Kamala Harris 2024 Convention Speech: Tradition and Progress

Kamala Harris

“We are,” said Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in her August 22, 2024 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, “the heirs to the greatest democracy in the history of the world.” Harris’ liberal policies emerged from an ideology of constitutional tradition. Harris gathered her progressive policies and grounded them in a tight net of conservative values. Like many liberal speakers before her, Harris called on the United States of America to live by its traditional values, such as freedom, opportunity, and dignity. 

People do not remember presidential nomination acceptance speeches for the policies that they mention. No, it is the speaker’s values that resonate. 

In contrast to the conservative view, however, Harris’ tradition pointed to a positive future, a future in which we all can triumph, while some conservatives cling tenaciously to a past that never really existed. The progressive idea of tradition echoes from the Declaration of Independence, stating that we are all equal, but there is also a tradition which holds (to paraphrase George Orwell), that some people are more equal than others. Tradition’s duality resonates throughout our history. 


Harris Rejected Zero-Sum Politics

Politics often seems like a game, in which some people win while others lose. Should we put the tax burden on working people, or soak the rich? Do we support immigration or reject immigrants? Do we give minority people a chance? Or do we fear and reject them? Harris rejected that entire attitude.

Those of us who study political discourse know that voters only pretend to vote based on issues. Values drive the voters. So, Harris spoke for: 

“An America, where we care for one another, look out for one another, and recognize that we have so much more in common than what separates us.” 

Harris went so far as to accuse conservatives of running down the nation that they claim to praise:

“… none of us has to fail for all of us to succeed. … in unity, there is strength. Our opponents in this race are out there every day, denigrating America, talking about how terrible everything is. Well, my mother had another lesson she used to teach. Never let anyone tell you who you are. You show them who you are. America, let us show each other and the world, who we are and what we stand for: freedom, opportunity, compassion, dignity, fairness, and endless possibilities.”

“In unity, there is strength,” she said, and that unity was found in traditional values like “freedom, opportunity . . . and endless possibilities.”

Harris Spoke for Liberty and Equality

Continuing, Harris reminded her cheering crowd that the United States’ basic values are “freedom and liberty,” and that we must look forward to a growing future:

“... on behalf of our children and our grandchildren, and all of those who sacrificed so dearly for our freedom and liberty, we must be worthy of this moment.”

“Heirs,” she said: we have an inheritance to preserve. “Our children and our grandchildren,” who should share that inheritance – in the future. Although many people reflect fondly about the wonderful past, Harris asked us to look forward. But she did not ask us to look forward with blindness. Instead, she said to let the founding values guide us toward an even better future:

“It is now our turn to do what generations before us have done, guided by optimism and faith to fight for this country we love, to fight for the ideals we cherish, and to uphold the awesome responsibility that comes with the greatest privilege on earth: the privilege and pride of being an American.

“So let’s get out there. Let’s fight for it. Let’s get out there. Let’s vote for it. And together, let us write the next great chapter in the most extraordinary story ever told. Thank you. God bless you and may God bless the United States of America.”

Harris looked hopefully toward a better future: “the next great chapter.” In contrast, her opponent Donald Trump preaches: “Make America Great Again.” Make America great again is the motto of someone who thinks America’s greatness rests in the past, while Harris’ “the next great chapter” says that the greatest days lie ahead. Despair versus hope. Look backwards for guidance, but to the future with confidence?

So, Harris came back to the starting point! Her traditional values lead to the future. Trump’s traditionalist anxiety, she implied, leads into the past – to restore what we he thinks we once had.

If we stay mired in the 18th century clinging to the past, as Trump calls us to do, equality for all is lost, abandoned. The United States of America’s founding values created a vision of a new kind of nation – “conceived in liberty,” said Abraham Lincoln. If Harris is right – and I think she is – we should let our values, not our fears, move us forward to face our problems and improve our lives. 

For, contrary to her critics, Harris’ speech did not reject the values of United States of America's founders. She embraced those values. She called for the United States to choose those values – freedom, opportunity, and equality. She argued that those values would determine, not only the election, but the United States’ future. She offered an idealistic vision for our cynical age. Harris presented her candidacy as a chance to remember the old values.

Other Posts About 2024 DNC and RNC Convention Speeches

Pete Buttigieg Called for Uplifting Politics. Donald Trump Disagreed.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

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

Did West Virginia Governor Jim Justice Just Advocate Violent Revolution?

by William D. Harpine

_______________

Research note: the argument from tradition is more helpful than many people realize. I’ve written about tradition in some of my academic publications; check the link to “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above. Readers might also want to look at James Darsey’s prize-winning book, The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America. Darsey argues that radical speakers often tie their policies to tradition by quoting the Hebrew prophets. Also see a superb prize-winning monograph, The American Ideology: Reflections of the Revolution in American Rhetoric, by my mentor Kurt W. Ritter and his colleague James R. Andrews, which shows how the ideologies of freedom and liberty have permeated American rhetoric throughout history. Although it is out of print, most large research libraries should have it on their shelves, and don't forget about used bookstores.  

Special thanks to rev.com, a commercial transcript service, for preparing quick and accurate transcripts of this and many other public speeches. 

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image of Kamala Harris: official White House photo, public domain

Pete Buttigieg Called for Uplifting Politics. Donald Trump Disagreed.

Dirty political talk is as old as politics itself. On the same day that Pete Buttigieg asked American voters to choose “a better politics,” former President Donald Trump boasted that he thrives on the political dark side.


Pete Buttigieg Asked the United States to Choose Dignity

Pete Buttigieg

During his August 21, 2024 Democratic National Convention speech, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg asked the United States of America to upgrade its political talk. He said, “I just don’t believe that America today is in the market for darkness.” Instead, it is time, he told us, to take politics seriously. Positive politics, he explained, invite us to make positive national choices:

“Yes, politics at its worst can be ugly, crushing, demeaning, but it doesn’t have to be. At its best, politics can be empowering, uplifting. It can even be a kind of soul craft.”

Buttigieg asked voters to decide what tone they want their political leaders to use. Now, in my experience, most people say that they prefer dignified political discussion. Nevertheless, their values and actions don’t seem to connect; in real life, the nastiest candidates often get more votes. Buttigieg begged us to take a stand: darkness or light? He emphasized that choice: 

“So, this November, we get to choose. We get to choose our president. We get to choose our policies, but most of all, we will choose a better politics. A politics that calls us to our better selves and offers us a better every day.”

Buttigieg asked his audience to think about how politics can improve our lives. He reminded us that we do not vote in November to choose the winner of a reality show contest. Instead, we are choosing what kind of lives we choose to live:

“I don’t presume to know what it’s like in your kitchen, but I know, as sure as I am standing here, that everything in it, the bills you pay at that table, the shape of the family that sits there, the fears and the dreams that you talk about late into the night there, all of it compels us to demand more from our politics than a rerun of some TV wrestling death match.”

The October 15, 2019 Democratic Primary Debate: Superficiality Ruled the Stage

Buttigieg’s message: we should choose positive politics because we want to live better lives.

Alas, not everyone agrees.

Donald Trump Boasted about the Dark Side

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump scorned uplifting politics at a North Carolina campaign rally that same day. Trump announced that he would henceforth call the Democratic nominee “Comrade Kamala.” In fact, to the crowd’s cheers, Trump loudly reviewed his name-calling skill:

“[Kamala Harris] ruined San Francisco, she ruined California. And if she gets in, our country doesn’t have a chance. This calamity is on Comrade Kamala Harris’s shoulders. I think her name will be Comrade because I think that’s the most accurate name. I’ve been looking for a name. People are saying, “Sir, don’t do it.” You know all my names, they’ve all worked. They’ve all been very successful, and I really didn’t find one with her. “Sir, she’s a woman.” I said, “So is Hillary Clinton, I called her Crooked Hillary.” Nobody complained about that, right? Right? Mr. Governor, nobody complained about that. No, I called her Crooked Hillary. I called people names. I call Crazy Nancy Pelosi crazy because she is, she’s nuts.” [italics added]

“I called people names,” Trump literally boasted. The nickname “Comrade Kamala” joined the ongoing Republican movement to brand her as, not just a liberal, but a literal communist. Trump also talked about how astute he was to call former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi “Crazy Nancy.” He repeated the nickname “Crooked Hillary” as if name-calling were a major life accomplishment. He didn’t mention “Lying, Lying Ted [Cruz]?” or “Little Marco [Rubio]” in this speech, but he could have. Are we voting for a president – or a playground bully? 

Indeed, Trump griped that his advisors told him to stop calling people names. To his rally crowd’s delight, he said that he was going to fire the advisors. He sneered:

“‘Please, sir, don’t get personal, talk about policy.’ Let me ask you about that. We’re going to do a free poll. Here are the two questions: should I get personal, should I not get personal? Ready? Should I get personal? Should I not get personal? I don’t know, my advisors are fired. No. We’d rather keep it on policy, but sometimes it’s hard when you’re attacked from all ends.”

Needless to say, Trump’s cheering crowd did not make the positive choice.

Trump’s only defense was that his crude tactics succeeded: if we imagine that he was taking up Buttigieg’s challenge, Trump asked the voters – in so many words – to vote for crudeness. Trump didn’t just go to the dark side; he bragged about it: “You know all my names, they’ve all worked.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

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

A Contrast: Two Political Styles?

Now, Buttigieg aside, I’m not going to pretend that Democrats are always nice. Still, in the realm of dirty politics, the American people do seem to face a choice. Buttigieg asked the voters to choose positive politics, while Trump crows about his name-calling skill.

Or, in a larger sense, Buttigieg is calling on everyone to run a more civilized campaign, to discuss issues and character rather than to trade mindless insults. Let us not forget that Trump was right, in a sense: name-calling helped him win against Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Politics has never been a nice game. Buttigieg does, however, make a point – does he not? Do we really want to elect whichever candidate is most skilled at calling people names? Is the White House to be the adult home of third-grade bullies? Will America’s adversaries back down if the President of the United States calls their leaders crude names?

Of course, Democrats do routinely criticize Donald Trump. Is there a difference? I suggest that there often is.

First, although Democrats can sink low, they rarely create juvenile nicknames for the Republican candidate. Although Trump invents infantile insults like “Comrade Kamala” or “Low-IQ Maxine Waters,” Democrats generally just call him “Donald Trump” or “Trump.” Lately, the Democrats sometimes call Trump “weird,” which seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Second, the Democrats’ attacks against Trump more often arise from his actions and political views, rarely focusing on his personal habits. For example, in this speech, Buttigieg called Trump a “convicted criminal,” which is, at least, factual.

Given the high stakes, combined with the United States’ week defamation laws, it may be too much to expect our politicians to engage in civilized discourse. Sadly, Trump said it best – he calls people names because it wins votes. Surely, however, we voters can heed Buttigieg’s plea and expect politicians to do a little better. Surely, we voters can find it within ourselves to reject a candidate who makes name-calling his proudest public speaking technique. 

by William D. Harpine

A word of thanks. My gratitude to rev.com, a commercial transcript service, for producing verbatim transcripts of these speeches. These are more valuable than the speakers' prepared texts, which do not always reflect what the speaker actually says.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image of Pete Buttigieg: Department of Transportation photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Donald Trump: official White House photo, public domain

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

“Six years ago,” said Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in her August 19, 2024 speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, “I was taking omelet orders as a waitress in New York City.” She built her entire speech around her story as a blue-collar worker. That is a powerful rhetorical technique. Speakers should tell more stories. Stories are persuasive. Let’s look at how she used a simple story from her own life to persuade the public that ordinary working Americans deserve our politicians’ attention and support. Her story emphasized the basic value that our nation must support working Americans just as it supports the rich.

A Democratic Party firebrand, Ocasio-Cortez (casually known as AOC), told her story to represent the worth of working people – their hardships, needs, and accomplishments. Now, not all speakers tell stories. We’ve all heard liberal speakers drone away with facts, figures, statistics, and quotations from expert college professors. Those speeches often make everyone yawn. It’s not that proving things is bad. Proving things is good. But if you want to touch people’s hearts, it’s hard to outdo a narrative. 

As she told her story, Ocasio-Cortez’ wanted to show that the Democratic Party’s candidates stand for working Americans, while Donald Trump and the Republicans only care about the rich. “Donald Trump would sell this country for a dollar,” she said, “if it meant lining his own pockets and greasing the palms of his Wall Street friends.” To establish the Democrats’ contrast from Trump, she told her own story about how she scraped out a bare living by waiting on tables and serving drinks:

“Six years ago, I was taking omelet orders as a waitress in New York City. I didn’t have health insurance. My family was fighting off foreclosure and we were struggling with bills after my dad passed away unexpectedly from cancer.”

She then tied her story to her first main point: conservative politicians ignore the needs of working Americans:

“Like millions of Americans, we were just looking for an honest shake and we were tired of a cynical politics that seem blind to the realities of working people.” 

This led Ocasio-Cortez to a broader theme: her family’s problems were due, at least in part, she said, to the structural problems in American politics – “cynical politics” –  that make it too difficult for hard-working Americans to make a go of things. Conservative politics reinforce the needs of people who already have what they need. Rejecting that value, she said that to love America does not mean simply loving the rich: but also “to fight” for blue-collar workers who work hard for a living:

“To love this country is to fight for its people, all people, working people, everyday Americans like bartenders and factory workers, and fast-food cashiers who punch a clock and are on their feet all day in some of the toughest jobs out there.”

Earlier Post: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' 2020 Convention Debut Speech 

Anyone who browses social media knows that Republicans incessantly drum Ocasio-Cortez over her blue-collar background. Her life was specifically threatened during the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. Pundits repeatedly advise her to return to bartending, as if physical jobs deserve no respect. Turning the tables on those critics, Ocasio-Cortez expressed pride for her blue-collar work:

“Ever since I got elected, Republicans have attacked me by saying that I should go back to bartending. But let me tell you, I’m happy to, any day of the week because there is nothing wrong with working for a living.”

The room thundered with applause and cheers.

At that point, the audience grasped the full meaning of why Ocasio-Cortez told the story of her own life and family. The crowd cheered because her story told a basic truth. The crowd cheered because she brought out a value that American politics too often ignores. The crowd cheered because her argument came from a story about a working American’s life. Voters don’t often vote for issues: they vote for values. Ocasio-Cortez’ story voiced a political value – the value of ordinary working Americans – and therein lay its power.

Earlier Post: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' First Congressional Speech Told a Story

Ocasio-Cortez did not tell her story to entertain people. Her story was neither a distraction nor a shallow icebreaker. Instead, her story proved her point. Her story proved her point more forcefully than any technical or economic argument that she could have presented. Her story stated value-laden economic issues in human terms. Few people are convinced when they find out that the unemployment rate is down to 4.3% when it peaked at 14.2% under Trump. Those are just numbers. They rarely convey emotional impact. No, it is stories that convince people.

Stories work. When you give speeches, tell stories.

by William D. Harpine

___________

P.S. Ocasio-Cortez entered Congress in January 2019, and quickly became a member of “The Squad,” an informal group of left-wing representatives. Although a few members of The Squad eventually succumbed to their own excesses and faced subsequent electoral defeat, Ocasio-Cortez has taken advantage of excellent staff work and learned to work with the congressional leadership, while sharply articulating left-wing causes. Although she still sometimes aggravates the leadership, there is probably no other Democrat who has aroused the level of vituperation that Republicans direct at her. That vituperation is proof enough that she makes her opponents uneasy.

Again, thanks to rev.com for providing transcripts of the convention speeches. 

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official congressional photo, public domain

Trump Against the "Radical Leftists"

Donald Trump

“We’re going to evict crazy Kamala. Do you know, ever hear of Kamala? Radical left. Radical left.”

So said Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in his August 12, 2024 political rally in Montana. Trump exploited the simple rhetorical trope of repetition. One of a demagogue’s most powerful tools, simple repetition can dominate even the most well-intentioned political audience. Instead, in this case, eschewing argument, Trump used what I have previously called the jackhammer method of persuasion. 

Over and over, Trump called Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris a member of the “radical left.” Now, as a rhetorical tactic, repetition has one big advantage: the speaker experiences no need to explain anything, prove anything, or justify anything. As a rhetorical tactic, repetition detours around any reasoned ideas. If we hear something many times, we may grow to believe it: as hammer-like repetition pounds unproved and sometimes ridiculous ideas into our brains. 

Earlier Post: Conservatives, Public Health, and the Jackhammer Method of Persuasion

The Psychological Theory of Repetition

A psychological theory called the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion posits that we adopt attitudes in one of two different ways. We can follow the Central Route, which means that we listen carefully, gather information, and analyze the pros and cons. That requires time and effort; the listener must gather and analyze information with confidence. It’s a lot of work. It often requires a significant knowledge base. In contrast, the Peripheral Route bypasses reasoned thought. An audience member who relies on the Peripheral Route relies on superficial cues: whether the source is likeable or attractive, the speaker’s delivery style, belief in the speaker’s expertise, and, of course, simple repetition. The Peripheral Route makes it simpler to evaluate an argument. In truth, that often makes sense, especially for trivial decisions. 

Nevertheless, I cannot imagine any decision more important than voting for the President of the United States. Does any other action cry out more loudly for Central Route persuasion?


Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and the “Radical Left”

Over and over, Trump said that Harris and other Democrats were radicals, leftists, or socialists. Only briefly and hyperbolically did Trump explain why he thought Harris was a radical leftist. 

For example, after calling Harris “Radical left. Radical left,” Trump sarcastically explained why Harris was “radical:”

“Well, she has a couple of things that a lot of people from Montana would like. She wants to take away your guns. You like that, right? All right, how about this? She wants to defund the police. Are you okay with that? She wants to allow millions of people to pour into our border through an invasion using an invasion process. I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s for you. It’s not for me either. It’s not for most people in this country. We’re going to evict crazy Kamala and we’re going to, we’re get Joe Biden out of the White House.”

Those talking points are a bit dubious. Although Harris has sometimes opposed increased police funding, there is no record of her wanting to defund the police. PolitiFact previously rated Trump’s claimed that Harris wants to defund the police as “Mostly False.”

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


Furthermore, Harris at one time advocated buying back (not seizing) so-called assault weapons, but she has, according to PolitiFact, otherwise never advocated taking away people’s guns. Also, Harris supported a bipartisan border control bill, which is not consistent with Trump’s claim that she supports an invasion process. 

So, the listener confronts two links: first, were Trump’s accusations accurate? Well, no, at best, Trump exaggerated Harris’ positions. Second, were her policies “radical left?” That also deserves careful – Central Route – examination. Opinion surveys have shown that half or more of Americans support laws that would ban assault weapons, which, to my thinking, leads me to question whether that policy would be “radical left.” Still, Peripheral Route persuasion obviously invites hyperbole, as does much political talk.


Repetition Was Relentless

No Trump did not appeal to Central Route reasoning: he used a rhetorical jackhammer. Trump repeatedly insisted that his opponents are “radical left.” Referring to Montana’s Democratic Party Senator Jon Tester, Trump said: 

“He’s a radical left lunatic, just like Kamala and we got to elect him." 

(When Trump carelessly said “him,” I must think that he intended to refer, not to Tester, but to Tester’s more conservative opponent.)

After complaining about the 2020 election, Trump continued to rant about radicals:

“I handed Kamala and Crooked Joe a surging economy with no inflation. We had no inflation. We had nothing. We had the greatest economy in the history of the world. True. Their radical socialist lunacy turned it into a failing economy with the worst inflation in probably 70 years.”

(If we were debating by the Central Route, we might remember that in December 2020, Trump’s last full month in office, unemployment hit an astonishing 6.7%. If, however, the horror of “radical socialist lunacy” terrifies us, we can happily stay on the Peripheral Route and ignore the numbers. See the point? An audience that processed information through the Central Route would care about the numbers!)  

Trump continued to complain about radicals as he looked forward to the next election:

“On election day, we’re going to tell this radical left country buster, she’s a country buster, that we’ve had enough.” 

Trump being Trump, he succumbed to the overwhelming need to whine about the 2020 election – again, blaming it on the “radical left:”

“The radical-left Democrats rigged the presidential election in 2020. We will not let them rig the presidential election in 2024.”

Well, in one context or another, Trump made his point: Democrats are not just liberals, they are, he asserted, radicals. Dangerous. Frightening.

Obviously enough, Trump’s rhetorical tactic pleased this crowd precisely because they already believed every word of it. Liberals terrified them. Montana is a gun culture state. Talk radio and Fox News had already convinced them that Democrats are liberal, radical, dangerous gun-grabbers. Did Trump need to prove any of what he said? As far as his audience felt – no! Elections are determined by encouraging voter turnout, not by changing people’s minds, and enthusiastic Peripheral Route persuasion was all that Trump needed. 

Do speeches like Trump’s give us a sound basis to participate in elections using the criteria of good citizenship that we all should have learned in school? I shudder to think.

Nothing New Under the Sun

As the prophet said, there is nothing new under the sun. Name-calling, hyperbole, wild accusations – well, often enough, that’s how American politics works. Notoriously, many voters in the United States of America go through their political lives oblivious to the most basic issues. Trump’s crowd, who showed up precisely to hear the kind of ramble-browsing that Trump so enthusiastically offered, are, like too many of us, happy to live in a world of talking points and imaginary dangers. Trump presented a choice between two groups: the “Radical Left” or Trump and his friends. A stark, binary choice. Basic identity politics. Us or them. Right or wrong. Good versus evil. The underlying value assumptions were never proven, but merely assumed.

Earlier Post: Negative Campaigns Go Way Back!

Never, ever should political pundits underestimate Donald Trump’s powerful political skills. Trump’s platitudes invited his audience to accept, or reject, the “radical left.” His audience wanted nothing to do with the left. Trump continues to do well in opinion polls. With millions of voters convinced that liberals threaten their way of life, Trump powerfully tracked his listeners’ fear and dismay. Did he offer them much in the way of policy? No, but policy was never his purpose. Instead, he filled the audience with outrage that the “radical left” would take away everything they hold dear.

by William D. Harpine

______________

P.S. Special thanks to rev.com, a commercial transcript service, for preparing a full transcript of this speech. They are doing better than the mainstream media! 

Research Note: Readers who want to learn more about Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo’s Elaboration Likelihood Model are encouraged to look at their excellent book, Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, which was published as part of the Springer Series in Social Psychology. Most research libraries will have a copy.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo