The First Biden-Trump Debate: Power, or Nurturance?

Donald Trump

During the first Joe Biden – Donald Trump presidential debate of 2024, Trump said that Biden was weak:

“He opened the borders nobody’s ever seen anything like.”

Later, Trump, who was nearing 78 years of age, volunteered that:

“I think I’m a very good shape. I feel that I’m in as good a shape as I was 25, 30 years ago.”

That is, Trump promised to be strong, while he said Biden was weak.

In contrast, Biden promised to be compassionate and caring:

“I’m going to make sure we have childcare. We’re going to significantly increase the credit people have for childcare. I’m going to make sure we do something about what we’re doing on lead pipes and all the things that are causing health problems for people across the country.”

Joe Biden

As never before, this 2024 debate displayed the two candidates’ moral character. Their words displayed their goals. Political debates are not about facts: political debates are about values. Linguist George Lakoff says that conservatives and liberals prefer distinct kinds of leaders. Conservatives seek what Lakoff calls a “strong father.” Liberals, however, want a “nurturing mother.” The June 27, 2024 debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden offered voters that exact choice. Trump told more lies than a carnival barker (no offense to barkers!), while Biden tried to show that he cared about Americans. That was the debate’s essence.


Trump, the Strong President?

For example, talking about the border policy, Trump highlighted his strength versus Biden’s weakness:

“And he didn’t need legislation because I didn’t have legislation. I said, close the border. We had the safest border in history. In that final couple of months of my presidency, we had, according to Border Patrol – who is great, and, by the way, who endorsed me for president. But I won’t say that. But they endorsed me for president.

“Brandon, just speak to him.

“But, look, we had the safest border in history. Now we have the worst border in history. There’s never been anything like it. And people are dying all over the place, including the people that are coming up in caravans.” [Italics added]

The name “Brandon” has, for inexplicable reasons, become conservatives’ insulting nickname for Joe Biden. Insult aside, Trump’s historical comment was false. My grandparents simply got off the boat in 1906 and made their case at Ellis Island. Indeed, for most of the 19th Century, the United States had no controls restricting white immigrants, and immigration controls were minimal in the early 20th Century – but facts are never Trump’s selling point. His selling point was strength. Trump sought to contrast his strength versus Biden’s purported weakness.

Nor did Trump offer details. Did he really close the border? I live near the border. I saw nothing of the kind. Is the border wide open today? Again, no. A fact check on NBC News noted that the Trump administration oversaw a massive influx of undocumented immigrants:

“In 2019, the last year before the Covid-19 pandemic brought down border crossings, there were roughly 860,000 illegal border crossings, far more than in any year during the Obama administration.”

Unfortunately, Trump never intended to give facts. Fear erases facts. Trump’s approach was simple and stark: fear (fear of immigrants) – protection (“close the border”) – more fear (“worst border in history”) – well, you get the point. Trump wanted us to think that he was a strong leader who protected the United States from hordes of immigrants. Biden, Trump said, opened the border to immigrant caravans, while Trump will close it again. It made no difference whether the things Trump said were real. He wasn’t talking about reality. He was talking about fear, strength, and protection.


Biden, the Nurturing President?

While Trump promised to protect the United States against fearsome hordes of immigrants, Biden boasted of positive internal improvements. These improvements did not necessarily protect people against external dangers, real or imaginary, but instead sought to improve the nation’s domestic policies. Biden talked about healthcare:

“We made sure that they [minority communities] have health insurance. We have covered with – the ACA has increased. I made sure that they’re $8,000 per person in the family to get written off in health care, but this guy wants to eliminate that. They tried 50 times. He wants to get rid of the ACA again, and they’re going to try again if they win.”

The threat against which Biden warned was not an external invasion, but rather that Trump would roll back healthcare benefits:

So, Biden gave the television audience a choice: elect the nurturing president who protected healthcare access, or the dangerous president who would callously roll healthcare back to the dark ages. Presenting another nurturing benefit, Biden discussed progress in jobs and hiring: 

“We provided thousands of millions of jobs for individuals who were involved in communities, including minority communities.”

Biden took extra credit when he said “we provided,” for the president himself did not provide “thousands of millions of jobs” to anyone. The fairer point would be that job opportunities improved under his leadership. Biden remarked that his policies protected minority communities, who are among the most vulnerable members of our society. I don’t know whether “thousands of millions” was hyperbole, or simply a bizarre math error. (“Thousands of millions” calculates to more people than inhabit the entire surface of the earth, and no American president has ever been that nurturing!)

 

Foreign Policy

The strong father versus nurturing mother metaphors broke out in an interesting way when the two candidates examined foreign policy. Biden emphasized that the United States’ security depends on our foreign alliances, especially from the protection that we receive from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Biden promoted strength through unity: 

“This is a guy who wants to get out of NATO. You’re going to stay in NATO or you’re going to pull out of NATO?

“The idea that we have – our strength lies in our alliances as well. It may be a big ocean, but we’re – (inaudible) able to avoid a war in Europe, a major war in Europe. What happens if, in fact, you have Putin continue to go into NATO? We have an Article Five agreement, attack on one is attack on all. You want to start the nuclear war he keeps talking about, go ahead, let Putin go in and control Ukraine and then move on to Poland and other places. See what happens then.

“He has no idea what the hell he’s talking about.” [italics added]

That is, does United States expect a single strong leader to protect our foreign policy? Or, like Biden, do we see strength in unity?

Trump took a quite different view about the United States’ foreign alliances. He boasted that he asserted strength even over our allies. He explained that he forced NATO members to increase their financial contributions, else he would refuse to support them against Russia:

“But the big thing I changed is they don’t want to pay. And the only reason that he can play games with NATO is because I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars. I said – and he’s right about this, I said, no, I’m not going to support NATO if you don’t pay. They asked me that question: Would you guard us against Russia? – at a very secret meeting of the 28 states at that time, nations at that time. And they (sic) said, no, if you don’t pay, I won’t do that. And you know what happened? Billions and billions of dollars came flowing in the next day and the next months.” [italics added]

Trump was laying out an uninformed fantasy (NATO countries do not pay us to protect them) although he did, indeed, get the NATO countries to increase investment in their own defense. Unfortunately, no one in the media or during the debate noted Trump’s inaccuracy. In any case, Trump didn’t care about accuracy. His goal was to show strength. Trump’s message was that he strong-armed our North Atlantic allies. Trump did not tell us that he was an expert: he told us that he was strong. He got things done. He, the strong father, wrestled our allies to the floor. Compared with that strength and power, the fact that Trump knew less about NATO than a well-versed high school student paled into insignificance.

Conclusion

I could go on, and at times the debate got so muddled it was hard to say what positions the two candidates advocated. The key point is that a conservative politician advances by convincing the voters that he or she will be a strong leader who protects them from threats. In contrast, a liberal politician tries to show that he or she will help people reach into their resources and improve their lives. A quick listen to video of the debate confirms the message: Trump was loud and forceful. Biden spoke quietly and often degenerated into details and picky facts of the sort that make voters’ brains glaze over. At times, Biden was so quiet that one could barely hear him. Maybe that carried the nurturing mother metaphor too far: Democrats might want to be nurtured, but they don’t want to be lullabied. 

When pundits complained that Trump lied constantly during the debate, they were right, but they missed the point. Trump’s core supporters don’t want facts. They want a strong leader to protect them. When pundits complained that Biden dwelled too much on data, well, they also missed the point. Social change requires attention to detail: no details, no policy! 

Overall, although this was a terrible debate on both sides, it did offer the American people a choice: pick a strong, forceful leader, or a leader who cares about them and wants to improve their lives. Judging from the polls, public opinion splits about equally between the two candidates, and that split arises precisely from Lakoff’s distinction. The American people might not face the best choice, but they have a clear one. They will not choose according to issues. The choice comes down to values: strength versus compassion.

Earlier Post:

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Both Suffered from Talking Points Disease When They Discussed Abortion in their Third 2016 Debate

Earlier post about this debate: 

Biden versus Trump, the June 27, 2024 Presidential Debate, a Study in Character

______________


P.S. The press has made much out of Biden’s ineffectual vocal delivery during this debate. Does that signify cognitive decline? Maybe (his appearance was disturbing), but I don’t necessarily see it. When I read the debate’s transcript, Biden made at least as much sense as Trump – maybe more. That’s not a high standard, but that is the choice the public faces. Biden delivered facts, many of which were true. He stated various specifics and punched out several childish but pointed barbs. I don’t see how a cognitively distressed man could have done that. Although I would still like to know more about Biden’s health, anyone who is concerned about Biden’s thinking ability on June 27 should put aside the video and read the debate transcript.

Preliminary polling suggest that Trump made a far more favorable impression during the debate than did Biden. Still, preliminary polls mean almost nothing (voters are nothing if not fickle), so let us not rush to judgment. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright ©  2024, William D.  Harpine

Images of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, official White House photos

Biden Versus Trump, the June 27, 2024 Presidential Debate, a Study in Character

Joe Biden

Did Joe Biden or Donald Trump win the June 27, 2024 presidential debate? That depends on how we define the question. Biden did better on the issues, while Trump projected more strength and confidence. In terms of character, Trump seemed strong but spoke dishonestly, while Biden was more accurate but seemed weaker. The voters now have a tricky choice. Let’s look at a couple snapshots of the debaters’ performance.

Snapshot #1: Former President Donald Trump said:

“[Biden] allowed millions of people to come in here from prisons, jails and mental institutions.”

That was totally false, and the fact-checking website PolitiFact.com wisely awarded Trump its dreaded “Pants on Fire” rating. The number of criminals involved ranks in the thousands at the most; many of them were promptly caught, and only a fraction of them crossed the southern border to get to the United States. (There are many other ways to get here.) Whether Trump was lying or engaging in hyperbole, he

Donald Trump

simply spoke irresponsibly.

Snapshot #2: Asked about abortion, Biden, rambling aimlessly, said:

“I supported Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters. First time is between a woman and a doctor. Second time is between the doctor and an extreme situation. And a third time is between the doctor – I mean, it’d be between the woman and the state.

“The idea that the politicians – that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous. That’s the last – no politician should be making that decision.”

Furthermore, video shows that while Biden struggled to corral his drifting thoughts, he looked away from the camera, mumbled so that he could barely be heard, and seemed to drift away for a moment or two.

Two Ways to Judge the Debate?

So, back to our question: who won last night’s debate? Like most debate specialists, I mostly think about issues and proof. Like the philosophy student that I was, I say that it all depends on how you define terms. Biden clearly won on the issues. No contest. But who won the character test? That is trickier. 

Almost everything Trump said was untrue if not incoherent. Trump claimed that he had presided over an excellent economy and that Biden wants to abort children after they’ve been born. Both points are false, and there is obviously no such thing as post-birth abortion. In contrast, Biden often spoke truthfully. Does any of that matter? For Biden looked weak and sounded hoarse. That leads to the real point of presidential debating! To “win” a presidential debate means only one thing: to win the election. The American voters make the final judgment. There is no other judge. Cable news pundits do not judge the debate. I do not judge the debate. Only the voters judge the debate.


How Do the Voters Choose?

Yes, Biden won the issues, but voters are not choosing issues. We voters are choosing a leader. When voters ignore the issues (as they usually do), they’re not necessarily making a mistake. The issues can be surprisingly irrelevant. When George W. Bush and Al Gore debated during the 2000 campaign, the key issue was Social Security. However, the unexpected key issue of Bush’s presidency was international terrorism, which the debates barely mentioned. When we chose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016, no one expected the coronavirus to become issue number one. When we choose a president, we want somebody who can handle whatever unexpected nightmares the world throws at us. The debates are not issue tests. They are character tests. We are not choosing an issue. We are choosing a leader.

Unfortunately, Trump and Biden both failed the leadership test. Trump told endless lies. Biden responded, correctly, that Trump was spewing “malarkey.” Unfortunately, Biden often paused, not for effect, but out of seeming confusion. He failed to make eye contact with the camera, lost his train of thought, and spoke in a scratchy voice. It was more than his usual harmless stuttering. He looked weak. He sounded weak. He rambled. He neither looked nor sounded like someone who could lead the world through its next crisis.

Abraham Lincoln, "Honest Abe"

What about the lying? Fact checking is wonderful if people take it seriously. During last night’s debate, Biden certainly did better with the fact checkers. On PolitiFact.com, Trump received 1 “Pants on Fire” rating, 3 ratings of “Mostly False,” and 12 ratings of “False.” Trump received not a single rating of “True,” “Mostly True,” or “Half True.” Biden’s statements received 1 rating of “True,” 3 ratings of “Mostly True,” 3 of “Half True,” 1 of “Mostly False,” and 2 of “False.” Factcheck.org gave a similar analysis. Although neither man demonstrated the level of matchless accuracy that I would like to associate with the American presidency, Trump’s unrelenting dishonesty pricks the conscience. (Yes, I wish we had a better choice than these two: a compulsive liar versus an occasional liar? What would Abraham Lincoln say?)

This leaves the voters with a terrible choice. Do we want to turn the leadership of the free world and the nuclear codes over to a relentless liar who cannot be trusted to fulfill the simplest responsibilities? Or, instead, do we want to choose a man who is so feeble that he might collapse in a tense situation? If we are honest with ourselves, we will never find a satisfactory answer to those questions. There is no satisfactory answer.


The Debate Leaves Us Swirling in Uncertainty

While we seek answers, however, we need to remember that the debate is merely one snapshot. Biden has given many sharp, alert speeches. For example, in his 2023 State of the Union Address, Biden effortlessly out-argued Republican hecklers on the spot.

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

There is no objective way to judge a debate, which involves influencing perceptions as much as it entails logic. It is often said that Richard Nixon lost the 1960 presidential debate because he looked pale and ungroomed on television, and that people who heard the debate on radio thought he was equal to Kennedy. Similarly, I got a much more favorable impression of Biden when I read the transcript of the debate that I did when listening to him. The fact remains that a debater must project confidence. (I once lost a college debate because I looked flustered – the judge’s word was “shaken” – while giving the right answers. It can happen to anyone.)

Overall, last night raised questions about both candidates. Why did Biden look and sound weak last night? Is he falling to dementia, as Republicans want us to believe? Or was he just knocked down by a respiratory illness? Did the White House physician give him too much cold medicine? Did an allergy attack keep him up at night? The public needs to know whether Biden’s problems are temporary or enduring. In contrast, Trump lied, not occasionally, but constantly. He has a long history of lying. He will be a liar forever. He will tell lies on his deathbed. His tombstone will probably be inscribed with lies.

Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

I end by counseling the voting public: kindly view this debate as a snapshot, not as a final image. The public already knows what it needs to know about Trump. Trump is utterly dishonest, and his supporters have made their peace about that. For that matter, so have the media pundits, who have long quit caring about Trump’s unrelenting deceptions. But what about Biden? We need to know more about Biden. Until we do, our key question – who won the debate? – remains shrouded in the mist.

by William D. Harpine

____________

P.S. Biden’s public schedule was essentially empty for several days before the debate. Did he use that time to practice? Or did his advisors give him a chance to recover from a secret illness? If it was the latter, they made a poor choice. It would be far better to call in sick and postpone the debate than to show up dysfunctional. But who knows? Nobody in the White House is talking.

Research Note: Did Nixon make a better impression on radio listeners than on television listeners in the 1960 debate? Theodore White seemed to make that point. It's entirely unclear that this is true. Before the television era, the Lincoln-Douglas debates mostly reached the public via newspaper transcripts. 

Copyright ©  2024, William D.  Harpine

Photos of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, official White House photos, via Wikimedia Commons

Photo of Abraham Lincoln, 1863, Moses Parker Rice, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Soul of Donald Trump, Conspiracy Theorist: Let the Conclusion Prove the Evidence? Huh?

Donald Trump

The way logic is supposed to work is, we gather evidence, and we then use that evidence to prove a conclusion. Simple enough? In contrast, if we use our conclusion to prove our evidence, and then use the evidence to prove the conclusion, we have just tied ourselves into a circle. We have proven nothing.

So, can the conclusion prove the evidence? How does that make sense? It does not, of course. Still, let us try to make sense out of Donald Trump’s latest conspiracy theory:

“You saw what happened this weekend.” So said former President Donald Trump in a June 20, 2024 political rally in Racine, Wisconsin, as he accused Joe Biden of suffering from dementia. He cited manifestly twisted evidence to prove something that his audience already believed, and which they believed without any real evidence. Arguing in a circle.

That’s not a surprise. Abandoning the burden of proof, conspiracy theorists often start with the conclusion, not the evidence. Now, conservatives consistently state, with no real evidence, that President Joe Biden is senile. Who needs evidence? If you believe the conclusion, isn’t that enough? After all, the basic mentality of all conspiracy theories is that the world is out to get you. If we start with the (unproven) claim that Biden is senile, well, then the slightest evidence, no matter how silly, reinforces the existing (unproven) premise. For conspiracy theorists, the (unproven) conclusion becomes its own evidence. Reality twists into a circle.

Jumping on the bandwagon, Trump’s rally speech ripped into Biden with a vengeance:

“Joe Biden is humiliating our country on the world stage. He’s actually humiliating us. You saw what happened this weekend. It’s turning the United States into a total joke all over the world.”

Why would Trump say such a thing? Well, that’s simple enough. Over the last few days, the ultra-conservative New York Post published unscrupulously edited video captures that appear to show President Joe Biden wandering around in a demented stupor. In one of those, the video editor simply cropped the image. The un-cropped picture showed the group of skydivers dropping down on the world leaders in a ceremonial display. While most of the G7 leaders focused on the skydiver in the middle, Biden briefly turned to speak to a skydiver who landed off to the side. The video editor simply cropped the image so no one could see the skydiver off to the side. Any 10-year-old with a computer could explain how to do that.


The Headline Said It All!

Context always matters.

To understand how Trump got to his point (“you saw what happened this weekend”), we need to look briefly at the New York Post’s story. The Post’s story was sneaky: the newspaper posted a deceptive headline, followed by a less deceptive narrative, then slightly less deceptive picture caption, followed by a more accurate explanation tucked into the story, where casual readers could miss it. The Post’s presentation started with a baldly false statement, which, led, step by step, to a somewhat more accurate story. “See!” The editors could have said, “We told the truth – eventually.” 

Let’s start with the headline. Cropping or no cropping, the Post’s headline targeted conservative conspiracy theorists: “Biden wanders away at G7 summit before being pulled back by Italian PM.” That, obviously, was bluntly false. Then, however, the Post’s explanation, in the story itself, hedged the claim: 

“As the leaders of the world’s wealthiest democracies applauded the evening parachuting presentation, the 81-year-old US president’s attention visibly wandered away from where the others were looking.” [italics added] 

That is, as they explained their image, the Post’s authors did not say that Biden was wandering away from the scene. They merely noted, correctly, that Biden briefly looked at something different from what the other leaders looked at. That was still oddly deceptive, but less so than the headline.

The Post added an equally cagey photo caption: “Joe Biden appeared to wander off from the group of world leaders during the G7 summit Thursday” [Italics added]. Since it was inaccurate to say that he wandered off, the Post’s writers qualified their point: Biden “appeared” to wander off. Of course, the only reason that Biden appeared to wander off is that the Post had cropped the image.

Sneaky, sneaky. Unfortunately, the headline said it all! “Biden wanders away.” Once the headline made its point, it was the Post’s sneaky qualifications, not Biden, that wandered into the dell of deception.

A second photo, later in the story, correctly displayed the second skydiver. A bit later in the story, the Post admitted that Biden was interacting with the other skydiver. Accurate, but too late.

Roundly criticized for their deceptive reporting, the New York Post decided that they had no choice but to stick with their story. Conservative media and Big Tech outlets around the world continued to circulate the Post’s deceptive images. The misleadingly edited videos from which they were taken spread across the Internet. As NBC News accurately reported, “Misleading videos and false claims that President Joe Biden wandered off aimlessly from the G7 conference last week continued to go viral despite debunkings and fact-checks that tried to correct the record.” 

Now, let us remember what Donald Trump said. Trump said, “You saw what happened this weekend.” But you didn’t see it!  Trump’s audience presumably saw the events only as the New York Post misreported them! Trump’s audience, I presume, saw only the cropped image. Context always matters.


Donald Trump Ran with the Story

Never let a good smear go to waste. In any case, the New York Post’s ridiculous story gave Donald Trump all the evidence he needed. During this Racine speech, Trump ignored the Post’s hedging. He simply jumped on the headline. Why not? Isn’t that why the Post wrote the headline?

“First, he wandered off the G7 in Europe, the stage. He looked like he didn’t know where the hell he was, but he didn’t know where he was. He’s blaming it now on AI. He’s saying… He doesn’t know what AI is, but that’s okay. Now they’re saying the media is manipulating. Oh, he’s saying the media is manipulating now. On that one, I have to stick up for the media, I have to tell you.” [Italics added] [ellipsis mark in the transcript marks a brief pause]

(Note, however, that the cropped image showed nothing about a stage; the G7 incident occurred outdoors, in a field.) (So, now who is wandering off in confusion? Hmm.) Also note how Trump continued to ridicule his opponents without disproving them: “Now they’re saying the media is manipulating. Oh, he’s saying the media is manipulating now. On that one, I have to stick up for the media, I have to tell you.”

Did Trump have, or offer, any evidence that “he didn’t know where he was?” No. Did he refute the debunking of the absurd images? No! Instead, he merely ridiculed the fact-checkers: “He’s blaming it now on AI [artificial intelligence].”

Quick note: you don’t need AI to crop an image; free photo editing software will do the job in a few seconds. A 10-year-old with a computer could show Trump how it was done.

If Trump wanted to be rational, he might say: “No, the image was obviously not edited; it is accurate, and here are the reasons that I say that…” Trump, however, had no reasons. The image was manipulated. Trump had no evidence otherwise. Any fool can see that it was manipulated. Yet, for Trump’s audience, ridicule was refutation enough. Trump was not merely ridiculing the fact-checkers; he ridiculed the concept of facts. His cheering audience seemed happy to go along.


Conclusion

This blog post started by saying that Trump’s evidence only seems believable because he assumed the conclusion that he wanted to prove. We all know that to be wrong. Conservatives, however, seem to believe that Biden is demented with the same passion that they believe that the Texas sky is blue and the ocean is wet. If their belief has grown strong enough, they can toss out any claim that Biden is not demented. Their belief that Biden is demented is so powerful that it overwhelms contradiction and invites the most ridiculous proof. If they receive the slightest, most absurd, utterly impossible evidence that Biden suffers from dementia, they will accept that absurd, impossible evidence – because they have already accepted the conclusion.

I guess, for some conservatives, inflexible thinking becomes its own punishment.

Does President Biden suffer from mental decline? I don’t know. How could I know? I’m not a psychologist. My first impression, however, concludes that Biden must be healthy: if conservatives had evidence of his mental decline, they would stop manipulating such absurd images.

Trump reinforced his audience by pitching onto evidence that was visibly deceptive. Only an audience motivated by gullibility rather than reason could take Trump’s claim seriously.

Yet, Trump continues to thrive in election polls. What in the world does that say about the United States of America’s voters? I shudder to think.

_______________

Earlier Post: Why Are Trump's Supporters Happy with His Conspiracy Theories at the Helsinki Summit?

Earlier Post: Trump and Conspiracy Theories
_______________

P.S. Once again, I must thank the good people at rev.com for providing a verbatim transcript of Trump’s speech. Rev.com is a commercial transcript-providing company. Their public transcripts, which they post as a service, are a national treasure. There is no better way to poke through the political hype practiced by politicians of all stripes, liberal, conservative, or whatever, than to look at the full text of a speaker’s exact words.


Research Notes:

In a common logical pattern, a previously proven conclusion serves as evidence for further argument. That requires that the conclusion must already be proven. That’s not what either Trump or the New York Post did. What they did was to assume their conclusion. They used that unproved conclusion to prove that their shaky evidence proved their (still-unproved) conclusion. That was just arguing in a circle.

Some arguments do start with assumptions. Happens every day in geometry class. It is, however, never valid to use an assumption to prove that the assumption is true. That is just twisted. The best guide to non-syllogistic logic is still Howard Kahane’s groundbreaking book, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Highly recommended.

Professor David Zarefsky has argued that a basic technique of conspiracy theorists is to make assumptions instead of proving their points. When they do so, conspiracy theorists disregard the basic dialectical burden to prove the points that they assert.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo

Frederick Douglass' Fourth of July Speech: A Masterpiece of Narration

“The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me.”

So said escaped slave Frederick Douglass in his famous speech, “What to the Slave Is the 4th of July?” In this speech, which condemned the very concept of the 4th of July, Douglass told a story in vivid language that shocked the conscience of those that heard him speak. He told a sordid story of callous torture. This speech was a lesson in the power of storytelling. Douglass told a horror story, not a children’s tale, but it was a horror story, a story of unblinking truth, that America needed to hear.

That is why Douglass told a story to his shocked audience in Rochester New York on July 5, 1852. His story teemed with pity, horror, and grief. That his story was true, that it arose from his own experience, added to its heartrending power. It was Douglass’ story, not his historical reasoning (which was impressive in itself), his emotional narrative, that gave his long speech its mesmerizing power.

By 1852, chattel slavery was deeply ensconced in the United States’ economy. How could Douglass overcome this pernicious tradition? Surely not with facts or figures. Facts, figures, and statistics rarely persuade people. No, when speakers promote controversial arguments, they need to tell a story.

Earlier Post: One Searing Phrase, Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech

Earlier Post: Rev. Henry J. van Dyke, Sr. and the Rhetoric of the Christian Right, Civil War Style

Douglass’ story narrated the slavedriver’s moral depravity. He led his audience through a slave procession’s suffering and examined the slave market’s dehumanizing economics. As the story continued, Douglass gave a generalized critique of the United States’ slave-driven economy.

After a lengthy introduction, Douglass contrasted the joys of the 4th of July against the horrors that the enslaved experienced daily. Quoting the Bible’s bitterly mournful Psalm 137, Douglass called up the “mournful wail of millions:”

“Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, ‘may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!’”

Warming to his narrative, Douglass told the horrifying story of the slave merchants, who drove men, women, and children like animals, heedless of their suffering while indifferent to the viciousness of his own behavior:

“Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and American religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States.”

Showing his gift for narration, Douglass conveyed the vivid details of the slave merchants who, across the southern United States, treated their human merchandise with more cruelty than they showed toward their dogs:

“You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and Bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them.”

Continuing his story, Douglass turned to the suffering of the victims, the enslaved human beings who, suffering desperately, hoping futilely for some relief from the physical and, worse, mental torment that marked the slave-procession. As the slavedriver pushed the forced laborers forward, he behaved, in Douglass’ enraged commentary, like a madman, accountable to no one. It was Douglass, but not the slavedriver, who recognized the victims’ searing, unbearable suffering. Douglass focused first on the slavedriver:

“Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives!”

Douglas then turned to the tormented slaves:

“There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn!”

Unconcerned whether the enslaved are exhausted, suffering, or in pain, the slavedriver in Douglass’ depiction made his living with brutality and fear, not humanity:

“The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the centre of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on.”

Still, by Douglas’ account, the procession’s brutality was merely a precursor to the market itself. When they arrived at the auction, customers examined the offerings as if they were buying horses or cattle, again, utterly heedless of their victims’ most elemental humanity:

“Follow this drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude.”

To persuade his audience, however, Douglass generalized the sad, horrifying tale. It was not enough, could not be enough, for Douglass’ ever-so-dignified listeners to accept that his Gothic story might have been real, that these events could have once happened. For it was not just one story. Douglass showed audience that his story represented everyday events in the southern United States. From one end of Dixie to the other, from slave states as far north as Delaware and Maryland, and south to Texas and Florida, the white economy’s prosperity and dignity sprung from the slavers’ brutality. One vicious procession, after another, after another. Slave markets and auctions without end. A massive enterprise, Douglass explained, in which the entire southern culture was an opus of ruthless behavior that betrayed the nation’s pretense to be free:

“Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States.”

Not just any part of the United States, but, Douglass insisted, “the ruling part of the United States.” Douglas was right. Even the northern states relied on the raw materials that the slave states sent them. Or, as Douglass correctly noted, it was, ever so ironically, slavery – cruelty – forced labor – that propelled the greatest free nation on earth. The South’s enslaved labor cultivated cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco. Northern mills processed the farm products and sold them on the domestic and international markets. A wheel of prosperity for many, but not everyone, as the nation steadfastly refused to look at the horrible story that made the United States rich and powerful.

Earlier Post about This Speech: Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

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

 
There’s an old saying that, if you want to understand something, follow the money. Slavery brought immense income to many. That was not Douglass’ point. Douglass’ story took the nation’s eyes off the money and onto the heartlessness that slavers showed to their victims. Douglass, who bore the scars of the slave-driver’s whip on his back, told a story that was hard to deny. Widely republished in newspapers, flyers, and books, Douglass’ oration helped the United States awaken its slowly growing conscience.

Stories work. If you want to persuade people, tell a story. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Barack Obama’s Speech about Fatherhood: Building upon a Rock

Barack Obama

On Father’s Day, June 15, 2008, future President Barack Obama told fathers to build upon a rock. He advised fathers to uphold their responsibilities (like men, not boys, he said). He encouraged government and society to support fatherhood and family life instead of oppressing them. He gave this speech at the First Apostolic Church of God in Chicago, a largely African American megachurch. Like all ceremonial speakers, Obama praised and blamed. He praised good fathers. He urged negligent fathers to fulfill their duties. Like all good ceremonial speakers, his praise promulgated values and led to policy: for, after all, why should we praise something unless we seek to emulate it?

Obama began by quoting the Bible (Matthew 7:24-25): “Whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock.” Building on that theme, Obama said that Jesus Christ was the rock, but so was the church’s founding Bishop, and, for the occasion, so were fathers.

Father’s Day was, according to Obama, a day to recognize that family is society’s rock, and the father is part of the family’s rock. He did not misogynistically place the father at the pinnacle, but, rather, as an essential part:

“Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.”

Continuing, Obama lamented that too many fathers disappear from their families’ lives:

“But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.” 

Unlike pure liberals, who blame everything on society; unlike pure conservatives, who blame everything on individuals, Obama called for broad-spectrum reform. We must, he said, help our children in every way:

“Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more after-school programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.

“But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child — it’s the courage to raise one.”

“The courage to raise” – “courage,” Obama said, a rock-like word on which to build our children’s future.

Turning to public policy, Obama encouraged societies to support families. He said that government should make “it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid them.” He called for the end of marriage penalties. He encouraged training, opportunities, and government programs to help families raise children:

“We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income.”

Continuing, Obama discussed the gift of hope. We must, implied, build our families upon that rock. So, as he ended, Obama praised fathers, asked irresponsible fathers to transform themselves, and invited society to support families instead of abandoning them to face their problems alone. Just before his concluding prayer, Obama reminded families of their most basic obligation:

“That is our ultimate responsibility as fathers and parents. We try. We hope. We do what we can to build our house upon the sturdiest rock.”

Ceremonial speakers praise and blame. But why? Remember, when we praise, we should emulate. Is it enough to praise? Shouldn’t we also learn? Indeed, what purpose do we serve if we learn and fail to act? The alternative is to abandon hope in an empty world, an world of cynicism and despair. To live as a healthy nation, we must have responsible parents and a caring society. Neither, standing alone, is enough. Those are rocks on which to build.

Obama did not build his policy proposals on statistics, expert opinion, or subtle analogies. He built them on values.

The history of rhetoric offers us too few speeches about fathers. (Or about mothers, for that matter!) If we abandon family responsibility, do we have a rock left on which to build?


In memory of my own father, a man so devoted and too little appreciated. Special thanks to all fathers. Happy Father's Day!

by William D. Harpine

Earlier Posts:

Kristin Urquiza's Brief Story about Her Father

Ayanna Pressley's Mother's Day Speech: How Did She Use Language to Make Her Point?

Copyright © 2024, Willliam D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo

Debbie Lesko, Anthony Fauci, and the "Illusion of Proof"

Anthony Fauci, 2020

If you make a claim, it is your job to prove it. Period.

Although often uninformative, congressional hearings certainly get interesting. During a hearing on June 3, 2024, Arizona Congresswoman Debbie Lesko said that former CDC physician Dr. Anthony Fauci had suppressed evidence that the coronavirus epidemic started with a leak from a Chinese laboratory. Fauci responded:

“You said about four or five things, Congresswoman, that were just not true.”

Lesko said:

“Well, we have emails to prove it.”

Fauci retorted:

“But you don’t!”

Lesko’s conclusion?

“Thank you. And I yield back.”

Emails to prove Lesko’s point have yet to materialize. If Lesko had such emails, she surely would have produced them on the spot, or shortly thereafter. Instead, she meekly said, “And I yield back.”

Now, the House Committee did, in fact, publish some emails. They were not sent by or to Fauci. So, emails existed. Emails that proved her claims? Well, no. That is why it was so vital for Lesko to say, “We have emails to prove it:” for she does have emails (who doesn’t?), just not probative emails. She never quoted her supposed emails, which would quickly have shown their irrelevance. A stroke of vagueness, like a magician’s smoke. 

Debbie Lesko

Lesko’s bizarre interaction represents what communication scholar Barnet Baskerville has called “the illusion of proof.” That is, she created the impression that she could prove something. However, she offered no proof at all. This is different from presenting bad proof. The illusion of proof does not mean that Lesko made bad arguments or presented weak evidence. It means that she created the illusion that she was offering proof when she had none. After all, if she quoted the supposed emails, we could determine whether they supported her accusation or not. Unfortunately, they are only a mirage.

Indeed, illusory proof like Lesko misdirects the audience’s attention, just as magicians use smoke and mirrors to make the audience think they have seen something they have not. All too often, politicians create illusions with verbal smoke and imagined mirrors. In this case, Lesko tempted uncritical listeners to believe that she could prove that Fauci had suppressed critical information.

Earlier Post: Trump, the "China Virus," and the Art of Controlling the Agenda by Misdirection

The background here is that, during the congressional hearing, Republican members of Congress lambasted Fauci and spread various bizarre conspiracy theories. One can only speculate that their motive was to divert attention from Donald Trump’s inept response to the coronavirus. By shouting irrational claims, while giving the witness only moments to respond, they played to the more paranoid members of their voter base. They create the illusion that something is going on. In this case, the lab leak theory represents the dubious possibility that the coronavirus epidemic started in a Chinese laboratory, supported or encouraged by American officials.

Earlier Post: Trump Calls Coronavirus “Their New Hoax”

By creating an illusion, Lesko was doing nothing new. Illusory proof has long infested political discourse. In 1950, at the height of the Red Scare, Senator. Joseph McCarthy claimed that he had a list of 58 communists working in the State Department. The list never appeared. Baskerville himself shows how Nixon created illusions in his famous Checkers speech.

For their current conspiracy theory to work, Republicans would need to prove that the coronavirus had an unnatural origin, that it came from a Chinese laboratory, and that Fauci himself was in some way behind the scheme. The conspiracy theory falls apart if even one link breaks. Republicans appeared unable to prove any of the links. Lacking evidence, they manufacture the illusion of proof. Not bad proof. Not questionable proof. Instead, no proof at all. They created only a smoky image behind which lies no evidence whatsoever. Lesko said she has emails. If so, where are they? What do they say? Fauci made the perfect response: “You don’t!” He gave her the chance to produce her proof. He broke the illusion in two words.

Earlier Post: Dr. Fauci's Persuasive Methods: Stay Calm, Give Information, Stick to the Facts. Will That Work?

____________

P.S. Largely forgotten today, Barnet Baskerville was one of the most eminent communication scholars of the mid-twentieth century. More than almost any other researcher, Baskerville brought the field’s attention to the role that public oratory plays in constitutional government. His terrific article on “The Illusion of Proof” appeared in 1960 in Western Speech. Large research libraries can probably find it on a database.

By William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image of Debbie Lesko: Official Congressional portrait, cropped, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Anthony Fauci: Cropped from a White House photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons