Trump's "Jekyll and Hyde" Convention Speech Promised Fierce Leadership

Donald Trump

“Win, win, win, win, win, win.” So said Donald Trump in his speech last night, July 18, 2024, accepting the Republican presidential nomination. Rambling for about an hour and a half, Trump spoke little about policies, although he did manage to spread a pile of falsehoods. PBS's fact checkers discovered a long series of false or misleading claims. Now, we are all accustomed to Trump and his falsehoods. Furthermore, noting that Trump wandered from sounding conciliatory to spewing out angry accusations, a columnist in the conservative National Review called it a “Jekyll and Hyde speech.” 

However, among all this smoke, let us not miss Trump’s point. Trump promoted, not facts, not policies, but an attitude: he promised to be “fierce.” In the nation’s history, Trump explained, “No enemy was too fierce.” The nation needed, he said, in true conservative fashion, to return to that past attitude. And it is attitudes – not facts, not policies, but attitudes –  that determine election victory. 

Earlier Post: Do 2020 Republican National Convention Speakers Care About Fact Checkers?

Yes, although Trump mentioned policies, this was not a policy speech. Instead, this speech asked, what do we value? And Trump valued strength. Trump promised to be strong – powerful – unyielding. He warned the audience of “crisis… crisis… crisis.” Fear. He warned of dangers of every kind. Powerful, evil, and malicious people threaten us. Facing those dangers, Trump promised to be “fierce.” Trump did not sell himself as a bastion of domestic or foreign policy wisdom. He barely mentioned such virtues. No, in his dark vision, dangers attack us from without and within, and the only solution – the only protection – is to be fierce.

Social scientist George Lakoff explains that conservatives and liberals operate with different metaphors. Conservatives (like Trump’s base voters?) seek a “strong father.” Conservatives seek strength. Liberals, in contrast, prefer what Lakoff calls a “nurturing mother.” Liberals pursue wisdom and compassion. Do the twain ever meet? Trump sought to be elected by promising the American people that he would be strong, that the United States’ enemies will quail in fear as he approaches, that his relentless power will make America safe – that he will “make America great again.”


The United States Is Falling Apart?

Throughout world history, conservative thought often comes from the feeling that things were better in the past. Change causes anxiety and failure. The ancient Greeks fondly remembered the mythical time of Achilles and Odysseus. American conservatives look back to Revolutionary war heroes like George Washington. We fall when we abandon ancient wisdom. Thus, as he began his remarkable discussion of fierceness, Trump lamented the decline – the inescapable decay – that liberal leaders create:

“Under the current administration, we are indeed a nation in decline.”

Crises, Crises, Crises!

Next, Trump narrated the terrible dangers that attack the United States. Unlike the past, which was (so Trump claimed) inflation-free, rising prices now wrack the economy:

“We have an inflation crisis that is making life unaffordable, ravaging the incomes of working and low-income families, and crushing, just simply crushing our people like never before. They’ve never seen anything like it.”

Trump badly overstated his case. According to Investopedia, inflation under Richard Nixon was 5.70%, rising to 8.0% under President Gerald Ford and 9.90% during the Jimmy Carter administration. The inflation rate under Biden has been about 5.70%, which is a bit high, but you can’t honestly say that we have “never seen anything like it.” As I mentioned, however, Trump was not talking about facts to start with. His point was crisis – fear! We are in danger! Who will save us?

Likewise, immigration, which is Trump’s prime “America First” selling point, also morphed into a terrifying crisis:

“We also have an illegal immigration crisis, and it’s taking place right now, as we sit here in this beautiful arena. It’s a massive invasion at our southern border that has spread misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction to communities all across our land. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it.”

Now, unauthorized immigration has indeed risen during the Biden administration, although, as the Christian Science Monitor demonstrates, probably not as dramatically as Republicans like to say. But look at Trump’s language of fear. “Crisis!” “Massive invasion!” “Misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction!” And, of course, Trump insisted, “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it.”

Who will protect us from immigration danger? From the crisis?

Of course, Trump also talked about “an international crisis:”

“Then there is an international crisis, the likes of which the world has seldom been part of. Nobody can believe what’s happening. War is now raging in Europe and the Middle East, a growing specter of conflict hangs over Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, and all of Asia, and our planet is teetering on the edge of World War III, and this will be a war like no other war because of weaponry. The weapons are no longer army tanks going back and forth, shooting at each other. These weapons are obliteration.”

Indeed, even as I write this, war does ravage parts of the world. Yes, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has been threatening nuclear war. The dangers are real. Look, however, at Trump’s apocalyptic language: “War is now raging.” “A growing specter of conflict.” “Our planet is teetering.” And, in the nuclear age, Trump is right to warn us that “These weapons are obliteration.” Danger and fear.

That is why voters must ask themselves, what defends us against danger? Wisdom, or force? That is a value question, and Trump insists that only force can do the job. (For my part, I would like to say wisdom and power both, but how often do those two join hands?)


Trump Says We Need to Be Fierce!

How can the United States repel such dangers? Biden, of course, like most liberals, projects himself as wise, knowledgeable, and involved. In this speech, Trump rarely mentioned such virtues. Instead, we need to be “fierce:”

“It’s time for a change. This administration can’t come close to solving the problems. We’re dealing with very tough, very fierce people. They’re fierce people. And we don’t have fierce people. We have people that are a lot less than fierce, except when it comes to cheating on elections and a couple of other things, then they’re fierce. Then they’re fierce.” [italics added]

Repetition has powerful persuasive effects: “very tough, very fierce people.” “They’re fierce people.” Trump decried Biden’s alleged weakness: “we don’t have fierce people.” (Also, Trump could not, of course, avoid mentioning his stolen election conspiracy theory.)

Earlier Post: Joe Biden Organized His Holocaust Remembrance Day Speech to Place Values in Context


Who Will Keep Us Safe?

In this speech, Trump projected himself to be the ultra-strong father. Not just a strong father, but a fierce leader. He would exert power. He would be, to the Republican National Convention’s cheering delight, the president with the clenched fist.

Yet, historically, fierce leaders rarely keep their publics safe. By the time Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo and went into exile, his wars had inflicted French casualties that may have reached into the millions. Hitler and Mussolini certainly did not keep their nations safe. What about Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution? Did Pol Pot keep Cambodia safe? If history teaches us anything, it is that strong leaders can create terrible dangers. If weakness does not keep us safe, neither does fierceness. I, for one, would feel more comfortable with Trump’s apparent lead going into the November election if he had talked about being “strong and wise” instead of simply being “fierce.” 

Still, fear overwhelms people’s rational thinking. Faced with crises, they seek strength. They yearn for walls, strong leaders, and powerful protectors. That is what Trump offered. As he concluded his long, long speech, Trump once again promised strength:

“America’s future will be bigger, better, bolder, brighter, happier, stronger, freer, greater and more united than ever before.

“And quite simply put, we will very quickly make America great again.” [italics added] 

Lakoff may be right: our competing metaphors (strong father or nurturing mother) seem to define our political divide. The November 2024 presidential election does not only give the United States a choice between two candidates. The voters will assert their values. Is strength alone enough? Do leaders need to combine strength with wisdom or compassion? Does it matter that Trump uttered false or misleading statements, one after the other? Does fierceness overcome all else? Or, as Trump hopes, do many voters value ferocious strength above all other attitudes? If so, Trump offered his case.

by William D. Harpine

______________ 

Earlier Post: Donald Trump's 2020 RNC Acceptance Speech: American Carnage, Revisited?

Earlier Post: Kristin Urquiza's Speech at the 2020 Democratic National Convention: Short and She Told a Story

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo

Did West Virginia Governor Jim Justice Just Advocate Violent Revolution?

Jim Justice speaking at an earlier event

Did West Virginia Governor Jim Justice call for the violent overthrow of the American government when he talked about becoming “totally unhinged?” Or did he not?

Speaking at the 2024 Republican National Convention on July 16, 2024, Justice called for Republicans to engage in violent insurrection.

Radical speakers often speak in what scholars call “multivocal communication” but which the press often calls “dog whistles.” Multivocal means “in two voices,” and a dog whistle can only be heard by some ears but not others. Diplomats call a similar technique “plausible deniability.” That is, Justice said something ambiguous that was profoundly evil, but deniable.

Now, most (not some, but most) Republicans falsely say that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump by unproven fraud. Still, one suspects that many of them also know, deep in their hearts, that the January 6, 2021 Capitol Building riot was evil and unpatriotic. How does one reconcile that moral discrepancy? Simple! Plausible deniability. Talk out of both sides of your mouth. Say something that your listeners instantly understand, but which remains ambiguous.

What Did Justice Say? 

Dressed in a stylish but ill-fitted pinstripe suit, Justice stood behind the podium, offered various folksy comments, and sent for his well-fed bulldog “Babydog.” Babydog sat quietly in a luxurious chair as Justice rambled along in his 6 ½ minute talk. About two minutes into the speech, Justice announced that he stood for truth:

“The foundation of my life is the truth. I’ve got to tell you just this and tell you this right now. I challenge the media all the time to find something that knowingly I’ve told them that’s not the truth. And they can’t do it because I’m not gonna to do that.”

But what “truth” did he speak in that moment? The absolute next thing he said was:

“Now I want you to listen to this and pay really close attention. The bottom line to why we’re here. The bottom line to every single thing that’s going on in this great country today is one thing. We become totally unhinged if Donald Trump is not elected in November.” [Attendees cheered] [Italics added]

Now, let us recall the January 6, 2021 riot at the United States Capitol, when hordes of Donald Trump’s supporters responded to Trump’s brazenly unhinged speech to march on the Capitol to overthrow the 2020 election. The crowd screamed for the deaths of various government officials and shouted “Stop the Steal” as they protested Joe Biden’s election victory. Various rioters ended up in prison.

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

Justice’s statement rested on two carefully chosen (he told us to “pay really close attention”) words: “we” and “unhinged.” Those are the words that created ambiguity. How so?


Multivocal Interpretation #1

First, given the historical context of how Republicans behaved when they lost the 2020 election, my interpretation – my reading – is this. Justice was threatening that “we” (meaning Republicans) would become “unhinged” (meaning deranged) if Trump loses the upcoming presidential election. That sounded like a threat to repeat January 6. Judging by the crowd’s enthusiastic cheers, I think that the attendees understood what Justice said exactly in that way.


Multivocal Interpretation #2

At the same time, can we prove Interpretation #1? No! This is multivocal communication. It is plausibly deniable! For, after all, “we” might mean “the entire United States,” not just Republicans. Maybe Justice was saying that the entire nation would become unhinged because of four more years of supposedly inept Democratic Party leadership. Is that what Justice really meant? Or is that what he could pretend he meant?


So, Which Is It?

Multivocal Interpretation #1 expresses a threat. I think that Justice intended to make a threat. He threatened “unhinged” violence if Trump lost. There is little doubt in my mind. I don’t think there was any doubt in the attendees’ minds. I base that interpretation on the fact that Justice preceded his statement by saying “listen to this and pay really close attention,” that he uttered the statement carefully and deliberately, and that the audience responded enthusiastically.

However, Multivocal Interpretation #2 also fits the bare facts. If, for example, somebody arrested Justice and charged him with treason or insurrection, his lawyers could say that he intended Interpretation #2, and nobody could prove otherwise.

Still, Interpretation #2 seems unlikely. If he had truly intended Interpretation #2, it is far more likely that Justice would have said something like, “if we have four more years of Democrats, the nation will fall apart.” Or, he might have said, “if we have four more years of Democrats, the nation will become unhinged.” That would be both more precise and more forceful. I don’t think he intended anything of the kind. The rest of his speech was precise and forceful, and it would be odd indeed if his most important point (the “bottom line” that he asked us to “listen to … and pay really close attention”) was ambiguous. What he intended was to make a veiled threat while leaving room to squiggle away from criticism.

Justice’s overall theme was love: that Babydog loved everyone, and so did Trump. Odd indeed, meaningful indeed, to throw in a seemingly random comment about becoming “totally unhinged.”

Politicians often talk out of both sides of their mouths. This speech, however, was a doozy.

When politicians tell you what they believe, we should sometimes take them seriously.

by William D. Harpine

Earlier Post: Were Trump's Tweets Racist? They Were (Sort of) Deniable Dog Whistles

Earlier Post: Mitch McConnell and the Art of Dog Whistles

______________

P.S. It’s just my view, but I think that Babydog was the best-behaved individual in the entire convention hall. By the way, does Jim Justice always speak the truth, as he claimed in this speech? His record on PolitiFact (which includes one “Pants on Fire” rating) isn’t as bad as Trump’s, but it is far from perfect.

Republican delegate Melinda Morris said at the same convention that, “If this election gets stolen, Trump won’t have to call for a meeting,” she added. “The Americans will be showing up on the doorsteps of Washington, D.C. themselves. This is where we draw a line in the sand. They will not do this to us again, and if they do, we’re going to have to do something about it.” That stated the same point as Justice, but without the multivocal character.

Research Note: University of Texas Professor Bethany Albertson explains her theory of multivocal communication in a highly recommended essay.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: From Governor Jim Justice, marked as public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

"Peace for Our Time?" Neville Chamberlain's Speech about Appeasement

Neville Chamberlain

After the September 1938 Munich conference, at which he caved into all of Adolf Hitler’s territorial demands, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain promised “peace for our time.”

Wow, was he ever wrong! Wanting something does not make it so. Today, too many of the United States’ conservative leaders have forgotten that cruel lesson.

Yes, Chamberlain wanted “peace for our time.” Don’t we all? Unfortunately, it’s the details that matter!

We study historical speeches so that we can learn from history. In the brief speech that Chamberlain gave when he returned from Munich, Chamberlain explained neither how nor why appeasement would bring peace. What he did not say was more important than what he did say. Chamberlain did not say, “trust Hitler, but verify.” He just implied, “trust Hitler.”

Yes, history is a cruel teacher, and naïveté brings its own punishment. Yes, we can learn much by studying great speeches. Sometimes, however, we can learn even more by studying horrendous speeches, like Chamberlain’s brief, soothing talk. Chamberlain taught the world a cruel lesson that we have, unfortunately, now forgotten: bullies think that appeasement represents weakness. An appeased bully is a dangerous bully.

The idea behind the Munich conference was that the Western powers could (without asking Czechoslovakia), cede part of Czechoslovakia to Germany. The territory in question, the Sudetenland, was a group of large German-speaking provinces. Chamberlain believed that that this huge concession would satisfy Adolf Hitler’s territorial demands. Hitler would, Chamberlain believed, calm down and be satisfied, and the world would hum along. 

Nothing new under the sun! Stunningly, United States Senator J. D. Vance recently said of Russia’s attack on Ukraine: “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.”

The Munich Agreement

Arriving at the Prime Minister’s official residence at 10 Downing Street in London, on September 30, 1938, Chamberlain read aloud a brief statement that he and Hitler had jointly drafted:

“We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.

“We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.” [Italics added]

Czechoslovakia, which lacked Britain and Germany’s military power, did not agree to any of this. Instead, in the time-honored tradition of European foreign policy, the powerful nations treated small nations like pawns on a chessboard. 

Continuing, Chamberlain made his own personal statement:

“My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.

“I believe it is peace for our time...

“Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”

Chamberlain meant the sleep of foolishness, I guess. 

Hitler promptly removed the Sudetenland’s non-German population. Within a matter of months, Hitler arrogantly annexed all of Czechoslovakia. Much later, Chamberlain gave a longer speech in which he explained that he had believed Hitler’s obviously insincere promises. Too late! 

World War II Ruins of Hamburg, Germany

In any case, 11 months after the Munich conference, on September 1, 1939, Hitler’s massive war machine struck out at Poland – another innocent nation that had the misfortune to have a German-speaking minority – and World War II gradually flamed across Europe. Breaking his word, Hitler had already invaded all of Czechoslovakia, promptly revoking basic human rights for that nation’s non-German population. By 1945, more than 50 million people had died. The larger part of the dead were civilian massacre victims. Millions of Jews died in Heinrich Himmler’s concentration camps. Much of Europe was laid to waste, and Germany’s great cities had been reduced to piles of dusty, smoking rubble.

That is not what I would call “peace in our time.”


Earlier Post: Adolf Hitler's Speech in the Berlin Sportpalast: God and Power 

Earlier Post: Biden's 2024 State of the Union Warned of Impending Calamity

We Can Learn Lessons

Where can we begin?

First, Chamberlain was stunningly naïve. Instead of giving truth to the British people (or even to himself), he offered them false hope. We sit on a stormy beach as a hurricane approaches, serenely confident that the violent waves will never wash us out to sea.​ Then, terror strikes when we realize that we should have heeded the warning.

Second, Chamberlain and Hitler taught us that brutal dictators are not to be trusted.


What about Today?

Germany today has regained its industrial and cultural might and its current government is a hallmark of representative government. After the war, the Allied nations created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance devoted to forestalling Russian aggression. Many terrible conflicts have afflicted the world since 1945, but the NATO alliance continues to guard a shaky peace among the major powers.

Still, many Americans, who often call themselves “conservatives,” have begun openly to excuse or even support Russia’s vicious aggression in Ukraine. As the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, rattles swords and makes blood-curdling threats, the voices of appeasement arise once more. Senator Tommy Tuberville openly praised Putin and bizarrely claimed that the NATO nations provoked Russia’s attack on Ukraine. In fact, Tuberville sneered at NATO during a Fox News appearance. Conservative opinion leader Tucker Carlson fawned over Putin during a lengthy interview. Presidential candidate Donald Trump claims that he will immediately end the war in Ukraine. How? Does he have a plan other than appeasement? If so, no one has heard it.

I am no foreign policy expert, and I will not speculate as to the best course of action. Almost everyone wants peace, yet violence constantly tears the world apart. Still, we learned one lesson from Neville Chamberlain’s short speech: bullies respect no one.


Sometimes the Doomsayers Are Right

Soon after the Munich agreement, British Conservative Party leader Winston Churchill gave a masterful speech criticizing appeasement. Sadly, history proves that Churchill’s warnings were correct.

Conclusion

When a naïve world leader tells us to get a nice quiet sleep, well, it’s time to start digging bomb shelters.

Wishing peace and happiness – and, most importantly, wisdom – to all…

by William D. Harpine

_________

P.S. Many of the Sudetenland's residents supported Hitler. Did that make appeasement right? What a hard question! Feel free to post comments.

By the way, a neighbor of mine survived the Hamburg firebombing (Operation Gomorrah) by swimming in the river. Lucky at that, because the fires sucked the oxygen out of the air raid shelters and her part of the river didn't boil. Never trust "strong" leaders like Hitler to keep you safe. They don't. "Strong" leaders are always dangerous. Never trust wimpy leaders like Chamberlain who tell you to "get a nice quiet sleep." Wisdom is not a political game. 

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image of Neville Chamberlain, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Hamburg, Crown Copyright, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Cicero Knew How to Talk to Traitors. American Moderates Do Not.

Tapestry of Cicero by William Blake

“When, O Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience?” (“Quō ūsque tandem abūtere, Catilīna, patientiā nostrā?”)

Such were the words of Marcus Tullius Cicero in 63 B.C.E., in the first of his four speeches against Catiline. Cicero was a Roman senator and consul, as well as a famous orator and scholar. Cataline, a Roman nobleman, started an armed uprising to seize control of Rome. His revolt failed when Cicero discovered the plot and suppressed it.


There Is a Time and Place for Invective

Cicero showed us how to talk to traitors. His speech was a model of the art of vituperation. Rather than launching childish personal attacks or crude insults, Cicero laid out Cataline’s crimes, showed why those crimes threatened the republic, and explained how Cataline threatened basic constitutional values. He attacked, criticized, and proved. That is the way to suppress evil men and women.

Cicero used the facts of Catiline’s rebellion to prove that he threatened Italy’s security. Cicero condemned Catline in vigorous, uncompromising, but relevant and pointed language. The best invective comes from reason. Reason was, in this case, accelerated by anger, but it was reason all the same. Cicero didn’t say that Cataline was evil: he proved it.

Cicero did not merely rant; on the contrary, he used the fact that Catiline threatened the nation’s security to prove that he was evil. He reviewed Catiline’s wicked deeds. He called for Catiline’s wickedness and calumny to end. Placing himself, step-by-step, on the moral high ground, Cicero reduced Catiline to disgrace.

As the Hebrew prophet writes, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Although your high school history course praised ancient Athens as the first democracy, the Founders of the United States of America’s largely copied the Roman Republic.

The Roman government had Assemblies, which represented the ordinary people, and a Senate, representing the upper classes. Both groups passed laws. Day-to-day administration at first fell to two consuls. Eventually, an Imperator (Latin for commander) became the chief ruler. Following that model, the United States Constitution established a House, a Senate, and the commander-in-chief. Contrary to what you might remember from history class, the Roman Republic never really died, not in the usual sense. Instead, as time went by, the Imperator grew in power, as the Assemblies and Senate shrank into subservience. And, in due course, the Imperator became like a king.

Perhaps all republics eventually break down into tyranny. My readers will recall that Patrick Henry warned us that this exact fate awaited the American Republic.

Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?


Cicero Condemned Catiline’s Rebellion

Cicero’s arguments succeeded. Cataline’s rebellion was suppressed. He was exiled and his chief lieutenants were killed. So, to understand Cicero’s brilliant vituperation, let us return to Cicero’s thundering introduction:

“When, O Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now?”

“Thundering” is surely the right word. Cicero did not respond to Catiline with the milky condemnations that the United States’ constitutional leaders offered to Donald Trump after his unsuccessful January 6, 2001 insurrection. No, Cicero thundered: “abusing our patience,” “that madness of yours,” “unbridled audacity,” “swaggering!” That, dear Americans, is how you talk to a traitor: clearly, forcefully, fairly, and without hesitation. Although Cicero eventually criticized Catiline’s specific actions and philosophy, he began by condemning the rebel. He did not say, “on the one hand, Catiline believes this, but I, on the other hand, respectfully believe something else.” He said nothing like that. Catiline was destructive and disloyal. He was dangerous. Did Catiline deserve courtesy? Cicero offered him none.


Cicero Reviewed Specifics

Instead, Cicero lambasted Catiline. Cicero pointed out that he, Cicero, stood for the Republic’s safety, while Catiline revolted against it. He reviewed details of Catiline’s conspiracy. He directly challenged Catiline to deny the accusation:

“You shall now see that I watch far more actively for the safety than you do for the destruction of the republic. I say that you came the night before (I will say nothing obscurely) into the Scythe-dealers’ street, to the house of Marcus Lecca; that many of your accomplices in the same insanity and wickedness came here too. Do you dare to deny it? Why are you silent?”

I like that: “I will say nothing obscurely.” Still not sparing words: “the same insanity and wickedness.”


The Constitution Lives in Our Body

Barely taking time to catch his breath, Cicero amplified the threat of civil disorder. Cataline’s rebellion, he explained, could only lead to destruction and chaos. Deeds should be judged against values. Thus, Cicero immediately challenged Cataline’s patriotism and his loyalty to the constitution:

“O ye immortal gods, where on earth are we? in what city are we living? what constitution is ours? There are here,—here in our body, O conscript fathers, in this the most holy and dignified assembly of the whole world, men who meditate my death, and the death of all of us, and the destruction of this city, and of the whole world.” [italics added] 

Cicero did not talk about a constitution that existed as a yellow piece of paper moldering in an archive. Whereas the present-day defenders of the American republic speak in such polite, dignified tones, Cicero proudly proclaimed his values. Sparing no one’s feelings, he insisted that the Republic’s values were deep, religious, and spiritual. Cicero personalized the constitution. The Roman constitution was “here in our body.” The constitution was not merely a set of rules; it was the nation’s body. The legislature was not merely a form of government, it was “this most holy and dignified assembly of the whole world.” Never one to underestimate a threat, Cicero warned that Catiline’s violent conspiracy threatened death, “the destruction of the city,” and indeed, “of the whole world.” (When ancient Romans mentioned “the world,” they meant the areas controlled by Rome – the rest of the world was an irrelevant collection of barbarians.)


Catiline and the Big Picture

We should never direct invective at legitimate political disagreement. If, however, purely selfish reasons drive a traitor to attack a legitimate political system, invective should be the least of our responses. That is why, like the wise political speaker that he was, Cicero looked for the big picture. After blasting Catiline for a few more minutes, Cicero reminded the Senate that his rebellion had driven Catiline into disgrace and poverty. Still, more important than Catiline’s personal downfall was the nation’s welfare:

“I pass over the ruin of your fortune, which you know is hanging over you against the ides of the very next month; I come to those things which relate not to the infamy of your private vices, not to your domestic difficulties and baseness, but to the welfare of the republic and to the lives and safety of us all.” [italics added]

As Cicero’s no-holds-barred attack neared its end, he insisted, not just to Catiline, but to the entire assemblage, that the nation was their parent and that parents always deserve respect. What a powerful metaphor! The rebellion was no longer merely an insurrection or an attempt to change the government, no, to Cicero, it was “parricide:” 

“If your parents feared and hated you, and if you could by no means pacify them, you would, I think, depart somewhere out of their sight. Now, your country, which is the common parent of all of us, hates and fears you, and has no other opinion of you, than that you are meditating parricide in her case; and will you neither feel awe of her authority, nor deference for her judgment, nor fear of her power?”

Compare Cicero’s thundering (that is still the right word!) condemnation against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s pathetic criticism of Donald Trump’s January 6, 2021 insurrection. McConnell said:

“So, I believe protecting our constitutional order requires respecting the limits of our own power. It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise American voters and overrule the courts and the States on this extraordinarily thin basis.”

Talk about a yawner.

In contrast, Cicero showed how to conclude a vituperative speech:

“Then do you, O Jupiter … overwhelm all the enemies of good men, the foes of the republic, the robbers of Italy, men bound together by a treaty and infamous alliance of crimes, dead and alive, with eternal punishments.”

And that, dear readers, is how you talk to a traitor.

 

Earlier Post about Cicero's Influence: Sean Patrick O'Rourke's Speech about "Wisdom and Eloquence:" A Defense of the Liberal Arts

Earlier Post: Liz Cheney Spoke against Trump with a Firehose of Truth

More speeches?

Unlike the milky, Greek-speaking character in Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, the real-life Cicero was a bold politician who defended the Republic, always with words, often by violence, and rarely with consideration for his own safety. He was not always on the right side, but he was always dedicated. I would call that patriotism. What would you call it? 

Cicero's assassination 

I suppose that fate sometimes catches up with fearless people. Several years after Catiline’s rebellion, and after another rebellion (with which he sympathized!), Cicero encountered soldiers sent by Mark Antony. They stabbed and beheaded him. Cicero’s hands and head were nailed to the Roman Rostra. 

And so, after one rebellion too many, the Roman Republic gave way to a dictatorship. Various legislative assemblies continued to meet. They still heard speeches, recorded votes, and passed resolutions. For centuries to come, the Roman government still looked like a republic. But it wasn’t.

Will the same happen to United States of America? Could another Cicero slow the trend?

by William D. Harpine

______________

PS: In this post, I am quoting from C. D. Yonge’s 1856 literal translation of Cicero’s speech. As with all ancient speeches, it is hard to know how precisely the published transcript reflects what Cicero said. Still, I think we can see Cicero’s point.

It seems that whenever Cicero got into political trouble, he went into exile and wrote books about rhetoric (the art of public speaking). Click on the "Canons of Rhetoric" link above, where I give a brief rundown of one of Cicero's many rhetorical theories. 

If you want to know more about vituperative rhetoric as a means to regulate power and social order, this book includes a terrific introduction by Valentina Arena. 

Copyright © 2024, William D.  Harpine

Image of Blake tapestry, public domain in the United States, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Cicero's assassination, public domain in the United States, via Wikimedia Commons