secret agendas. Can conspiracy theorists prove their conspiracies? Usually not! Conspiracies are secret! Still, without evidence, a conspiracy theory is just wild speculation.

Earlier Post: Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

Indeed, Zarefsky points out that conspiracy theorists throughout history routinely try to shift the burden of proof. They want us to believe things that they cannot prove. That road leads to madness.

Conclusion

Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true; most do not. The difference is evidence. Sadly, conspiracy theorists succeed when the public, failing to recognize the obligation to prove a point, accepts dubious, unproven claims. Critical thinking is absent. That is why, to have a healthy republic, listeners must grasp how to evaluate the different disputes that people contend. 

Burden of proof and presumption are not factual claims. They are part of the procedure of dialogue and debate that help us think critically. If we ignore the rules of debate, we mire ourselves in a swamp of confusion and disorder. So, a person who debates public policy must offer evidence.

Or, follow this ancient idea: an argument has only two parts—state your case and prove it. Everything else is decoration.

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap

___________________

Richard Whately

Research Note:

Whately explains burden of proof in his wonderful 1828 book, Elements of Rhetoric. Any present-day argumentation and debate textbook will give a brief, easy to understand explanation. For example, Austin Freeley’s superb book is widely assigned in college debate courses.


Personal Note:

There is nothing wrong with saying that you do not know something. Are Chinese spies crossing the border? I do not know. I will await evidence.

By the way, do schools do an adequate job of teaching critical thinking? I'm just asking a question, not making a claim--what do you think? 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D Harpine

Image of Richard Whately, public domain in the United States, published before 1928, via Wikimedia